Committee delays vote on H.461 after counsel clarifies leave coverage; seeks more testimony

The House Committee on General and Housing on March 12 took up H.461, a draft bill that would expand existing unpaid leave provisions in Vermont to add bereavement leave, qualifying exigency leave and safe leave and to broaden the definition of covered family members, but the committee postponed any vote to seek more testimony and give members time to review the changes.

Sophie Zagatni of the Office of Legislative Counsel told the committee that the bill does not change the existing requirement that employers continue health insurance coverage for employees on unpaid leave. "If there are employees taking leave under the PFLA, the Vermont statute, their employer is required to continue their health benefits during their leave, the same as under the FMLA," Zagatni said, adding that an employer may require the employee "to continue to contribute to the cost of the benefits during the leave at the existing rate of employee contribution."

The counsel's clarification also noted that the bill does not alter employer-size thresholds: federal FMLA coverage is tied to employers with 50 or more employees within a 75-mile radius of the worksite, whereas Vermont's existing thresholds remain lower in state law — generally 10 or 15 employees depending on the specific leave type — and H.461 does not change those state thresholds.

Committee members also heard that the total amount of leave described in the draft remains 12 weeks; the bill would make that leave available for a broader set of reasons and to a broader set of family relationships than under current Vermont law.

Not all members were ready to move the bill. "I strongly object to being asked to vote out a bill having had now the very same witnesses that we had in the last version of this bill be the only witnesses that we hear from," said Committee member David, who urged the panel to solicit additional perspectives beyond advocates and business lobbyists before advancing the measure.

Other members said they were sympathetic to the policy aims but wanted more time or broader testimony. Representative Ashley, who presided during the discussion, summarized the committee's next steps: "We're not gonna vote this bill now. Second of all, we will see what kind of availability there is for an additional reference. We will report back tomorrow on that. If we have an opportunity to vote given the priorities, we will, and then we will vote. If we do not have the time and cannot get the testimony, then we'll do it next week."

Members proposed reaching out to a wider set of witnesses, including business representatives and organizations with lived experience of bereavement and domestic-violence-related needs; several members noted prior testimony on related bills and pledged to collect additional contacts and written submissions to supplement the record. The committee also flagged two technical edits discussed with counsel: aligning the health-benefits language with federal FMLA practice and correcting a drafting error to reflect "up to 2 weeks" of bereavement leave where the draft mistakenly showed one week.

No formal vote or amendment was recorded on H.461 during the March 12 meeting. The committee left the bill open for further testimony and scheduled additional committee business for the following days, saying it would prioritize completing the committee's own bill and other pending matters before finalizing H.461's disposition.

What happens next: the committee will try to schedule additional witnesses and report back at the next meeting; if testimony can be arranged in time, members said they may vote later in the week, otherwise the bill will be taken up the following week.