Senate committee debates expanding leave and crime‑victim protections in labor omnibus

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee took up S.230 on Thursday, a labor omnibus that would add full‑time teachers to parental and family leave coverage and align the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) definitions to include survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking in the statute’s crime‑victim protections.

Staff said section 1 extends coverage to full‑time teachers by referencing the federal Family Medical Leave Act definition used last year for flight crews and other specialized groups. Section 2 would import documentation standards used in the parental and family leave statutes—where self‑attestation and a list of acceptable supporting documentation already appear—into the state’s discrimination statute so that employees who do not report to law enforcement would still have anti‑discrimination protection.

Charlie Glossoman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic Violence, told the committee that self‑attestation is already used in leave statutes and that many survivors never report to law enforcement; requiring police reports or medical documentation can prevent survivors from accessing protections in a timely manner. Glossoman said the civil rights unit of the attorney general’s office helped craft the language and that, anecdotally, only a small number of FEPA cases since 2018 have involved crime‑victim status ("20 to 30 matters" was cited in the transcript).

Opponents and employer representatives raised concerns about potential abuse and sought clarifications. A representative of the Vermont Chamber of Commerce (referred to in the transcript as 'Megan') said while members want to support employees through crises, some employers have experienced leave abuse and asked how the self‑attestation provision would be viewed and enforced in practice. Jamie Phan of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association reiterated insurers’ interest in clarity about who may self‑attest and which supporting documentation is appropriate.

Emily Adams of the Attorney General’s civil rights unit joined by Zoom and explained the rationale for aligning definitions: the 2018 FEPA addition of "crime victim" used a narrow, document‑based definition tied to law‑enforcement or court documents; the leave law adopted last year broadened that definition to reflect survivors’ realities. Adams said the alignment is intended to ensure that survivors who have not reported to law enforcement retain workplace anti‑discrimination protections. She emphasized that adding the broader definition does not automatically create new accommodation obligations but would allow a discrimination claim to proceed where an employee can show the employer knew the employee’s protected status.

Committee members explored possible compromise language—examples included clarifying the list of acceptable supporting documentation, leaving the option for employers to seek additional information through normal HR processes, or qualifying attestation in limited ways (for example, under oath or notarized). Adams advised that these are evidentiary issues that courts and investigations would resolve and that employers would retain the right to assert lawful reasons for decisions such as termination.

The committee did not take a final vote. Members agreed to consult further with the attorney general’s office, asked staff to consider drafting clarifications about the scope of acceptable supporting documentation, and planned to return to S.230 at the next committee meeting with the goal of a vote.