House committee weighs 'penalty of perjury' clause in labor bill aligning victim protections

The House Committee on General & Housing spent its March 18 meeting examining S.230 — an omnibus labor bill that would (1) cross‑reference federal Family and Medical Leave Act rules for teachers, (2) carry Parental and Family Leave Act protections into the Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) for crime victims, and (3) remove obsolete mandatory‑retirement language.

Sen. Tom Chittenden, sponsor of S.230, told the committee the measure largely synchronizes statutory language and is not intended to expand benefits. "All this does is providing a cross reference to the federal law," Chittenden said, describing the teacher provision as clarifying how hours worked outside the classroom count toward eligibility.

The most contested element was a Senate amendment that would require any employee self‑attestation of victim status under FEPA to be made "under pains and penalties of perjury." Emily Adams, co‑director of the Attorney General's Office civil‑rights unit, testified the AGO supports aligning FEPA with the Parental and Family Leave Act but recommended the House language that omits the perjury clause. "I think that requirement would have a chilling effect," Adams said, arguing that criminalizing attestations in a discrimination‑protection context could deter survivors who are already vulnerable from seeking workplace protections.

Charlie Glisserman, policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, echoed that view: "We don't see any real risk of fraud or misuse in the current landscape," Glisserman said, and recommended keeping the less onerous House approach to self‑attestation.

Committee members probed how employers would respond if an employee's attestation were later found false. Adams said employers could discipline or fire employees for nondiscriminatory reasons if they proved dishonesty and that enforcement would turn on the weight of evidence in investigations or in court. Several members said that, practically, criminal penalties already exist for false statements and that the perjury language would be redundant in many cases; others warned the additional legal framing could deter legitimate claims.

The bill also drew discussion about teachers and support staff. Counsel explained the CFR citation cited in the bill (federal FMLA regulations) is an example of how certain occupations (teachers, airline crew) have rules for counting hours worked outside normal schedules; the effect is to ensure the employer bears the burden to show an employee did not meet hours requirements.

The committee did not vote. Members asked legislative council to draft an amendment that would replace the Senate's perjury language with the House text (no perjury clause) and signaled they would review that amendment and related technical language at a later meeting. No formal action on S.230 was recorded at the March 18 hearing.