House committee hears H.33 to expand unpaid family and medical leave, add bereavement and ‘safe leave’

Representative Troy Hedrick on Jan. 22 brought House Bill 33 before the House General and Housing Committee, asking members to expand Vermont’s Parental and Family Leave Act to widen who may take unpaid family and medical leave and to add new categories including bereavement and a so-called “safe leave” for victims of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking.

Hedrick summarized the bill’s purpose as “to expand access to unpaid family and medical leave,” and said it would both add new qualifying reasons for leave — bereavement, safe leave and qualifying military exigencies — and broaden the definition of “family member” to include non‑traditional and chosen families.

The bill’s principal legal explanations came from Sophie Zagadi of the Office of Legislative Counsel, who walked the committee through structure and thresholds. Zagadi said H.33 references existing federal law for military-related qualifying exigencies and otherwise amends the state Parental and Family Leave Act. She told the committee the bill would allow a covered employee up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for parental or family leave and permit up to 2 of those 12 weeks to be used for bereavement; it would also allow an additional period — up to 12 weeks in a 12‑month period — for safe leave. Zagadi described several employer and employee eligibility lines in the draft: safe leave would be available to employees who have been with the same employer for six months and average 20 hours per week, and other family and parental leave thresholds generally apply to employees working an average of 30 hours per week and who meet a one‑year continuous employment requirement. Zagadi also identified that some portions of the bill refer to the Code of Federal Regulations for qualifying exigency definitions.

Committee members sought details about the bill’s relationship to paid leave programs and job protections. Zagadi clarified that H.33 addresses unpaid leave only and that it amends the state Parental and Family Leave Act in Title 21; she also said the law continues to provide job protection on return from covered leave, consistent with current state standards. Committee members asked whether employees on unpaid leave could collect unemployment; counsel and members noted that because employees on leave typically remain employed and are not available to seek work, unemployment is generally not available during leave.

The bill would add reporting requirements directing the Commissioner of Labor to adopt rules requiring employers to report aggregated data on leave usage and identify barriers to access. Zagadi said the Department of Labor would create rules on how employers report and that the draft prohibits disclosure of sensitive details, particularly regarding safety‑related leave. Several committee members and witnesses pressed for clarity about what employers would be required to collect and report, and whether reporting could force employers to ask employees to disclose intimate information about family structure or sexual orientation.

Two witnesses testified. Megan Sullivan, vice president for government affairs at the Vermont Chamber of Commerce, said the Chamber supports much of the bill’s intent but warned about implementation costs and operational strain for employers. Sullivan said businesses are facing a tight labor market and that finding temporary replacements for extended leaves can be difficult and costly; she urged the committee to consider simplifying differing eligibility thresholds so employers can more easily determine who is covered. “We certainly were present in the conversations around H.66, the paid family leave bill. And so some of these same definitions were up and were discussed at that point in time. We are supportive of a lot of the intent of this bill,” Sullivan said.

Johanna de Graffenreid, public policy manager for Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility (VBSR), urged passage and framed the bill as a pragmatic step toward equity and inclusion. De Graffenreid emphasized explicit coverage for miscarriages and for LGBTQIA workers whose families may not be legally recognized: “H.33 is a pragmatic step to equitably expanding paid family and medical leave, and we support the passage of this legislation into law as you all continue to thoughtfully discuss it,” she said. She also cited national and regional examples, noting that other states have moved to include safe‑leave provisions and expanded definitions that cover LGBTQIA families.

Members raised specific concerns and clarifying questions: how bereavement leave interacts with employment changes (committee members discussed that an employee who changes employers would need to meet the new employer’s continuous‑employment requirement), how long bereavement leave and estate‑administration leave may be taken (the bill limits bereavement leave to two weeks within the 12‑week period but contains language permitting leave for estate administration that could extend beyond one year), and exactly how aggregated reporting would work and what safeguards would protect sensitive employee information.

No formal committee vote was recorded during this hearing. The committee agreed to hear testimony from the two witnesses and to continue discussion of H.33 as language and implementation questions are refined. The chair paused the hearing for a five‑minute break and indicated further consideration would follow.

What’s next: Committee members said they want clearer draft language on thresholds, the scope of reporting requirements, and the mechanics for verifying chosen‑family relationships before taking further action. The bill remains under committee consideration and witnesses signaled willingness to return with more detailed implementation suggestions.