Vermont committee debates bill to prevent large employers from running workers’ comp and parental‑family leave concurrently

The General & Housing Committee on Wednesday considered H.459, a proposal to bar certain employers from counting time an employee spends on workers’ compensation leave toward the 12 weeks of unpaid leave available under Vermont’s Parental and Family Leave Act (PFLA).

Sophie Sedatny, legislative counsel, told the committee the bill (a standard‑form draft) would add a provision saying employers that employ more than 50 individuals (working an average of at least 30 hours per week during the year) “shall not count an employee’s leave for a compensable work‑related injury or illness under the workers’ compensation statute as unpaid” under the PFLA. She said the 50‑employee threshold is a placeholder drawn from the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and could be adjusted by the committee.

Committee members pressed counsel on how the statutes interact. Sedatny said workers’ compensation and PFLA serve different legal functions: workers’ compensation provides medical coverage and partial wage replacement for workplace injuries, while the PFLA (and the federal FMLA where applicable) provides a time‑limited job‑protection entitlement. Under Vermont workers’ compensation law, Sedatny noted, reinstatement obligations can extend up to two years but generally require a medical release and provide placement in a suitable — not necessarily the same — job.

Megan Sullivan, vice president for government affairs at the Vermont Chamber, testified for employers that coordination between the systems is purposeful. “When workers’ compensation and FMLA are concurrent, there’s a defined and predictable period during which wage replacement and job protection overlap,” she said, adding that predictability benefits return‑to‑work planning and staffing. Sullivan warned that a categorical ban on concurrency could leave injured workers without guaranteed job protection during crucial recovery windows: “As drafted, the bill would prohibit FMLA protections from applying during workers’ compensation absence,” she said, which “means an employee injured on the job could receive workers’ compensation benefits but lack a guaranteed job protection during the period when they are actually recovered.” Sullivan cited industry concerns about creating a uniquely Vermont rule that could complicate multi‑state employers’ compliance.

Johanna DeGraffre, public policy manager for Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, said the unpaid leave expansion passed last year was not intended to supplant workers’ compensation and that concurrent use is permitted and often used to ensure employees are paid during leave. “It’s essential that individuals who are on workers’ compensation . . . receive the workers’ compensation benefits they are duly entitled to,” she told the committee, and urged that the committee craft language that prevents any “worst actor” employer from exploiting leave law to deny benefits.

Committee members raised practical questions about affected populations (for example, whether teachers or part‑year workers would be covered if related bills that align teacher eligibility with federal law pass), how eligibility is measured on a rolling 12‑month basis, and whether time out on workers’ compensation affects an employee’s eligibility for other leaves. Sedatny said some of those technical points require follow‑up and promised to check specific eligibility and premium‑payment questions.

No formal motion or vote was taken. Members discussed seeking additional witnesses — including Commerce committee staff, larger nonprofit employers, colleges, construction industry representatives (written testimony from Richard Bobby of the Associated General Contractors of Vermont was noted), and labor groups — and whether the bill would be better handled as a joint review with Commerce. The committee took a short break to consider next steps and gather suggested witnesses.

The committee will return with additional testimony and legal details before deciding whether to advance H.459.