Rep. Emily Kraznau seeks to align victim documentation between safe‑leave and anti‑discrimination law

Representative Emily Kraznau, the bill reporter and sponsor, told the Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs Committee that H887 aims to close a gap between Vermont’s safe‑leave law and anti‑discrimination protections for crime victims. Kraznau said the legislature created unpaid job‑protective safe leave in Act 32 to let survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking seek safety and healing, but that the documentation required to access that leave does not always match the evidence needed to secure status as a victim under the Fair Employment Practices Act.

Sophie Satney of the Office of Legislative Council explained the difference in legal purpose between the two statutes: “The Parental and Family Leave Act is providing a benefit to employees. This is providing protection to employees,” she said, and described FEPA’s existing documentation categories — relief from abuse orders, stalking orders, affidavits from law enforcement and the like — that typically require court or police interaction. Satney and members discussed a contested element from prior committee testimony: whether a self‑attestation by a survivor should carry additional warning language about perjury.

Kraznau said the bill’s core change is to harmonize the documentation standards so that an employee who lawfully takes safe leave is not left without FEPA protections because the two statutes require different corroborating paperwork. “H887 resolves this problem by harmonizing these documentation standards and ensures that survivors can fully access both unpaid safe leave and anti‑discrimination protections without unnecessary or unintended barriers,” she told the committee.

Committee members pressed on whether revisions made in the Senate vehicle S230 reflect the sponsor’s intent; Kraznau said she preferred her House language but had filed H887 as a backup to preserve the policy in case changes occurred on the floor. Sophie Satney summarized that the House and Senate versions differ and that, if necessary, the language could be worked out in conference committee when the bills return to the other chamber.

On the topic of self‑attestation, committee members and staff emphasized competing risks: adding explicit perjury language could deter fabricated claims but also might discourage survivors from seeking protections. Satney noted that, independent of attestation language, an employer can still discipline an employee for demonstrable misrepresentation. The committee asked for additional technical clarifications and signaled it may reconvene to reconcile the House and Senate language.

The committee did not take formal action on H887 during the hearing. Members said they expect further drafting and discussions with the Office of Legislative Council and other stakeholders before any final vote.