Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good afternoon everybody. Today is Wednesday, 02/18/2026, and you are watching a committee, and it happens to be the general and housing committee, so you can turn it off if you thought you were watching something else. What we're going to do now is we're going to walk through and have a discussion of H-four 59, and we're going to take testimony. It's an act relating to the Parental and Family Leave Act, then we're going to take a break, and then we're going to have an introduction of age eight fifty eight, which is courtesy that we essentially extend to every author of a bill that comes before us. And then mid afternoon before the floor, we're gonna have a budget discussion because we owe a letter to house appropriations about our priorities, and we have a draft letter, just as a very rough draft to begin the discussion. So, let's start with H-four 59. We have first our counsel, Sophie Fatney, and then Megan Sullivan, who's government affairs for the chamber, and then Johanna Grafenfried with BBSR. So, Sophie, take it away.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good afternoon. Sophie Sedatney for the office of legislative council. Miss Rose, if I go ahead and share my

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: screen. Please.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This was originally a short form bill, so this is now a standard form bill. And what it does is it adds a provision to the Parental and Family Leave Act that deals with running workers' compensation leave and parental and family leave act concurrently. So I'm just going to move forward to the additional language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sophie, why don't you just go back slightly and say what the FMLA does?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So FMLA is a federal medical leave act that's at the federal level, and then we have the parental family leave act in Vermont. And so the federal medical leave act essentially sets a floor and states can be more protective, more generous in what they do. And so parental family leave act, not 100% of it, but for the most part provides greater protections than are provided under the Federal Medical Leave Act. So what this bill is proposing to do is that currently employers, if somebody's out, we went through this last week, did a quick PowerPoint presentation on it, if you qualify, if you have a workers' compensation injury, injured at work, you're out on leave while you're recovering from your workers compensation injury, as that injury also qualifies as a serious health condition under the parental family leave act, employers can currently run that leave concurrently, so you may be out say for eight weeks on workers compensation, they can run the clock on your eligibility for unpaid parental and family leave act at the same time, so you would use up eight weeks of your PFLA in payroll, which is twelve weeks of unpaid leave. And what this bill seeks to do is to provide that employers that employ more than 50 individuals who are employed for an average of at least thirty hours per week during the year shall not count an employee's leave for a compensable work related injury or illness under the workers' compensation statute as unpaid leave. So this would prevent employers that have 50 or more employees from being able to run those two leads concurrently. Is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there a maximum, just a couple of basic questions to get on the record, Is there a maximum of leave for workers' comp?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it just total whatever the injury demands as per a doctor?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I mean, workers' compensation is a whole other animal unto itself. It's usually overwhelming house commerce and economic development, but you could be out on leave for a considerable period of time, and the workers' compensation statute provides that if you are able to go back to work within two years, that you're entitled to be reinstated to the next suitable job that's available. So we do provide under Vermont law reinstatement for individuals with workers' compensation, and you're also under Vermont law protected from retaliation if you're after workers' compensation leave. So again, not all states do that. States do not do not provide that job protection as part of their workers' compensation. So again, there may be reasons why you would want to run your family medical leave and your workers' compensation concurrently because SNLA essentially is a job protection, if you're out on leave, essentially is enabling you to return to your position.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: To your actual position.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, I mean there are some parameters around that, like if you're in a unique position, I mean there is language in the parental family leave act around reinstatement.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Whereas in the workers' comp, it's the next available, next suitable

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that you're able to do.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Elizabeth, you have a question.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I do. Thank you. I've got two very quick questions. The first is, is workers' compensation limited to or available to companies only with 50 employees or more?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, workers' compensation is a whole separate statute under Title 21. So yes, workers' compensation is a completely separate animal and it covers employees that are injured on the job.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: And the second question is, is FMLA limited to companies with 50 employees or more?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the FMLA is, and that's why this version of the bill includes 50 employees as the threshold amount. The Parental and Family Leave Act has a much lower level to be eligible to take the unpaid leave. So there are differences there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry, say that again.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you're an employer and you have 10 employees or more, or 15 employees or more, then eligible employees are entitled to coverage under the parental and family leave act. There's two different thresholds. So this is creating a third threshold under the parental and family leave act, which would be 50 employees or more than 50 employees for this provision to apply, where you would not be allowed to run your unpaid leave concurrent with workers' compensation leave.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Sorry, Sophie,

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: can you just say that one more time? Is FMLA limited? What is the floor of FMLA for

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: FMLA is 50 employees or more. And then again, employees have to work a certain number of hours and then it's within a certain radius, it's a 75 mile radius. So there are eligibility requirements to be an employer that's covered by the FMLA. The PFLA in Vermont covers a much greater number of employers because the threshold to be a covered employer is much lower. It's 10 employees or more for one kind of leave and 15 employees or more for the other kinds of leaves under the unpaid, under the PFLA.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And then, so 50 is really, it's a number that is intrinsically foreign to each act and it's basically creating a different threshold for this non concurrency clause. Right. Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's really just a placeholder based on the conversation with the committee last time. It could be a different number, could be a higher number, it could be a lower number, but what was suggested by the committee last time to start with was to look at the FMLA threshold, so that's why it has 150 employees as the threshold in that.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Committee questions of Sophie, please. To start, not necessarily a Sophie question, but a committee question or for you, Chair. Should this, whether if should this pass through our committee, will this need to do a drive by in commerce?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that's a good question. I would think I I would have to ask dear Marcotte. I think it's worth asking.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I I would assume hi. I'm I'm here. I'm alive.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hey, Emilie. My god. You you're heroic.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I know. I would assume probably it would

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: or should.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah. I think that's just something to know.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And so if you remind me, in the senate, though, they don't have this. Right? This is our own thing up here we're doing. Right?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There is no Companion. Right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Because they have both jurisdictions. I'm just gonna okay. This is our own thing. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But this bill amends the FMLA.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. The The parental.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The Vermont.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The Vermont parental.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Which is why it's here.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. But it imp it's implicates the workers' comp, which It

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: doesn't diminish anyone's rights under the workers' comp statute, but what this would do is it would be protective of employees with large employers who have workers compensation injuries that would enable them to still have access to twelve weeks of unpaid leave whereas right now those sleeves can be run concurrently.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you still have a question, Elizabeth?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I have a different question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Please, that's good.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I don't recall why our committee set the number at 50 employees. Do you know what the most common practice is among states for this?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be unique. There is not a prohibition on running leave concurrently in other states. And the reason that 50 was picked was because that's the size of employer that's in the FMLA, the Federal Family Medical Leave Act. Again, that's a policy decision by the committee in terms of if they want to move forward with the bill, if that's the right number or a different number could be used.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you have any more questions? I thought you said we had Okay, go ahead, Leonora.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah, thanks. So I feel like we've, in terms of impact, if it's a policy question, then we're talking about, who is this impact? And so there are not that many 50 plus employers.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know the numbers off top my head. I know last time when we talked about the bill, was considerable concern around small employers. Right, so this would prevent the small anybody with 49 employees. So this would allow it would continue to allow smaller employees to run these concurrently.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Right. Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any further questions? Do you have a question?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'll sit. Oh.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think I did. Emilie, do you have a question of Sophie before we move on to our first witness?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, it's more just to the committee, I would say. For me, I would like to look at the policy. This was just a placeholder number. I'd like to look at the policy issue and then decide on that number if that's right, I would say. I may not wanna have any number. Right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. Well, I think that's an issue. I mean, think about, Emilie, think what you what kind of information you need about that at the you know, in terms of what we need to know. You know that the 50 just comes from the it's an artifact of the number used by the FMLA, so

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. And in the research that I've done on some of these businesses that are doing things of this nature. They are larger. Right? But I've also heard folks say, well, why should anyone be allowed to do such a thing? So I just wanna keep that in mind as we you know I'd rather hear about the the testimony first before deciding the number part.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Great. I think I'd like

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I'd like to hear from schools and school educators and school districts, I guess, or whoever, you know, or just to hear how that would impact the workers and the Right? Because I think that Wasn't there a consideration about whether although people that work only in the do not work summer hours, whether this excludes all of them.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there is a bill currently in the Senate, and I believe you have one on the wall in here as well, that would include teachers, so what happened at the session last time when the changes were made to the parental and family leave act was added in on the Senate side to cover air crews that are covered by the FMLA, because they wouldn't otherwise qualify under the PFLA based on the number of hours worked, and because they have very set hours, they have a special exemption under the FMLA to scoop them in. And so this session, there's been a request on behalf of teachers to make sure that they get the same consideration and that the R Vermont Parental Family Leave Act incorporates the federal definition of teachers, so if qualify under the federal Family Medical Leave Act, you would then also qualify under the PFLA. So that's a separate bill, again, that you have on the wall and is also in the Senate Economic Development. But would this also affect that population of, say, like If the other bill passes, it would then incorporate teachers under the PFLP, then yes, if you then also pass this bill, then it would impact.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But right now, are teachers not included because they haven't worked the full year?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, it's based on, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's based on number of hours worked and they don't, because they have summons.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, they just have a special language under the FMLA that brings in

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But it's not under the Vermont PFLA?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Who has a question? Elizabeth, you have another question?

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I do, thank you. First, I believe, I don't know whether it's changed, but when I last was a contract negotiator for our school board, it depends on whether teachers are paid year round or not. It depends on their contract. They can either opt in or opt to be paid year round or they can opt to, you know, it's contract by contract or it was however many years ago. I don't know whether that's changed. And but what I would like to know is, is there any data about existing about how often this occurs? Thanks.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Often logic that is?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: How often? The simultaneity. I

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't know. Think often employers will run them both concurrently when someone's held on a leave that qualifies, under both workers' compensation and under the PFLA. Again, that's permitted to do that, but the actual number has to sent to employees that do that. I don't send that.

[Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I just want to say that as a person who had this happen to them, think that it would be good to have somebody in as a witness who had to return to work earlier than they should have as a result of this taking place and whether they were able to be productive at work or just be a body in a seat. Thanks.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I just have a few thoughts and questions. I'm not an expert in workers' comp, but from my understanding, yes, employer continues to hold the premium for the employee while they're out on workers' comp. However, is that indefinite? I feel like, from my understanding, it's not indefinite,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but where is that? I think it goes on a case by case basis. So if you reach, getting the language, final sort of medical, end medical improvement, you're not going to get any better at that point, then there's a determination whether you can return to the job, whether you need vocational rehabilitation to develop other skills for other positions. There's rights, you might have a permanent impairment where you get paid for the permanent impairment. There's replacement wages, that's usually two thirds of what the employee was making during injury that you receive while you're out receiving treatment. So it's very case by case specific. The reinstatement provision is up to two years. So you have the right to be reinstated on a suitable job that lasts for a two year period. My other question is,

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: and it's not a data point, Ralph Burrows, but just, I mean, for me, in my practice and how I've, for me, best practice would not be to run them congruent. I've never done that. I would never do that. It might be dependent on the

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: workers' comp

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: issue, but I'm just thinking of one of the things that I've had to deal with is, we live in Vermont, somebody slips and falls on the ice, and all of a sudden they have a stiff neck. So that's gonna be covered under workers' comp, but I can almost guarantee that a doctor probably would not say, yeah, this person needs to be out, this is going to be significant enough for FMLA.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So I just I'm sorry, did you say it would be workers' comp, but it wouldn't be FMLA?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I can see a very real scenario where it wouldn't be covered that way. Sometimes workers' comp, well, a doctor will say, I'm going back to the slipping on the ice, the employee could come in half days. So then workers' comp covers their medical expenses and the half day that they were out were two thirds of the half day. And then that employee came in in the afternoons. But their doctor couldn't say, Yeah, this goes so far to be covered as FMLA.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: under one

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of those conversations you can have light duty, it may be that you don't have lift heavy things, but you could work in the office doing something that's more administrative, that's part of it, the goal is to try and get people back, because actually my understanding is people actually recover more quickly if they're actually back at work, than sitting at home feeling sorry for themselves if there's something they can't be doing.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: The other thing I just want to bring up, and again, not really a question, but just something for us all to think about is, if I'm in a position, I start at 9AM on a Monday, I'm a brand new baby employee, and then I slip in a puddle in the hall at work, I'm automatically covered by workers' comp, or not automatically, but like, I become eligible when I start working, whereas I won't be covered by FMLA or PFOA until a year after or the twelve fifty hours. So there are just other scenarios where these two- don't know we end in here.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What we ought to do, I'm certainly willing to have you comment, but I'm wondering whether we shouldn't hear some testimony and then have some committee discussion, but if you have a question that's at Sophie, go ahead and make it. It's just a quick question. What did you say about the two years?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, under workers compensation, there's statutory provisions that if you're able to return to work within two years, you can be reinstated, but your position may not still be open. So the way it works is if there's another suitable position that you're able to do. Okay. You have a right to reinstatement for ten years, which is not true for all states. I mean, that's something that an under Vermont Workers' Compensation Board that we have. Okay, thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. So, our next witness on this issue is Megan Sullivan, who's Vice President of Government Affairs for the Vermont Chamber. Megan, one up.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Vice President of Government Affairs for the Marching of Commerce. Thank you, Chair and Committee, for having me in today. I just want to start by giving some context on how we approach issues like this, because it's going

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to matter for what follows.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: The chamber doesn't take a bumper sticker approach to policy. We don't support or oppose proposals based solely on the intent. Even when that intent is well meaning and aligned with values we share, our role, what we are here to do, is to dig deep into the details, talk with members who will be responsible for implementing the law and understand how a proposal will actually function in the real world. And that process has led me down some serious rabbit holes on this bill as your chair can attest all my questions. This includes how Vermont family and medical needs statutes interact with workers' compensation in Vermont, how job protection actually works under Vermont law, how these systems function in practice for injured workers, and whether this proposal does what I think the committee is intending it to do. And so I want to talk through some of what I have found that you'd mind taking in my conversations and welcome questions throughout. Don't feel like you have to wait for me to stop. So I've heard the comments understand around the idea of this being sort of double dipping for employers. And I want to talk a little bit about how that framing might actually be oversimplifying what we're talking about here. So under Vermont's FMLA statute, job protection is clearly provided. It is intentionally more generous than the floor that the Fed set, and it provides defined period in which an employee's job is protection while they are out. Workers' compensation- Do

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have a question?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Did you say provocative or provided? Provided. Okay. What

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is the period of job protection?

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: In FMLA? Yeah. Twelve weeks of job protection.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That is twelve weeks that you can still return to what? Your job or an equivalent job,

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: and that's a key distinction that I'm going talk about.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, go on.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Workers' compensation serves a different purpose. It is an insurance based system that provides medical coverage and partial wage replacement when an employee is injured on the job. What it does not do is operate, and I think I'm going to have a different take on, this. It does not operate as job protected leave the same way that FMLA does. Vermont's workers' compensation statute, as you've heard, does include reinstatement language, and that's important. But it's also important to understand what that language actually provides and what it does not provide. Under Vermont law, an employer is not required to hold an employee's job open during a workers' compensation absence. Reinstatement obligations arise only if and when the employee's inability to work ceases and when the employee can come back to work. So you have to be medically released on workers' compensation. If that occurs within two years, and even then reinstatement is to the first available suitable position, not necessarily to the same job, not necessarily to an equivalent job, and it's subject to multiple conditions and exceptions. And also, I believe the statute is silent on salary.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Has anyone have there been cases that have defined suitable?

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: There's a lot of cases around suitable. You'll find there's a lot of workers' compensation attorneys who write yourself.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: You might want to hear from it. Go ahead. You were going to say something. Can I ask you a question? From your testimony, and as I'm thinking of it, it sounds like PFLA or FMLA, at this point, can just say FMLA, for all intents and purposes, is actually more protective of what workers comp. Yes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: In terms of job, return it, what you get when you Yeah.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Alright. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's not as long a period, but it's more protection. Right. Yes.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Which during the leave period requires restoration to the same or comparable position with narrow exceptions that the employer must prove. So while both statutes use the word reinstatement, they work differently. Because of that, when FMLA runs concurrently, the employer is not receiving duplicative benefits. They are receiving wage replacement from workers' compensation and job protection from MLA, and those protections address different risks. Prohibiting concurrency doesn't eliminate overlap. It separates wage replacement from job protection. Obviously, chamber of commerce, I represent employers. And you will probably want to hear from workers' groups on this. But from my rabbit hole, distinction should matter to workers. As drafted, the bill would prohibit FMLA protections from applying during workers' compensation absence. In practice, this means that an employee injured on the job could receive workers' compensation benefits, but lacks a guaranteed job protection during the period when they are actually recovered. Reinstatement would depend on future contingencies, including medical release and whether a suitable position happens to be available at that time. Today, Vermont's Family Medical Leave statute provides a defined window of job protection during recovery. Under the proposal, that protection would not apply during a workers' compensation leave, even though that is often when the worker is most vulnerable. I want to address the idea that workers' compensation allows reinstatement for up to two years. So family medical leave is unnecessary or insufficient in comparison. I spoke with a Vermont chamber member who provides both rehab and medical case management to people who are on workers' compensation. So they're hired by the insurance company to do medical case management and insurance. And from what they have told me, and you could probably follow this up with Department of Labor or Vermont numbers, but nationally, the average time a worker is out on workers' compensation leave is ninety days. So that is important. In many cases, an injured worker's recovery period falls squarely within the twelve week window of job protection provided by the Quran FMLA statute. When that leave runs concurrently, the worker has wage replacement protection during that finite recovery period. When concurrency is prohibited, that job protection may not apply at all during the ninety day recovery window, even if the employee technically preserves access to FMLA or later, that protection is shifted away when the time could matter. Who's that?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: With you so far. That's very clear, actually. It's very clear. All right. The question is, wouldn't that be taken care of if we simply allowed the employee to the employer couldn't require it, but the employee could do it.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: That's not what the language says.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I understand. So if you would like not to comment. Can

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I ask a question about

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: the Legg Council who is still in the room? Go ahead. Current language is employers may. They are not forced to. So if I'm an employer, I don't have to say you have to take FMLA, correct? Correct.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I get the thoughts correct too. I got that. Okay. Now, I know what I mean, that was a little bit of worker, but I know that workers save themselves. I need to talk a little bit chamber wide here. This has broader work place effects that are worth understanding. When workers' compensation and FMLA run concurrently, there's a defined and predictable period during which wage replacement and job protection overlap. That predictability benefits everyone. It allows clear communication with employees, structured return to work planning, and more stable staffing positions. When leave is forced to run sequentially, the total period of absence can be longer and less An employee may be out on workers' compensation and then later begin a separate period of job protected leave. That sequencing can make it harder to plan for staffing in roles that must be filled consistently, including safety, sensitive, and essential positions. So these concerns are not about employees being able to take leave. They are about how the structure of leave systems affects stability when multiple statutory frameworks apply. And I will say for some of the larger employers that I've talked to about this leading up to this testimony, there is also challenges around many of our larger employers have facilities in different states. Being the only state that would do this, it creates more and more of those inconsistencies in how you treat workers in one place, the laws governing workers in one state versus every other state. And adding those complexities, continuing to add those regulatory complexities, makes it really challenging for those employers who are operating in Vermont, and they're already facing workforce shortages and challenging economic momentum, choose to continue to stay here. It was noted that there is no other state that does this. States often expand worker protections by adding leave, expanding coverage or increasing benefits. What is less common is prohibiting coordination between systems that are designed to operate together. That lack of precedent is worth considering as the committee evaluates whether this policy will function as intended. And I want to talk briefly about federal law here and not make a legal argument, but just provide context. Federal regulations on FMLA explicitly contemplate coordination between disability or workers' compensation leave and family medical leave. The regulation allows employers to designate qualifying disability or workers' compensation leave as FML leave and counted against the employee's entitlement while also prohibiting forced substitution of paid leave during times of weight replacement. That permissive framework reflects the federal policy choice to allow coordination while protecting workers from financial harm. It does not require concurrency, but it does recognize concurrency as a lawful and common approach. A categorical prohibition on concurrency under state law removes that option entirely and moves Vermont away from a coordinated model that federal law assumes. I'm not asserting a legal conclusion here, just flagging that alignment between systems matters for clarity, predictability, and effective worker protections.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good question, does federal law permits concurrency? Does it make a difference about who decides whether it's concurrent, the employer or the employee?

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I think Sophie has the language on federal, the federal law, but it is the employer would designate FMLA. I would probably recommend talking to Julio from the civil rights division in the AG's office who deals with FMLA. Okay, in closing, we support policies that help employees during times of injury, illness, and family need. Our concern is that this proposal, while well intentioned, may unintentionally weaken job protection for injured workers, shift protection away from a period when it is most needed and disrupt coordination between systems that address different but complementary needs, And would ask the committee to carefully consider how this proposal operates under Vermont law, how workers compensation reinstatement actually functions in practice, how typical recovery timelines align with FMLA, and whether prohibiting concurrency achieves the outcome the committee is seeking. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Open to questions.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I have more questions just not prepared. I know if that's a good thing or bad thing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Thank you. Well, before she goes, any other questions? All right. Next, Johanna.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: Hello, afternoon everyone. My name is Johanna Degraffery. I'm the Public Policy Manager with Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility. It's a pleasure to be back in the committee again. Last year we came in to testify on the unpaid leave expansion bill. We testified in favor at the time. We recognize that this intended language is likely to try to address some of the conflicts or challenges that may have arisen in the context of workers' compensation with that bill. I don't wanna get too deep into the weeds because I think that we've already gotten into the weeds now. So I wanna make sure that we leave time for plenty of questions. However, I would reiterate the fact that at VBSR, we have continued to and will continue to stand by a universal paid family medical leave policy. The language that is currently being discussed right now is related to workers' compensation. So injury that happens at work, illness that happens because of work is workers' comp, not paid family medical leave. It is allowed to take them concurrently. The reason for that is because we want to ensure that folks are paid for their time. And some employers, as some of our representatives have noted, utilize the multitudes of ways in which leave access qualifies to ensure that folks are able to be paid during their time when they are on leave. It's not required. So there's been several questions about whether or not it's mandatory. In fact, you're not legally allowed to take them or force folks to take them concurrently under Vermont state law or under paid family medical leave law. I want to note that the intention of the bill last year, which expanded leave for safe leave, bereavement leave, as well as for LGBTQIA employees and their family members was not intended to extend to compensate change or in any way affect workers' compensation. Those are separate statutes and it's really crucial that we keep them separate in the conversation because in complicating them, we create these kinds of rabbit holes of dialogue, right? Where we start to get deep into, well, whether do we have folks who are dealing with pregnancy leave, is that the same thing as workers' compensation? If you are injured on the job, which is what the current language that you all are talking about today mentions, or you were ill because of a job. Yes, the unpaid leave though which was passed last year should not be utilized as a tool to not pay individuals workers compensation. Right,

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: that's the intent.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: I think we can all pretty

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: much agree there. Whether there's challenges, as we all know about ensuring that folks are able to receive pay that's necessary and also the legal rate to return back to work, I think we can all continue to get deep into the paid family medical leave conversation, and we would continue to come in to talk about those expansions. But it's essential that individuals who are worse actors are not able to use a leave expansion bill that was intended to ensure worker protections that was passed last year by this committee to loop all around workers' compensation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have a question. Which I'm just proposing something for your reaction. Supposing this didn't say an employer, dot dot dot, shall not count. Okay, supposing it said an employee who so elects may count.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: What challenge would that solve?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, it would mean that an employee, if under the prior testimony Unpaid leave into paid No, first no, what it would do is, in other words, under the prior testimony, as I understand it, the FMLA is more protected, the Vermont Leave Act is more protective in terms of returning to job than workers terms of

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: returning to the same job.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Same job, than workers' comp. Yes. So what happens, how would you feel about language which essentially left it to the employee to decide whether they wanted to use that, if they wanted them to run concurrent, so they'd have the protection. They're already allowed to use them concurrently. They can just do that on their own. In other words, if they have workers' comp, they could just do it.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: They can't already use workers' compensation with paid family medical concurrently to ensure that they're paid during

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Tom Charlton)]: their time.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm revealing my ignorance. Okay, go on.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: It's not if they

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: are injured on the job, that's workers' compensation specifically strictly by law. So just, it might help an employee who, say is injured at home, can go to their employer and say, I would like FMLA.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: If they're injured on the job?

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: Workers compensation because they should not have paid family medical leave. They cannot utilize the leave.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The employee cannot utilize FMLA if they're injured on the job.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: They should utilize workers' compensation, which is why all businesses in Vermont are required to offer workers' compensation.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, should, but do they have to?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: They are required to. But currently right now, because an employer may, my understanding, and again, philosophy for HR is very different than others, and I understand that, but an employee, I guess, could say, I'm on workers' comp, I would also like to use FMLA.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: I've never had that issue. Why

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: would that, sorry, because it's more protective of your job when you come back than workers' comp is, because workers' comp is just about paying you while you're injured because of the job.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: Workers' house still holds your position quite an extended period of time, or at least a comparable position.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: A comparable

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: position. So, I'm just trying to understand why somebody would, were positing here. What is the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, I mean, I'll tell you what, we can have this conversation later. It's not a question for the, I've exhausted my questions, but yes, go ahead.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: With workman's comp, it takes a while until the person receives any benefit as far as being at work, correct? The medical is paid immediately.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: No, that's usually why businesses are required to have workers' compensation insurance. It can take a moment for the state to reimburse the business. However, most businesses are required to have workers' compensation insurance to ensure that folks are paid immediately.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So if you get injured

[Unidentified Committee Member]: on the job and it's going to be a short term injury,

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: Is there a specific time where it kicks in? Let's say you're only gonna be out for ten days. If you're out for a pay period or it's going to affect your paycheck, it should kick in immediately and it should be covered by your workers' compensation insurance. So I would defer to legislative counsel or another attorney about that to just clarify and make sure. But yeah, workers' compensation is legally required to cover you if you're injured or created illness at work. Even if it's a short period of time.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Ashley, just another quick, like short period of time. You might not miss any work. You might just have medical bills too. It could be you don't need any job protection.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Mary? I just want to make a comment. When I did the workers' comp for the Central Vermont Public Service, the company would make up the difference or pay the employee if they were out there full salary until workers comp. So there wasn't any gap. And I don't know if they still do it, and I don't know if other companies do that as well, but it was a pretty nice it was a nice benefit for the employee. You're shaking your head no other company. They don't do that. They don't do

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: That's not like a mandate. That's like an like you said, a nice benefit. I don't actually know of

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: any companies that do that.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: My understanding of the intended language here today is to ensure that the unpaid leave expansion bill that was passed last year is not utilized as a tool by our worst actors to ensure that folks are not covered during their workers' compensation leave. And we of course agree with that principle and want to ensure that folks who are out on workers' compensation who qualify for workers' compensation because they're injured on the job or created ill on the job, they receive the workers compensation benefits that they're duly entitled to. There's not a loophole that was created last year with the unpaid leave bill.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I admit to being confused. I thought the status quo, which allows concurrency. Yes, is. If a person is injured on the job, they're gonna get their workers' comp benefits regardless. The question, right? So there is no, am I right that there's no question that they're gonna get their workers?

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: That's the hope of my understanding is I guess that there are some folks who are interpreting the law from last year to be perceived as a possibility for unpaid leave. I don't think that that's something that's commonplace. I think that's a worst actor scenario. And I think that if this is what's necessary by the committee to address any challenges from the unpaid leave bill last year, just for clarity for employers and employees, I think that that's totally reasonable. But I wanna make sure that we understand that workers' compensation is workers' compensation and should not be impacted by

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: any bill that was passed last year.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And then Ashley.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I just want to point out that actually this was not a catalyst of last year's bill, that this was brought to the attention of various people from an organization or from employees before any of that happened. So it doesn't have to do with what we did last year, confusing things. This was already a loophole that people had found previously and had brought to the attention, and this bill was drafted in concurrence.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You were gonna say? Ditto. Ditto. So

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna be clear because I don't want people to think that anything that we did muddied anything up because that's not accurate at all.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: The example being used is somebody who say is injured at work. Right. They're forced to take FMLA during their workers' comp. Right.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: then in that, they're able to come back and it's someone who's pregnant and then cannot use FMLA for their HD- So let me clarify Okay, to see if I am

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm just trying to understand this. Somebody who's injured on the job and working for an employer who who who uses concurrency. So, that's me, I'm on the job, I'm injured, and so I'm injured badly enough, my workers' comp will be operative even with concurrency. So, I will be paid for while I'm gone. Is this right, Sophie? I'm paid while I'm gone. Two thirds. Two thirds. Thirds. And I have my medical bills paid. But also, my twelve weeks of family leave, my Vermont family medical, my parental and family medical leave twelve weeks are running as well. So, if I'm gone for, let's say, nine weeks, when I get back, under concurrency, when I get back, I've had my full benefit from workers' comp, but when I get back, I only have three weeks of family medical leave left, Right? And I may have enhanced rights, the Vermont FMLA, I may have enhanced rights to return to my original job that I wouldn't have under workers' comp, but I've lost a lot of my family medical leave time. Yes.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: Can I throw the other scenario out?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, first of all, is that right? Separate.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: If you were taking motion currently,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I would Yes, I'm just saying in a concurrent world.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: In the other situation, though.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You mean the situation where they're not concurrent.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: You out on workers' compensation, the next day that employer fills that job, you are released.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, they're

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: like You get medical release and you say, I'd like my job back, and the employer says, What job? We filled that job. We have nothing suitable for you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The difference is the job benefit, I understand. But it's not as if you lose your workers' comp benefit, you get that. You just lose time, FMLA time. Right? Okay. That's correct.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: And I just want to note that the specific language that we're speaking about today is about unpaid leave.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, it's all unpaid, yeah, it's unpaid.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Leonora, you have a question of the witness? No, it's okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, well we can, have a little time, we can have a discussion, and I think I'd like the committee to discuss any thoughts they have, but also who else we might have yet. Yes?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I have a question for Sophie.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Well, Johanna gets to leave, does anyone have a question for her? You know what, if you have to exit the room, you can, but you can also sit here and just be ready to answer questions.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Okay. Thank you, operator.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: And happy to come back in and

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: answer yourself.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, all right. Go ahead.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: I truly don't know the answer to the questions I'm about to ask you. It's kind of a two folded question. I'm going back to our original conversation where the thought of benefit premiums, covering benefit premiums kind of came up in our committee in our original conversation about who's paying those premiums. And I've just kind of been stuck on that as we've heard testimony today, and it's just kind of led me down an HR rabbit hole, which it sounds like this bill has led several individuals down. Normally actually, sorry, let me rephrase this. To be eligible for FMLA or PFLA, you have to work a certain amount of hours within a certain amount of time. So twelve months and it's twelve fifty. In a scenario where I'm an employee, I have been injured, it's a serious injury, I'm on workers' comp and I am not working. Workers' comp holds my position or in this hypothetical, I know that I will have a job still at my employer and I hit that one year mark or that twelve month mark where I have not worked, am I, does my eligibility for FMLA or even benefits come into question? Because usually you have to work a certain amount of hours to be eligible for either one of those things. So is that going to affect?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good question.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Does that make sense? Yeah, so my understanding is, yeah, that your eligibility is on a rolling basis, so if you haven't worked, I would want to double check that. Under the PFLA, as far as your health insurance goes, I believe the employee still needs to continue to pay their share of the premium. And I think that's true in the workers' comp, but again, I would want to double check that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But the question, as I understood it, was to be eligible for FMLA, or let's just say FMLA, it means Vermont, but you have to have worked a certain

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Well, number of that means February. Yeah, okay. Either one. Either

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have to, I mean Vermont. Be eligible for that, you have to have worked up to that point a certain number of hours.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, does time spent not working because you've been injured and are at work count towards those hours or not?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would want to double check it, but yeah, usually if for whatever reason you stop working, you decide to go part time or something, you would then lose your eligibility for PFLA. I would want you to double check that, but I believe that they just look at the number of hours that you've worked and if you haven't worked the number of hours that's required for the year then you're not eligible for PFLA. But again, on the other hand, entitlement continues, So if you take some PFLA, you take two weeks of bereavement leave in a year, once you get to that next twelve month period, you get that time back, it restores itself.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Can you just check out, put that on your list of questions?

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Yeah. But, go on. It does, yes, it does restore yourself, but if you're not even working, it can't possibly restore. Is that correct? Right.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because I think that's what I think. I would just want to double check, but that's my understanding. If I'm injured

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: and I can't work, and then my dad dies and I want to take bereavement leave, might not be able to. But, of course, I'm not being paid. It's unpaid anyway. So the only thing that would matter to me is my right to come back to my job, which I would still have under workers' comp. Right?

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: But if you haven't worked.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if you enjoyed your job, I'd be filled while you were at someone

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: else's I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: now have other questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Go ahead, please. Actually, think these questions, no, don't apologize, these are important. Some of us are pretty ignorant when it comes to these issues, and I think it's important for us to understand. I also would like, we have till 02:30, I would like amongst our questions and discussions to come up with a list of who else we want to hear from, if any, unless you feel like I know what I think and I don't care what anyone says and we'll just let's vote. Okay, let's see, you have questions, and then you're on deck. My

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: other question, can I bat to Mary,

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: because it left my head completely? Mary, you've been.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just Your

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: con has been passed to you.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Thank you. I just wanna say that when my husband was very ill, I worked for the state and because I didn't work thirty hours, I could not take any paid or leave. You can take any unpaid leave? Yeah, well, no I couldn't. Could only take the when time I needed to, for funeral it was time off that I needed to take unpaid. But I had a wonderful boss and he was great and just, but, yeah, I think it's, If your own workers' comp and you come back, if they haven't filled your position, you're back in your position.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Assuming you're not so injured, you can't continue to do this, Right.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: If they filled it with part time, I don't even know if they still have Kelly Girl services, somebody who just comes in and does the job. Attempt, they would let that temp go before you, right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The other piece is just, I mean, again, these leave laws are incredibly complicated. I mean, there's bazillion regulations at the federal level around the federal Medical Leave Act, which again, I think we don't have those separate regulations, again we'll look at the FMLA to fill in gaps where our leave law doesn't cover those. The other thing is that you also might be entitled to leave under collective bargaining agreement or your employer's policy under their handbook. So again, an employee gets the benefit of whatever the most generous leave policy is that would apply. But these are super, super technical provisions, particularly the FMLA. I remember my question.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: That's what I

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: was thinking. And it was because Mary said something, so I'm very happy I sent the baton that way. Supplemental pay. So if I'm on FMLA, it's unpaid. However, I can choose, or my employer can say, You have to take any vacation, discretionary, sick, and that supplement my pay. Is there any stipulation in workers' comp policy that says, like if I'm on workers' comp, I'm only getting two thirds. Can I then use my available PTO, CTO to supplement that? Because I know I can, but that's the way I know medical is only for medical.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No, but if it's PTO, it's everything.

[Johanna deGraffenreid (Public Policy Manager, Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility)]: Okay.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: I don't

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think there's anything in the statute around that. I don't know if that's something you could discuss with your employer, like I've got a bank of leave, I'm only getting two thirds she works compensation, I'd like to access the paid leave that I've accrued, don't know what the answer to that is. Okay. But I could check and see.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. How does this affect someone when they're on workman's comp as far as their medical insurance through their employer?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So your medical expenses for your work injury would be covered. What I don't know is, I believe, but I would want to double check, that was what we were talking about before, if you pay 20% of the premium, still, does the employer still have to pay their portion of the premium while they're out? I believe they do, but I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would want to double check on that. Right, because your medical insurance could be

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: for the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: family well

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, as the so I think you would still have to do that, but your medical bills, so instead of, you where you might have a copay of X amount or whatever, that's all taken care of by workers comp, they're not paying medical bills associated with your injury. Right, right.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I have a question. Do you have any comment on Megan's non legal opinion that there may be a conflict with federal regulations or other workers' comp law which contemplate concurrency? So I did look

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at the regulation that Megan had shared, and that's dealing with when you can substitute paid accrued leave from what happens with paid accrued leave that you've accumulated, and this is not that, this is talking about unpaid leave. So I don't believe what's proposed in this bill would conflict with the FMLA. I think there's an issue that was raised in terms of could it have an unintended consequence for workers, and I think there probably are some hypotheticals where maybe that a worker could be at a disadvantage if they are out on workers compensation and job is already being filled, if it's not running concurrently, I think for the most part when an employee is out on FMLA, again you know that there's up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave in that situation. So I don't know how common it is for an employer to go ahead and just fill that position right away. Mean, again, the statute provides certain circumstances when you can do that, if you have someone in a unique position or whatever, but typically I think they go down the route of finding a temp to come in to fill while someone's out on maternity leave or whatever it might be. But I can't rule out that there could be some hypothetical where that has an unintended consequence, but I don't think it conflicts with the FMLA. I think the goal of this is to grow employee, in it allows an employee who's out on workers' compensation that works for a large employer to be able to come back from their workers' compensation injury and still have access to twelve weeks of unpaid medical leave. So if they've been out on a workers' comp injury, they come back, their wife is having a baby and they want to take family leave for that, they still have that open to them. Whereas if it's run concurrently, which was what you were expecting before in your example, they might come back and they don't have access to that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Let's say, for example, that I am single and my parents are long gone, And I consequently don't imagine that I'm going to use FMLA, well, the Parental and Family Leave Act.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: But what if you get in a car accident?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But I'm injured on the job, and I know damn well that my job, you know, have a very special job and if they hire, pretty soon they need to hire someone, so they're going to hire them, and then I know that it's a small company and I'm going to wait a long time before a suitable job opens. Would I want them to run concurrently in that case, or?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the parental and family leave act provides that upon return from leave taken under this subchapter, an employee shall be offered the same or comparable job at the same level of compensation, employment benefits, seniority, or any other term or condition of the employment existing on the day leave began. This subsection shall not apply if prior to requesting leave, the employee had been given notice or had given notice that the employment would terminate. The subsection shall not apply if the employer can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that one, during the period of leave, the employee's job would have been terminated or the employee laid off for reasons unrelated to the leave or the condition for which the leave was granted or two, the employee performed unique services and hiring a permanent replacement during the leave after giving reasonable notice to the employee of the intent to do so was the only alternative available to the employer to prevent substantial and grievous economic injury to the employee's operations.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So that last one could be used in that situation.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Yes. I just have a suggestion, because I had someone ask me, he was an architect engineering, and he said if his draftsman was out, he would lose 30% of his business. And my suggestion to employers is to cross train because when I the two offices I worked in, whenever someone was out, we just pitched in.

[Megan Sullivan (Vice President of Government Affairs, Vermont Chamber of Commerce)]: You can't cross train some. I realize that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Tom Charlton)]: You have certificates and licenses and degrees. Some of them don't cross train as easily as others.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Right, I know that. But also as the owner of the business, you should.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is I'm trying to be licensed. Could we ask for a moment, Sophie, do you have thoughts on more witnesses? I mean, one of the issues raised, do we want large nonprofit institutions like the colleges or UVM or others to testify, does this apply to them, is this an issue that they would care about?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know, I mean, I think there's, I guess that could represent for them, for employers, I don't know if there are other groups. Marc?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: You know, after listening to this conversation, and I'm not obviously in the clearest state, I'm thinking we might wanna just after this conversation, let's just take a minute and think about a few things. I'm just wondering, I just don't know if our if this may be more of a commerce situation, and I just wanna think about that a little bit as a group

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do or you think I mean, I was planning to talk to Marcotte.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Would you like to be part of that?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Or Ashley can. Doesn't matter. Just think I just I just it may I just it may be both, but it may be some of the lift in there. But if if we do, I if we do end up staying, I I have some ideas of witnesses. I just want it before we what is it? The cart before the horse. Mhmm. Is that right?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I can certainly talk to Marcotte before. We're not gonna schedule more testimony in the immediate future. We're pretty booked.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Right. I just know that we have a lot on our plate right now.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: We do. Right. I know.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna think about it, but not not ending it. Just just circling back. But if not, I I can help with some witnesses if we decide.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. And I'm sure others can as well. Any other comments or questions before we yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Tom Charlton)]: Just to point out, Richard Wobbe of Associate General Contractors of Vermont submitted written testimony that's in the folder for today that explains how this kinda interplays with the sort of scheduling you have to do on construction sites with contractors, and it's worth reading. And I'll wait for some other time to explain again how this affects a small shop of 10 in a way that it doesn't affect the shop of 50 in terms of revenue and overhead. And I'll come back to that some other time, but this I I am a little bit concerned in a wider sense with the number of, like, big box employers are getting from manufacturers to supermarkets. The customer they hire only part time because it's too expensive. And there's a lot of there's a lot of kids working thirty hour a week jobs with no benefits who are never gonna, you know, they're gonna just gonna take aid from the rent an apartment. And the more expensive we make it, the more difficult we make it to hire them, the less likely there's gonna be a forty hour a week job. So there is a certain portion of the workforce that this kind of keeps them under that threshold because employers will look at it and say, oh, I'm just not gonna hire full time. So it's just a cautionary thing to bear in mind on the wider economy.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any further thoughts? Yes, Ashley? This

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: is just a thought, do with it what you will. A lot of employers don't even touch their workers' comp. They have a third party where someone falls and gets hurt, and they immediately call the nurses hotline, and the third party handles it and then they say, the employee might say, Hey, I won't be at work, here's my doctor's information. But the employer's pretty much taken out of it. So I just

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You mean they'll hire, they have more So

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I worked for an organization that consider it like an umbrella organization where it's satellite offices. It's all covered by one worker's comp, someone gets hurt, again, let's say it's that ice slipping, they call, it's like a nurse's hotline and say, this is what happened. That nurse will say, okay, you need to do X, Y, and Z. It might be you need to go to the hospital. And then that employee says, okay, thank you so much. They hang up, they follow those instructions. The nurses hotline then fill, as I'm saying this, I'm tending, I am now fully down the rabbit hole and I understand why I came here because we have FMLA, PFLA, like leaves of absence. I'm not sure if we can do this bill justice separately from Commerce. Like, I would almost feel like I would rather them work on it, and then we do a drive by.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Well, I'll talk to I would definitely talk. You and I can talk to if that's okay with the committee, we'll both go over there and talk to them, or maybe just our Vice Chair. I get the thumbs up from Emilie, alright. So, what I'm going to do is suggest at this point we take a break. I thank you to our two witnesses for your patience and wisdom. And we're going to take a break and return here