Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Welcome back, everyone, to the House Committee on General and Housing, and it's still 02/24/2026, and it is now B18, and we are going to take a hard look at age 87, an act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act. We have a brief appearance of the august ranking member, Emilie Krasnow, followed by Sophie Thetney, our counsel, and after that more of Emilie. If you have. Yeah, okay.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Alright, I'm going be very brief just to kick off, Sophie. Last year, the committee took an important step forward in protecting survivors in the workplace through the passage of H461. That bill now allows survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking up to twelve weeks of unpaid job protective leave to seek safety, seek justice, feel. The civil rights unit of the Attorney General's office identified a disparity between the documentation requirements needed to access safe leave and those required to receive protections under the Fair Employment Practices Act. The lack of alignment between these statutes may leave survivors vulnerable to adverse employment actions after taking legally authorized safe leave. H-eight 87 would align these provisions and ensure survivors can fully access both protections without unintended barriers. So now, without further ado, Doug, you can ask me anything you'd like under the sun.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Don't go away.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm not. But Sophie's time is limited. So that's kind of the kickoff. So it's it's really a correction of the bill we worked on before since something was caught by the attorney general's office.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What's the bill?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The unpaid leave one.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, but what was this?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Safe leave. It's 461. 461. Now law, act 32.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, take it away.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hi, good afternoon, Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. Can I go ahead and share my screen?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Please go ahead, 32.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, Representative Krasnow pretty much has said everything I was going to say. Essentially, this bill is, so last session, under the Parental Family Leave Act, again, a number of changes were made in that Act, including for safe leave for survivors of sexual assault, stalking and domestic violence, and there were a list of requirements provided in the Parental Family Leave Act regarding documentation that individuals could submit to their employer if they were requesting safe leave. And so what this bill seeks to do is to transfer those documentation requirements and clarify that victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking qualify as crime victims under the Fair Employment Practices Act. And the Fair Employment Practices Act is the one that deals with essentially with discrimination and harassment. And so, FIPA as it's known has many different protective categories and one of those is crime victims. So what this bill does is it looks at the definition of crime victim in FIPA, and this is the current language that's on the screen right now. And then here on page three subsection e it adds in, so this includes the definition of a crime victim, person who's a survivor of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking and who has supporting documentation from any one of the following sources. And again, these five sources that are listed here or four sources, sorry, that are listed here are the same ones that the general assembly passed last session under the parental family leave act. And then again, same thing as in parental family leave act, it just references the definitions of what domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking would be. So again, I think as representative personnel pointed out, it's really just bringing alignment between the Fair Employment Practices Act and the Parental Retirement VB Act, just making sure that equal. You wouldn't want to be in a situation where somebody could potentially request leave, be eligible to get leave under the Parental and Family Leave Act, but yet they could still be discriminated against for that particular status under the Fair Employment Practices Act. And I do also want to just let you know that this language is included in S230, is the bill in front of Senate Economic Development that they're taking up again on Thursday. So it's possible this language will be moving forward in S230.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But I'd like to do it, if we can agree and do that as well, here as well. It's very important.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is this I'm gathering, this is not just a technical alignment. This is adding the survivors and the definition to FEPA,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: right? They would have been

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: By making them crime victims, what does that do and where does it do?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So right now, they could qualify as crime victims. So they could qualify if they've obtained a relief from abuse order, an order against stalking or sexual assault. So they could qualify, but as I'm sure this committee knows and I'm sure you can have folks in to testify, a lot of times people are victims of domestic violence and they don't report it. So they don't have those documents that are listed currently in FIFA for crime victims. So this would allow somebody to let their employer know that they are a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, and so they would then have the protections under the Fair Employment Practices Act. So it's really just again, is more bringing people into alignment with the parental and family revert.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And this was I don't want to look at it as it's not specifically a technical correction, but what it is was an unintended error on the build up is now law that we need to correct.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: This is, I'm being dense here, I'm sorry, I'm still unclear.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think it was really an error, it was more that the bill last time was focused on the Parental and Family Leave Act and then it had this definition in the Parental and Family Leave Act regarding victims of sexual assault, domestic violence and stalking, and so the Attorney General's office, who is responsible for enforcing both the laws, pointed out, well, it would be beneficial to have both, the language aligned between the two bills, and it wasn't really an error, was just an oversight, I would say. Well, the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: parental, I'm just trying to understand that Parental and Family Leave Act had in it, ish, it had in it a definition of domestic violence, sexual assault, etcetera, and what, and provided what? That you could take a safe leave to, that's one of the reasons you can take a leave. This definition of crime victim expansion does what to that?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a separate act, this is the Fair Employment Practices Act, the real estate discrimination and harassment, and it has a whole list of protected categories, know, police, etc, and crime victim is already one of those categories.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But is it required more documentation, etc? Okay, so under the Fair Employment Practices Act, as clarified by this, what? What can't you do? What happened? You cannot discriminate against a victim? Is that what it means?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, you couldn't discriminate against a victim now, but this just enables people that haven't reported that and they don't have formal documentation. Again, one of the things that came up on the Senate side was employees don't ask, because there was a concern around the self attestation piece, which again is the same language that was used in parental and family leave, but there was a question around that. And you don't need to self attest or formally notify your employer of your sexual orientation or your religion or whatever, but if you believe you've been discriminated against on the basis of that, then at some point the plaintiff in that situation would need to establish that the reason the adverse employment action had been taken was because of their religion or because of their sexual orientation. And this is just, again, this is just a way for someone that is a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking to be able to provide supporting documentation to their employer to put them on notice that this is, for example, if they were having absenteeism issues or whatever it might be, the employer is aware that this is the situation that they're in. It's just aligning the documentation requirements. So again, so that you're not in a position where you're able to take friends from family leave, you're not protected under the Fair Employment Practices Act. It's to make sure that they're balanced between the two.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I would personally like to move our own bill and not necessarily rely on the Senate in any way.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Does the Senate bill have other elements?

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

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So I prefer to be safe than So

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: what do we have to do if we wanna take this up? First of all, would it have to go to judiciary?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm not a lawyer like the rest of the committee, but

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You mean what

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: should I do?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Committee. If was the chair, I would like to see Todd Dallas from the attorney general's office, and I would like to see Charlie Blisserman from the network, who's over here, come and just reiterate what we just talked about and explain why that was brought up and then have the committee discuss that and vote it up.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would just say that in Senate Economic Development, Emilie Adams testified from the Attorney General's Office of the Rights Unit.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So it might not be Todd, but someone from the Attorney General's Office and Charlie come in and just kind of reiterate what we just talked about. And I think it could be passed pretty easily. Any questions by the committee?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Seems like If lot we have time and can fit it in, do people feel comfortable taking this up? Yes. Okay. Alright, let's take it up, but we're going to have to get to I I

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: gonna Yeah. We're gonna deal with landlord tenant. I think we

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: would probably take a very short amount of time. But, yeah, I prefer not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: to wait

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank for the

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you. So, V, it's now one minute you you are one minute into I think into Right?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I don't think does anyone else have any

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: questions I appreciate for

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: the committee's time. This is a issue that I feel very passionately about. I'm so grateful last session that we added the Safe Leave provisions, I appreciate it. It seems like the committee's pretty supportive of just working on this provision and not waiting for the Senate.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I, just to explain to the committee where we're at, we've got the mobile home bill, the manufactured home bill out.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we met this morning with ways and means. They're they get what the bill is trying to do. They're struggling with our canadies of the tax pieces of the bill that I don't think Gayle or I understand fully, but I think they're acting in good faith, and they're working. Is that a fair statement? Seven seventy five, which you passed out the Rural finance. Rural finance bill is in ways and means to be heard on Friday, and what's left of our big bills is the one we're talking about today and we'll talk about tomorrow until we can reach consensus. I thank the committee, I think I have now talked to three people who were in here from different persuasions, and they were all raving about how serious the committee was, which is, I think, important. It's probably more important to the landlord tenant than many things, because there's so much controversy, you know, there's so much tension around this, and I think literally the act of seeing committee members wrestling with these issues, no matter how much I accuse you all of being pedantic, I think it's worth it. It really makes a difference. So, two of our three big bills are out, a third is under consideration. After we get landlord tenant to wherever we're going to get it, then we have to look at the 80 bills that are on our wall and decide what can we reasonably do in the remaining time. I think it's safe to say, probably, we want to focus on bills, number one, feel like we can prioritize, but also that don't have to go to multiple other committees, because they just won't be timed. So, we just have the rest of this week, and then the week after, next week we're not here, and then the week after, one week before processing. Yes?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask if the chair would like this recommendation I've seen done before on other committees? If I don't want to look at it as homework because I hate homework. But if committee members wanted to look at the bills that are on our wall and kind of think about if there are a few meeting those guidelines, knowing that we have, I don't know how we got to was that crossover, but and kind of put a few in your mind that meet that criteria that you might want to talk and see if we can work on, I think could be really helpful in that remaining time, maybe. I don't know how you feel about that, but that's something that I know I do. Look at the remaining bills, pick a few that I think might be so then we can hear what those ones are to people and stuff.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Now, one thing to think about is try to avoid bills that have to go through treaties, and try to avoid, and I would add, if a bill is only important because it's attached to a lot of money, I mean, I'm just kind of somewhat discouraged about that. Wouldn't say don't, but it's a factor.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And then there's also things that might be able to attach, like for instance, the Senate has a housing bill that might come here that has something to do with HOA in it. Maybe there's HOA bills that we could put on that, so we don't have to do those right now. But, so things that are kind of on their own that don't require money and a lot of other committee work that we might be able to work on.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay. Any final questions, statements, thoughts before we adjourn? It is only three oh, you are right.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: On that girl. Girl. Is there a senate bill coming to us about that increase, the cap on the senate or something on rents? She pulled it

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: out. It's not in Allison's committee bill. Okay. I don't think.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't think, you're talking about on short term rental or on manufactured homes.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Communities. Right, I don't think so.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Was it only manufactured home communities? Okay.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm pretty sure she took it out. What she's referring to is there is a committee bill in Senate economic development, and it has got a lot of stuff in it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, and one thing in it that I'm a hard know of.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm not sure whether it will come to this committee or not, There's depending on what's in also a bill, Senator Watson is working on a bill in her community, I don't think appeals is necessarily going anywhere in the Senate.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That really makes me angry.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Who do you want hear it? Yeah, they'll hear it.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sure. Do people want to hear it right

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: now? About

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: what's in their Senate code that I don't like? Sure. All right. I shouldn't say hard no because I could I'm never an absolute hard no, always there could be, but there's a provision in that. So HOA stuff is something that I'm pretty passionate about. I've lived in an HOA for twenty two years and I know a lot about it. One of the things in the bill that I have raised to center like, it's not like it's a secret. So in our community, we have a cap on how many renters you can have in the community so that our entire community isn't just renters because Right. We do allow renters in our bylaws, but it's not unlimited. And there was a provision in this bill that would open it up that you couldn't restrict how many rental units you would have. So in my community, we have a small HOA of condo owners. I'm fortunate enough when my grandpa passed away, I got a condo when I was 22 years old, and I've been there ever since. You do the math, it's how old I am. And I wanna see people who are homeowners to places that are affordable, big where I live. And if they're all rentals, and what if we have a bunch of out of state rental people coming in and buying up entire HOA communities, and then the entire not to be NIMBY, I'm definitely not a NIMBY person, but my concern would be that our small HOA community could become a bunch of folks that don't care about the property, don't care about everything. And I want to create more rentals, absolutely. But my concern with removing the ability to place those restrictions could have unintended consequences. I don't think where I live and my constituents would like very much. So that's a provision that if it's unlimited, I'm not comfortable with.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. Thank you for sharing. Yeah. Okay. Anything else?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I am disappointed about appeals because I feel like that was something that not you you did amazing about it. It's honorable. Right. And I am on it too. But I think that when we first had that remember when we had that meeting with the senators on the off session, like, before we came back? There was kind of a discussion with the senators, I and myself said, I don't want to be here without appeals. And if we're doing the heavy work on landlord tenant law and other things, it was my understanding that there would be that kind of lifting downstairs as well. And appeals was something that was in my top three to five things that I wanted to do this session. So, I am disappointed. Just wanted to make that public that that's disappointing.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I agree. Thank you, everybody. We are adjourned until tomorrow at 09:15.