Senate committee debates disability protections in landlord‑tenant bill H.772; seeks revised language from advocates

The Senate Economic Development, Housing & General Affairs committee on May 19 reviewed a new draft of H.772, a landlord‑tenant bill, and focused its discussion on proposed disability‑rights language that members said could change the circumstances under which landlords may terminate rental agreements.

Committee members and counsel walked through edits in draft 3.1 and then turned to questions about how fair‑housing protections should interact with eviction and termination procedures. Legislative counsel explained the changes to the draft and the committee invited testimony from housing providers and the Vermont Human Rights Commission.

Champlain Housing Trust representative Chris Donnelly described a persistent case in which a tenant with a disability repeatedly disrupted neighbors, saying the disturbances continued "night, day, up and down the street" and that "we have had 4 or 5 people move out of the building because of the disruption in their lives." Donnelly told the committee that his organization had tried multiple interventions over eight months and warned that the draft language—if interpreted to bar termination in those circumstances—could leave property managers without an effective tool while small public landlords lack resources and training.

Fig Hartman, who identified himself as executive director and general counsel of the Vermont Human Rights Commission, told the committee that the draft "does not represent any change to existing fair housing law," and outlined how fair‑housing protections and the "direct threat" exception are understood under Title 9. Hartman said the commission offers training for landlords and that reasonable accommodation rules already permit verification and an interactive process in which a landlord and tenant try to find workable accommodations.

Cameron Wood, legislative counsel, cautioned that certain draft phrasing could be read by courts as a substantive change. "What this language is saying is you can't terminate rental agreements, period," Wood said as a characterization of how the bill could be interpreted, and he warned that moving the protections into the landlord‑tenant chapter could extend them to landlords who are currently excepted under chapter 139 (for example, some owner‑occupied smaller properties).

Members debated where to set the threshold for permissible termination when a tenant's conduct is connected to a disability. Several said they wanted courts and property managers to retain the ability to act if behavior rises to a health‑or‑safety threat or criminal conduct. Others emphasized that landlords often are unfamiliar with fair‑housing obligations and urged that any statutory change be accompanied by a funded education effort.

Rather than adopt language that day, the committee asked advocates to draft clearer wording that would preserve fair‑housing protections while allowing remedies for substantial, documented threats to tenant safety and property management. The committee agreed to resume consideration the following morning.