Committee reviews expanded family-and-medical-leave draft adding safe leave and bereavement provisions

Members of a legislative committee heard detailed explanations and public-comment concerns Tuesday about a draft state family-and-medical-leave bill that would add "safe leave" and bereavement provisions, broaden the statutory definition of "family," and set documentation and confidentiality rules for employers.

The Office of Legislative Counsel outlined the bill’s text and edits, and Megan Sullivan, vice president of government affairs for the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, testified on behalf of the business community. Sophie Sedatny of the Office of Legislative Counsel led the committee through definitions and operative sections and answered questions about employer thresholds, permissible documentation, confidentiality and job-protection exceptions.

The draft would permit an eligible employee to take unpaid leave up to 12 weeks during any 12-month period and explicitly lists parental leave, family leave, safe leave and qualifying exigency leave as covered categories. "Subsection 2 on page 8...clarifies that for bereavement leave, an employee may use up to 2 out of the 12 weeks total for bereavement leave," Sedatny told the committee. She added that the bill allows employees to choose to use available paid leave, and that the bill adds short-term disability to the list of paid options an employee may elect to apply toward the unpaid leave period.

Committee members and witnesses pressed staff on employer thresholds and hour-count calculations used to establish eligibility. Several speakers discussed the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) standard of 1,250 hours (often rounded in practice to 1,280 hours or described as 30 hours per week) and noted potential confusion if the state draft used a different hours or employer-size threshold. Sedatny said she would "look into the 12 the the schedule number of hours and then the 30 hours in this because there must be a reason why it...was chosen."

On safe-leave documentation, Sedatny described a permissive list of acceptable verifications: a court or law-enforcement record, a domestic-violence or victim-assistance program record, a legal or medical professional, or a written self-attestation by the employee. "An employee can submit a self attestation to the employer if they choose to do that," she said, adding that the draft includes confidentiality language: "an employer shall not disclose any private medical information or information relating to a safe leave that the employer receives."

Megan Sullivan of the Vermont Chamber told the committee the business community had four primary concerns with earlier drafts: inconsistent thresholds for safe leave compared with other leaves, an unusually long bereavement allotment in an earlier draft, a family definition that was too ambiguous for employers, and a reporting requirement that would have required employers to collect sensitive demographic information. "These 4 pieces have been addressed in this new bill," Sullivan said, thanking the drafters for changes that she said increase predictability for employers.

Committee members also discussed how bereavement provisions in other states vary. Sedatny summarized a sample of five states, noting differences in employer-size thresholds, whether bereavement counts toward a statutory 12-week unpaid-leave maximum, and whether the leave is paid or unpaid. She said the current draft provides "up to 2 weeks of leave, and it counts against your 12 weeks of leave" and must be used within one year of the death.

Members clarified exceptions to job restoration. Sedatny pointed to language that preserves the act’s core protections but allows employers not to restore an employee if the position would have been eliminated anyway or if the employee performs unique services and the employer hires a permanent replacement while the employee is on leave.

No formal motion or vote was recorded during the portion of the session covering the bill. Committee members asked staff to flag several items for further committee deliberation — notably whether to set bereavement at one week or two and how to reconcile hour-count eligibility with federal standards — and Sedatny said she would provide follow-up information and comparative state summaries to inform that decision.

The committee scheduled further discussion; no final action was taken during this meeting.