Committee hears testimony on H.459 after workers report being signed up for family leave without consent
Loading...
Summary
On Feb. 25 the House General & Housing committee heard testimony on H.459, which would prevent employers from using workers' compensation leave to exhaust Parental and Family Leave Act (PFLA) time without an employee's consent; witnesses described multiple cases and asked the Attorney General’s office for a written opinion.
The House General & Housing committee on Feb. 25 heard testimony on H.459, legislation that would require employer consent before workers' compensation leave is counted against an employee's Parental and Family Leave Act entitlement. Witnesses told the committee that some employers or third‑party administrators have enrolled injured workers in family leave without the worker's consent, leaving them with no remaining PFLA time when a later family or medical need arises.
The bill would, as drafted, exempt workers' compensation leave from counting against a worker's 12‑week PFLA entitlement for employers with 50 or more employees, according to testimony from Julio Thompson, assistant attorney general and co‑director of the Civil Rights Unit. "What I understand the bill to seek to do, is to exempt ... leave that's related to workers' comp ... from the parental and family leave act," Thompson said, and noted the change would shift several protections that PFLA currently provides.
Thompson told the committee his office enforces Vermont's Parental and Family Leave Act and the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act but not the federal Family and Medical Leave Act. He told members that multiple statutes often apply at once and emphasized a legal trade‑off: PFLA gives stronger job‑return protections, while workers' compensation typically covers medical costs and wage replacement. "Under the Parental Family Leave Act, the employee's rights are stronger," Thompson said, explaining that PFLA imposes a higher evidentiary burden on an employer who denies reinstatement.
Dirk Anderson, director of Workers' Compensation and Safety at the Vermont Department of Labor, told the panel that workers' compensation covers a broader set of workplace injuries and provides wage replacement at about two‑thirds of average weekly wages while a worker is temporarily totally disabled, but it does not guarantee continuation of health benefits or the same reinstatement protections as PFLA. "What workers' compensation does not do ... is keep you in your job with your benefits," Anderson said, summarizing the trade‑offs lawmakers must weigh.
Labor representatives and affected workers urged the committee to protect employee choice. Curtis Clough, president of Teamsters Local 597, gave multiple examples — anonymized in testimony as Jane, Josh, Dave and Cameron — alleging employers or their leave administrators signed employees up for state or federal family leave while they were on workers' compensation, often without informing or obtaining consent from the worker. Clough said the result left some workers unable to take later family or medical leave.
One witness, identified in the transcript as Tracy (a driver), described the personal impact of losing leave: "I tried to kill myself last year because I wasn't able to go to my appointments," Tracy said, saying loss of protected time had interrupted required mental‑health care. The union also submitted a written letter from a worker, Mike Delicky, who said a national insurer notified him that a parental family leave claim had been opened in his name while he was on workers' compensation.
Committee members asked for clarification of state and federal interactions. Representative Emily Krasnov asked Thompson to produce a formal written opinion after the hearing; Thompson agreed to forward the request to the Attorney General's Office. Lawmakers and witnesses discussed the common three‑day waiting period for workers' compensation wage benefits, how medical billing is allocated between carriers, and whether federal FMLA precedent compels concurrent running of leave when a serious health condition exists.
No formal action or vote on H.459 was taken during the session. The committee paused for a break and planned later markup on a landlord‑tenant bill, H.772, after lunch. Committee members indicated they will seek additional factual material and legal analysis before moving forward.
What legislators said they would do next: a member requested an Attorney General's Office memo analyzing how H.459 would interact with existing state and federal law. The committee also expects to hear additional witnesses later in the day.
