Vermont business groups, gender equity commission press committee for clearer rules on H.461 unpaid-leave expansion

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee on April 23 took testimony on H.461, a bill to expand employee access to unpaid family and medical leave.

Supporters and opponents agreed on the bill's intent but diverged on operational details employers say are unclear or costly. Megan Sullivan, vice president of government affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, told the committee that the bill's expanded family definitions and bereavement provisions create new compliance and operational burdens for small employers.

The bill would add an inclusive definition of "in loco parentis" and broaden the family-member definition used to qualify for leave. Carrie Brown, executive director of the Vermont Commission on Women, testified in favor of the expansion as a step toward making it easier for caregivers to remain employed; Brown framed the proposal as a modest, unpaid leave expansion in a state that lacks comprehensive paid leave.

Sullivan warned that the bill's expanded definitions and documentation rules lack clarity and could impose disproportionate burdens on small employers. "When employers are already operating on thin margins, the cumulative impact of new state level mandates ... can be death by a thousand cuts," Sullivan said. She asked the committee to consider narrowing or removing parts of the in loco parentis language and to add standards for verifying qualifying relationships and bereavement claims.

Committee discussion focused on three technical areas raised in testimony: the meaning and scope of "in loco parentis," the amount of bereavement leave the bill allows within the 12-week total, and what documentation employers may reasonably request. Under the bill text discussed, subsection 3(A)(2) would allow employees to use up to two weeks of the 12 weeks of leave for bereavement; the Chamber proposed reducing that to five days for employers with fewer workers or raising the employer-size threshold for coverage to 50 employees to match other state standards.

Sophie Zivani of the Office of the State Counsel explained that the bill inserts a definition of in loco parentis because the phrase is used elsewhere in the draft. Committee members and witnesses debated whether the proposed wording could be read to include teachers, day-care operators or temporary guardians, and whether documentation standards are sufficient for employers to verify relationships in a consistent manner.

No formal votes occurred during the testimony segment. Committee staff said an amendment is being drafted by committee members (Sophie and Charlie were named in discussion) to clarify safe-leave provisions and other definitions; the committee indicated it would return to the bill later.

The committee closed the H.461 testimony by asking stakeholders to submit suggested language. Committee members asked the Chamber and other witnesses for examples of model verification templates and comparative state standards to help shape an amendment.

Why it matters: H.461 would broaden who may take job-protected unpaid leave for family and safety reasons. The debate centers on trade-offs between inclusivity for modern family structures and the administrative and operational burden that employers, particularly small businesses, would face in implementing the law.