House General & Housing committee keeps two-week bereavement provision in H.461, schedules vote after lunch

Montpelier — On March 14, 2025, the House General & Housing Committee discussed H.461, an act to expand employee access to unpaid leave, and signaled it will hold a formal vote after the lunch recess.

Committee members cited written testimony from Mosaic and testimony from Mosaic cooperative director Amy Ward about survivors of interpersonal violence in explaining the bill's purpose. Committee staff confirmed parts of the draft: the bill adds bereavement and safe-leave categories to existing leave definitions, and the bill text says, “During any 12‑month period, an employee may use up to 2 weeks out of the 12 weeks of leave available pursuant to Division 1 of the subsection for bereavement leave.” Sophie, committee staff, read that passage during discussion.

Members debated several details. Some committee members raised whether a “week” should be defined as calendar days or working days and discussed using “10 working days” as an alternative; no change was made at the meeting. Mary, a committee member, said, “I personally, having been through a number of close family bereavements, 1 week is not enough,” and spoke in favor of keeping up to two weeks. Representative Charlton and others noted most Vermont employers already provide bereavement benefits beyond a statutory minimum and voiced that “up to 2 weeks” is acceptable.

The committee also discussed eligibility language. Sophie confirmed the bill keeps the existing definition of “employee” as someone who works an average of 30 hours per week; committee members noted that employees working less than 30 hours would not be covered under that definition. Members asked staff to clarify in follow-up materials how the 30‑hour threshold would interact with part‑time schedules.

Representative Elizabeth Burrows proposed, then withdrew, a conceptual amendment to add leave for homeowners or workers who suffer a disaster (for example, house fire or flood). Members expressed interest in the idea but several said the definitions and scope would require more work; the committee did not add disaster-related leave to H.461 at this time and indicated such a change might be better handled in a separate bill.

The committee asked Sophie to prepare a final version of the bill reflecting the committee’s sense on unresolved technical points and will take a formal vote on H.461 immediately after the lunch recess.

The meeting also included additional technical questions and a request that staff circulate any statutory definitions referenced during the meeting (for example, federal FMLA definitions and any state definitions of “natural disaster”) after the session.