Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome everybody to House General and Housing, and today is the February 25 already, 2026. Today, the first thing we're going to do is take up H-four 59, which is an act relating to the Parental and Family Leave Act, and well, and the interaction with workers' comp. And we're going to have three witnesses, plus hear from legislative counsel. And then at 11:00 and after lunch, we're gonna work on the landlord tenant bill seven seventy two, further markup and discussion. So, without further ado, I'll tell you what, yes, Rutio?

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Come and sit down. Have you testified here before?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Not this way.

[Speaker 0]: Not this this, but I'll tell you what, I think we'll introduce ourselves to you. Julio Thompson is director of the Civil Rights Unit, he'll introduce himself, but Debbie, why don't you start and let's go around.

[Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: I'm Debbie Dolgin, and I represent St. John's Ray Poplar in Kirby.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I'm Tom Charlton, Athens Chester, Crafton, Windham.

[Leonora Dodge (Member)]: Hi, good morning, Leonora Dodge. I represent Essex Town and the City Of Essex Township. I'm a big fan of your first name.

[Speaker 0]: I'm Marc Mihaly, and I represent Plainfield, Marshfield, and CALS.

[Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Good morning, I'm Mary E. Howard, and I represent Rutland City District 6. Good morning and welcome. I'm Gayle Pezzo,

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: and I

[Gayle Pezzo (Member)]: represent Chittenden 20, Old Chester.

[Speaker 0]: And Saudia and Saudia, you're next.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Saudia LaMont, Lamoille, Washington District. Welcome back.

[Speaker 0]: And Emilie Emily.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Emilie Krasnow, South Burlington, Chittenden 9.

[Speaker 0]: So, the committee is one of

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: the things I, one of

[Speaker 0]: the many things I like about this committee is that actually it represents pretty much every kind of place in Vermont, from very urban to very remote. So, do take it away, tell us what you're gonna tell us.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Well, morning from my side of the table, again, I'm Julio Thompson, I'm an assistant attorney general and co director of the Civil Rights Unit. Among the functions of the Civil Rights Unit in the Attorney General's office, that's germane to this bill is that we are a principal government agency that enforces the Rental and Family Leave Act, or the PSLA, that's the state law that grants up to twelve weeks of job protected leave for serious health conditions and other types of leave that recently added last year, such as military related leave. And so I've been in the civil rights unit, either as director or co director, since 2009. I've been in the attorney general's office since 2004. Prior to that, and just giving you my experience in the area of family law, before that I practiced law in Los Angeles as a private practitioner in the area of civil rights and employment labor law, including representing both employees, employers, and labor representatives in issues related to, at that time, the federal Family Medical Leave Law when it was first enacted in the 1990s. The

[Speaker 0]: committee I cannot resist asking you, since I got, after a lifetime in San Francisco, moved to Vermont in 'four, I'm curious, what got you to Vermont?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I think the committee would need probably an extra half hour or It's a

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: long and good story.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: My mother was born in Vermont, and my family, my mother's side, it's been a month since the 1860s, they moved, they and their college moved from hierarchy to Southern Vermont, so.

[Speaker 0]: Longer discussion. Longer discussion, that's right, thank you. Sure,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: so I'm happy to talk about April. I wasn't really sure on the face of the bill what problem the bill was seeking to address, but I did have the opportunity right before I walked over here to read the written statement from I think one of your witnesses later today from the Teamsters regarding the interactions between workers comp and parental family leave. I'm happy to try to put that into legal context for you and talk about those laws. Our office does not enforce the workers compensation law unless they're, except for one narrow exception, which is that if we find that an employer has retaliated against an employee, let's say by firing them, giving them a promotion because they filed a workers comp claim, that kind of punishment, that punishing behavior is something that our office is authorized by statute to enforce, but the overall administration of workers' comp benefits, including topics that you'll hear about the two year right of return under the workers' comp law is something that I think Dirk hear from the Department of Labor is much better qualified to answer. One of the other laws that our office enforces that I think is relevant to the committee's consideration here is the Vermont Fair Employment Practices Act, or CEPA. CEPA is sort of a Vermont counterpart of a bundle of federal anti discrimination laws, so it prohibits discrimination against race, color, sex, national origin, religion, additional pedigree categories in a way that's very similar to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, federal law. It also prohibits age discrimination, which is analogous to the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act. It also prohibits violations of equal pay standards, which is similar to the 1963 federal Equal Pay Act. And probably most pertinent to today's discussion I think is it also prohibits discrimination on the basis of actual perceived disability, which is parallel in many respects to the Americans with Disabilities Act or going back further, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. And so if an employee has a medically related condition that requires them to leave from work, in our day to day practice, it is possible that when we're looking at what laws apply, we can be looking, oh, and I should add, part of the Fair Employment Practices Act includes a duty to accommodate employees who are pregnant, so medically related conditions related to pregnancy and childbirth, whether or not it's a disability, that was a relatively recent addition to the Fair Employment Practices Act, we enforced that as well. So it's possible that when employee is taking leave, that you can have up to four, five statutes that apply simultaneously. Those federal laws that I mentioned, like Title VII and the like, are laws that we do not enforce. Those are federal laws that are enforced by the federal government. There is the federal Family Medical Leave Act, which is similar to Vermont's Parental and Family Leave Act. It's far narrower, it's less generous to employees in general, and that again is a law that we do not enforce, but we could have an employee who has a medical condition that's covered by workers' comp, is eligible for parental family leave, constitutes a protected disability, require, and then the employee may subsequently require leave related to pregnancy and independent condition. So we have all of these multiple laws that apply at the same time. Turning to the bill, what I understand the bill to seek to do is to exempt at least four employers with 50 or more employees, to exempt leave that's related to workers' comp, workers' comp entry from the Parental and Family Leave Act. Just affirming the purpose behind that from one of the letters, think it's the only letter that I saw, that at least I read about that in support of the bill is the idea that under the Parental and Family Leave Act, the employer decides when that leave applies as a matter of law, like if you have a serious health condition, the employer starts the twelve week clock, so to speak, and that if you have a workers' comp injury that's also a serious health condition, an employee can come back from the workers' comp leave and be out of parental family leave back, which they can, so they no longer have a twelve week leave balance that they could use for their own, if they were pregnant or if a family member

[Speaker 0]: Actually, do you want me? I have a question about how this works, it's mechanics. I don't know as much as I ought to probably about the PFLA. Okay. Let's say I'm an employee and I decide I need to leave for whichever one of the permitted reasons, do I request that of the employer? How does it start? How does the clock start?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: The clock starts, and this is true under federal law as well, I'm not from the US Department of Labor, but I know enough about that, I'm like to say this confidently. The clock starts under state and federal law when the employer has enough information to know that the reason for the leave qualifies for PFLA leave.

[Speaker 0]: So currently, if I come in and say, I've been injured on the job, so I'm leaving, and I need workers' comp. Under current law, the employer unilaterally could say, Well, I'm starting your FMLA clock too. PFLA. Your PFLA too.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: If the information provided to an employer counts as a serious health condition. Yeah, so Not all work related injuries don't count as serious health conditions. Oh, they don't. Under, well, I mean, that's an empirical question. Let's just say many do not.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Many do not, okay.

[Speaker 0]: But if it's serious, they, the employer, can unilaterally, under the current law, start my PFLA clock?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: This issue hasn't been decided by the Vermont Supreme Court, but there's argument a to say that not only can the employer do so, but that it must do so. That issue has been decided under federal law, because the benefits of the Parental Family Leave Act is that when the person goes on leave, they have job protection for up to twelve weeks, they have the right to continue benefits, including continue under the same terms and conditions as if they were continuing working, except they may have to continue paying their portion of the premium like we all do in our paychecks, and so under federal law courts say not only may the employer do it, but it must, because the point of the law was to protect people on leave. Okay. So the employer, at least under federal law and likely under state law, the employer doesn't have a choice the way the law said it.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Go ahead. So how does that work as far as the medical benefit with workman's comp?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: So, I mean, you can hear I think probably a better depiction of the workman's comp side of it, but workman's comp provides payment of medical costs that are traceable to the injury or illness that's compensable, so if someone has a work related injury, let's say they slip and fall and

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: they break their arm, I

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: think that was an example used in the letter, the employee who already has health, if they have health insurance and now employers do of course, but if they have health insurance, then that's worked out between the workers' comp carrier and let's say Blue Cross or whatever the employer's health insurer is, because whenever you go to the doctor's office, I just did a medical check-in last week for my annual checkup, and they ask you, is related to an accident? Sure. Right, and so there's paperwork that's put into place so that the insurance companies sort out which insurer is paying which costs, and so if you go, if my appointment is related to a cough that I've had, then workers' comp wants to know that from the doctor and says this relate to an accident because this guy had a broken arm, said no, said they had nothing to do with the arm, they're like okay Cigna or whoever, it's a private insurer who would cover that. If the employee doesn't have medical insurance, employer doesn't provide it under workers' comp, then the workers' comp insurer, and I think all employers are required to have workers' comp insurance that a carrier is responsible for picking up the medical costs and including treatment, know, assistive devices, cruxatives, canes, wheelchairs, as well as rehab to get the person back to be able to work again, that's picked up by the workers' care. So that's how medical benefits are.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: And that's immediately if the injury or illness is a result on the job. Yeah,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: it's kind of, I think it's kind of, that may be in over my head here, think I the workers' comp laws, if I recall correctly, and Kirk will definitely correct me if I'm wrong, I think there's like a three day exclusion period, like it starts to kick in three days after, unless it's a longer term disability, and disability I mean inability to work, in which case everything from the accident forward is covered. I could be wrong about that.

[Speaker 0]: I think what we should do is wait until Dirk's here and then ask him all the questions It's we want to know

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: a little bit out of our lane in terms of when the medical benefits kick in. So when I look at this bill and the question is, it's kind of a policy question, do you want to exclude workers' comp from the twelve months? Do you not want to count that against the clock as it does under state law and federal law if the injury is a serious health condition or serious illness that's work related. What's not in here, and it's just, and I don't know whether it's oversight or intentional, but it's something to consider, is that as I read the draft, and I have draft 1.1 of the bill, as I read the bill here, the workers' comp injury, it doesn't count as it doesn't count as unpaid leave under the Parental Family Leave Act, and as I read that, as I understand it, that not only means that the twelve week bank is unused, but it also means that during the period of the workers' comp leave, there is no duty by the employer to maintain the employee's health insurance, workers' comp laws don't require that, There's no duty for the employer to maintain any other benefits that they might have had, so if they had profit sharing or some kind of, know, some other benefits, the PFLA says all of your benefits will continue continuously for those twelve weeks as if you never left. So if this were excluded, those benefits would be denied to workers' comp employees, whereas now they would enjoy them at least for twelve weeks. So that's a choice you would have to make as to how you would address that issue. Under workers' comp law, if you're unable to work, the law provides that for a period of up to two years from the time you were unable to work, you have a right to return to your job for the next available position that I think it's called suitable alternative employment, which basically means a position that's similar or substantially similar to what you have, similar pay, but not the identical job if it's not available. And if you were to go to court about whether the employer's denying you that right or not, you would have to prove your case, the employer would have, if the employer wanted to defend itself, it would just have to prove by preponderance of the evidence 50.1% that it wasn't available. Under the Parental Family Leave Act, the employee's rights are stronger, the right of return right is stronger if the employer, you're in the same situation, employee's out for eight weeks, they want to come back, and the employer says, sorry, we filled that position, it's not available. The employer can only defend that action by a standard of clear and convincing evidence, which is more like 66 or 67 in court, so it's a tougher burden for the employer to carry. So depending on what side of the point you look at, the PFLA makes it harder for the employee to defend not bringing someone back than the workers' comp does, or on the employee side of the coin, it gives the employee a firmer right to reinstatement to same or similar job than the workers' comp does, and so if you exempt workers' comp injuries, you'll be part of, at least as written, employees will

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: have a harder time, somewhat harder,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: than they did under the PFLA to make the case if there's a dispute to get their job back.

[Speaker 0]: Is there I mean, I have no idea what we will do, but is there a legal barrier under the PFLA if we were to provide that the decision about whether to start PFLA simultaneously with workers' comp were elective on the part of the employee? Well, I mean,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: there's no barrier to do that. I think that's a policy decision about, I mean, letter that I saw today describes something like this gap in coverage as a loophole. I wouldn't describe it as a loophole, because I'm confident that this legislature did not ignore this issue. It was just a matter of where it drew the line, and positive that Congress did that because I followed very closely the FMLA that was going through Congress. They were quite, because the PFLA and the FMLA create costs on employers in terms of keeping a physician available, in terms of maintaining health insurance for someone who's not working, and so those were where the lines were drawn, and Vermont drew the lines differently than state law. As a matter of practice, the employees do for at least some conditions have the right of choice as a practical matter if they conceal from the employer why they're taking leave. If an employee, for example, has, let's say they have a serious health condition, forget workers' comp for a second, but in general, if an employee just tells an employer, I'm taking two weeks off, but doesn't disclose to the employer that they're doing so for purposes of a medical procedure, those two weeks are never going to be counted as PFLA unless there's evidence that the employer knew it was for a serious health condition. So in our enforcement practice, when we see cases, and we're looking at is this employee protected by PFLA or not, the evidence we're looking for is what information was provided to the employer. Now in the workers' comp context, that's harder to do if the employee reports workplace injuries, but our practice experience is that employees don't always report workplace injuries either, seeking their own medical treatment and not ever disclosing it to the employer for various reasons, maybe fear of retaliation, or for maybe they don't want to use their PFOA back, and so the facts on the ground tell us that in some instances, employees make this choice on their own. And so doing what they are forfeiting is job protection under the PFLA, but for some of those employees, they already have job protection under a collective bargaining agreement or something else. The PFLA itself doesn't supersede, doesn't prevent the employers from providing more generous benefits, more job protection, more leave than is provided under the PSLI.

[Speaker 0]: Do you have a question, Emilie?

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I do, I have two. My first one, thank you, Julio, my first one is what are other, you're an expert in this field, I'm dubbing you that, What are other states have you seen this come up in other states and have what are what is their solution, or what have they done in that? That's my first question. Do you want both now, or do you want

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I'll check both.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So that's my first one. I'd like to know what other states have done about this. And my second one is, my request from you would be, at the end of everyone's testimony, if you could write up a formal memo to the committee with your opinion on this particular bill from whether it's from your office or you, just kind of what your findings are formally. Thank you.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Okay, with respect to the second request, I'll forward that request to the Attorney General's office, and I'm not sure I'm making findings here at all. I'm just

[Speaker 0]: It would just be your testimony, whatever.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Okay, and with respect to the first question, I haven't done research on this issue for other states, we weren't asked to do that and I haven't seen it. For the states that I know that have different types of family medical leave, I'm not aware of any that exempts, A, exempt workers' comp related serious health conditions, or B, that expressly say that the employee gets to start the clock rather than employer. These laws typically operate where there's a saying in the trade that, at least for Vermont law, I should say, and also I would say for California, that the employer has the power of the clock and the employee has the power of the purse, which is that the employee has the right to decide, and it's under state law, when they're going to use paid sick leave to apply to the PFLA leave or vacation leave, and the employer doesn't get to choose that any longer. So I'm not aware of what other states have done on this issue. I'd be interested.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No. Thank you. So it sounds like after we hear testimony from folks with lived experience, we may have to dig in a little deeper to find out if this is happening or maybe they can provide that. But I would request your office to if possible, after reviewing what we do today, to either maybe they won't weigh in, but I would like to know a formal response to to this situation.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Do you

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: see what I'm asking?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I'm not sure what this situation I think what you're asking for is a reaction to the testimony that follows me today.

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Correct.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Okay, rather than like a vote of the committee? Right. Okay, I'll

[Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: pass it. No, I would like your off right, I would like your office, if possible, to review the testimony today and produce either an opinion, a non opinion, or a response. Does that make sense?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I understand the request.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Yes. Thank you. Ashley?

[Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Sorry. I have some information that might be helpful regarding kind of best practices. I think, one, most employers will request you'll see, like, a doctor's note after three consecutive days of being out for an illness or an injury. And that's mostly so an employer knows that, hey, we should be having a PFLA conversation. That being said, the other thing I just wanted to go back for information that wasn't sure. There is a three day waiting period for workers' comp for total disabilities for that benefit. If an employee is out after the seven day mark, it goes back and retroactively pays those three days. So it's kind of that in between time, if that makes sense.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. I have just one more question myself. Think you've answered this. I just wanna reflect it back, make sure I've got it right. If I were an employee who had a desk job, let's say I'm a writey, I write. Yeah. And let's say I don't have to type, okay? And let's say I break my arm. So my understanding is I could, if I wanted, apply for workers' comp, because it wouldn't be a serious injury. It is injury on the job, I broke my arm on the job. But I could not apply the FLA, because it's not a serious injury. Is that correct?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: No, depends on what kind of break, because serious health condition under the PFLA includes not only something that required you to be

[Speaker 0]: in the

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: hospital or present the risk of death or disability, but also the languages that it requires ongoing care from a healthcare provider. And so the question is whether we meet that, that the language is requires continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. I broke my wrist and I had to undergo physical therapy. And so

[Speaker 0]: that may well qualify for PFLA. PFLA, okay. So that's fine. Saudia?

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you. Have a question. I'm trying to understand if it pertains, and it's not directly to the bill, it's an FMLA question around employment and the severe health conditions or health conditions. If someone has a chronic health condition that requires ongoing treatment, but they are employed and they go to work, but they have to call out and are there does the the FMLA have protections around them getting written up for the amount of times that they call out, or are there no protections against that? Does that that I don't know if that was a clear question. I'm sorry.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I think I have enough information to ask it, if I don't, or you don't think I'm answering it, representative, please just let me know and then you can add additional facts to zero me in. So if you have a chronic health condition that requires treatment by a healthcare provider, it seems to us likely if you came to our office and described that, let's say for example, one chronic condition is asthma, and sometimes people have to go to the doctor's office to undergo nebulizer treatment because their inhaler isn't working, that would count as PFLA leave, and if the employer had limitations on its leave, it could not discipline, I think you said write up the employee for taking job protective leave, so that would be the example I gave, if the employee was disciplined for going in for nebulizer treatment, that would in our view, if they're otherwise covered by the PFLA, that would be a violation of the law. We would

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: take that.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: Thank

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: you. So they would have to go in for medical treatment. If they don't so if they are sick and they haven't realized they're at home and they don't go legal on their own, that that would not cover, correct? I just wanna understand that.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I'm sorry, part of the audio cut out, so I couldn't make up your question.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Oh, I'm sorry. And so it the connection is the going to the medical provider, so like if you had a nebulizer at home and they didn't go to the medical provider, they did their own, they were incapacitated and couldn't work, but did their own treatment out. Does that qualify or it requires the medical provider treatment?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Well, medical treatment isn't limited to doctor's office visits. So for example, someone had another chronic condition, let's say sciatica, which be, which when it flares up can be excruciating and prevent people from driving and from standing or even from sitting in most physicians. If the doctors orders you for bed rest, with certain pillows that are used to treat that to keep the knees close to the chest, For example, that leave, it's prescribed or recommended by the healthcare provider would be PFLA covered. And so the same protection from discipline would apply if the person had leave a pill.

[Saudia LaMont (Member)]: Thank you so much.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Other questions for Julio about this bill or PFLA? We do have

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: to move on to other witnesses. Yes? Just very briefly, don't know if you already covered this or not, but all of these scenarios are the federal leave act and job protection is for employers that have 50, at least 50 employees, correct?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: It's a little bit, the requirement's a little more stringent than that. It's the employee seeking FMLA, coverage has to demonstrate that the employer has 50 or more employees within a 75 mile radius of where they work. So if you are the one Apple store employee here and the rest of Apple is in California, the FMLA would not apply to you because you don't have 49 other people, and you also have to have worked for at least a year and worked twelve fifty hours. Okay,

[Speaker 0]: thank you. Any other questions of Julio at this point? Julio, thank you so much. Sure. Appreciate it. Dirk, you're next. Welcome to the committee, Dirk.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: I remember

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: if I testified last year or not, and I haven't been here in a while, but my name is Dirk Anderson. I am the Director of Workers' Compensation and Safety at the Vermont Department of Labor. I've been in that position for approximately four years, and I've been with the department in other legal capacities since 2002. I've looked at the bill, I've glanced, I didn't read it line by line, but I've glanced at the letter

[Speaker 0]: in support of the bill.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: I don't have a position on the bill as drafted, but I can say that I concur with pretty much everything that Mr. Thompson said. Or a

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: non workers' compensation attorney.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: His knowledge of the law is pretty good. And I think I'd just like to make a few points. I'm happy to answer any questions about workers' comp or as it pertains to this bill. There was a question that I think was answered by Representative Bartley, that yes, if you're injured at work with a workers' comp compensable injury and you're out of work for three days, the temporary total disability kicks in on the fourth day, and if you make it past day seven, then the first three days are compensable as well. The way workers comp, you know, I'm coming at this from the workers' comp side rather than the PFLA side, Workers' compensation is much more comprehensive than PFLA. Any injury sustained at work is potentially compensable, it doesn't have to rise to the level of a PFLA or FMLA qualifying disability. You know, if you get a laceration or, you know, you're a mechanic, each piece of rust falls in your eye and you just need to go walk into the doctor's office or the ER and you get it treated and you're out, that is compensable. There are a lot more compensable workers' compensation covered injuries than PFLA disabilities. So that's one point. I would also confer Mr. Thompson that the protections granted by the PFLA are more robust than the

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: protections you

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: have under workers' compensation law per month, because even though your injury care for your injury is covered, medical treatment, time out of work, what we call temporary total disability is paid for by your employer's insurance carrier, at 66% of your average weekly wage, as long as you are unable to return to work. There's no twelve weeks, there's really no end to TTD, temporary total disability, other than that the injured worker recovers or comes to what we call maximum medical improvements, or there are a couple of other disqualifying reasons why the TTP benefits can stop. But if somebody is seriously injured and they need to schedule a surgery and they can't get the surgery for months and they're unable to work during that period, workers compensation will cover them through temporary total disability. What workers' compensation does not do, and this is, I think, important to consider in light of this bill, is keep you in your job with your benefits, as Mr. Thompson testified. So if you're injured at work and it's a compensable workers' comp injury, you may be at a temporary total disability benefits, but your employer has the right to say, Look, it's the busy season, I totally need somebody doing your job, I'm bringing somebody else in, do it. Your benefits are discontinued, your insurance can be discontinued. The employer does have the obligation under the law, as Caledonia said, to reinstate you if you recover within two years, but the reinstatement is conditioned, it's the first available suitable position. So if you're out for ten weeks and you are on PFLA, you still have PFLA protection, but if you say, boss, I'm fine now, I'd like to come back to work, it is not a violation of the Workers' Compensation Act for the employer to say, you know, I just don't have a position for you right now, I'll let you know when I have one. If the employer thinks, I'm sorry, if the employee thinks the employer is acting in bad faith, they do have a private right of action, but the burden is on the employee to bring that right of action. So if you want to protect your rights under Section six forty three, the Workers' Comp Act, to be reinstated to the first suitable available position, the onus is on the employee to bring a lawsuit, essentially. So there is a trade off, as I see it, in this bill between the protections afforded by the PFLA and the benefits they can get from workers' compensation. I understand the desire here is that someone receiving workers' compensation, temporary disability benefits, not have to burn their PFLA. I understand that, but I do see that there's a trade off.

[Speaker 0]: Right. Could you characterize in any way you desire the litigation playing field, if you will? Is it the case is generally fine? Do the cases reinforce the sense that it's really up to the employee to prove that something really is suitable, is available, is it, are in most cases employees unsuccessful? Anything you want to say about the landscape, the litigation landscape, and kind of what it looks like.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: I don't really have a sense of how successful that litigation is, or how many employers are found to have acted in bad faith. I do think that,

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I don't really have a sense

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: about the numbers or the success of that type of litigation. Mr. Nickenburg, well, he left the room, just to practice workers' compensation on behalf of injured workers. Maybe he'd have some thoughts

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: on that.

[Speaker 0]: One thing that was mentioned that I really haven't thought about is, I assume that any contractual provision that was negotiated that deals with injury, that deals with return to work, anything like that, prevail only to the extent that it provides more protection than law.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: If there were additional protections under a collective bargaining agreement, then yes, absolutely. They would not contribute to the PFLA.

[Speaker 0]: Right, or the workers. Or the workers' responsibility.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Right. Any questions? Yes, Mary. Thank you. Good testimony. So if an employee is told that they don't have a job, can they apply for unemployment?

[Speaker 0]: Yes, but

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: if they are receiving workers' compensation, temporary total disability benefits, that's considered disqualifying income. So once they reach maximum medical improvement and those temporary disability benefits cease, and their job is not available to them, because it's been filled or whatever, then yes, they would be eligible. With some limited acceptance, they would be eligible for unemployment benefits at that point. In fact, there is a provision in the unemployment insurance form, and we'll wonky here, what we call it monetary method four, whereby an injured worker who has been out of work with the workers' compensation industry, when their temporary disability benefits end, if they haven't worked in, say, a year or eight months, the unemployment insurance statutes allow you to reach back to the average weekly wage prior to injury in order to preserve your right to unemployment benefits if you've been out for an extended period of time and then cannot go back to that job. So yes, Ms. Ashwin.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Thank you. On a lighter note, when I did workers' comp for the utility, we had a woman put in a claim for a torn skirt in the desk drawer. Obviously.

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: It's not an injury.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Not an injury. We also had an employee that was out and, they always tried to get the employee to come back from work, so longer to go, it's a little bit harder. And we were told that even though she went to the grocery store, you don't know where she went to the past, she threw the groceries on the counter, went to the couch. And then there was a picture of her in a fashion show diving into the swimming pool. So obviously she was asked if could back or she could come back.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: I assume one

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: of the conditions for an insurance carrier coming off temporary total disability benefits is if the injured worker fails to make an effort to remain in reasonable contact with their former. So if the carriers do have mechanisms for cutting off temporary total benefits.

[Speaker 0]: Dirk, any other questions for Dirk? Thank you so much. Thank you. Curtis, do you want, I understand, is Tracy here? There's an extra chair if you both wanna be testifying at once. You can both come up and sit. We just brought a chair in. Thank you, Mary. Welcome. I think you've probably heard our introductions of ourselves. Curtis, you want to introduce yourself, and also Tracy, if you're going to speak, tell us your name, and please proceed with your testimony. My name is Curtis Clough. I'm the president of Teamsters Local five ninety seven in Vermont.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: I'm Tracy Wayland, I'm a driver.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: At PBS. At UPS, yes.

[Speaker 0]: Tell us what you want to tell us.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Okay, well, appreciate the opportunity to be here and discuss this with you today. I appreciated listening to the previous testimony on the shortcomings of the protections for workers who are injured at work. So at Teamsters Local five ninety seven, we represent over 900 women and men that have built successful careers in sectors such as baggage delivery, freight, dairy processing, public transit, school bus services, building materials, wire cable manufacturing, police services, municipal highway maintenance. Our members work in the private and public sector, and they're proud to serve the vets itself. Local five ninety seven is looking to address what we see as a problem that's arisen for workers that need access to workers' compensation insurance when they're injured at work. And here's a real life explanation to illustrate the issue. Jane suffers an injury at work, breaking her arm. Jane goes out on workers' compensation for 12. During this time, she receives a letter from a nationwide HR company, such as The Hartford, and returns to work when her arm is healed and she's cleared by her doctors. Jane returns to work and later notifies human resources that she's pregnant and will need to apply for parental family. HR informs Jane that she does not have any family leave remaining as she used her time to choose out for workers' compensation injury. The company signed up Jane for parental and family medical leave to run concurrently with her brother's compensation without her approval and without her consent. After learning, she'll not be able to use either state or federal family leave. Jane uses up all of her sick time, taking days here and there to attend appointments for prenatal care. On the day that Jane gives birth, Jane is not able to take maternity leave. She needs to make the decision there and then as to whether she risks getting fired for apathyism and losing her job and all of her medical benefits for herself and her family, or if she will continue becoming. Jane reports to the attorney general's office, thinking this must certainly be a mistake, certainly must be against the law. The attorney general's office gets back in touch with her and lets her know that, like with the federal act, the only requirement for the employer to be able to use up her job, protect the time under the state leave act is that her employer needs to inform her that she was being signed up for this good state. Age four fifty nine, an act relating to the Parental and Family Leave Act, is simple and straightforward legislation that seeks to quote what we view as a loophole that has had a negative impact on teamsters and family throughout the state. Age four fifty nine requires employers to receive, would require employers to receive consent from workers before signing them up for not shrinking family leave, without a workers' compensation injury. No worker should have to work through maternity leave or be unable to care for their sick child because an employer decided to run their work. Occupation in FMLA and Vermont Parental Family Leave concurrently. What are the odds that a worker does that humble tip comp, only to return if they have to take additional to go to medical condition? Not high, but does happen, And we need to hold employers to do this accountable for treating their workers like disposable garbage, essentially. If the ability to do this is such a benefit to the worker, as those who have come forward in some cases have testified. What's wrong with letting the employee make a choice about when they want to sign up for their own unpaid leave? Mean, what's wrong with making this process similar to other processes that workers have to consent to when they go to work? Workers have to decide whether or not they sign up for employer provided health care. They consent to that. Workers have to consent to how they get paid, whether it's via a live check, whether it's via direct deposit. Some employees have the option of taking the pay card. They need to consent to having things with health in their paycheck. They need to consent to a whole slew of other employment related benefits, and it's well established rules and law that they get to consent to those type of employment benefits need to use them. Workers' compensation is one of those situations that is unfortunately outside of their control. Nobody has a lot of say over when they get injured. Some people do have jobs that are a little bit less, maybe make a little bit less need for physical activity, but some jobs just aren't the same as that. Some jobs, they have I heard somebody mention working for the, I think, the phone company or one of the companies similar to that. I mean, I'm sure there are people that operate switchboards and there are people that climb holes. We represent people at some companies like UPS where there are people that do dispatch work. And there are people that have to hop on and off the truck 150 to 200 times a day, and they need to be able to be at full fiscal ability to do that. And the employer being able to run down unpaid leave time for those employees that aren't able to work when they've been injured because they can't do their job when they're injured, I mean, that really creates a stark dividing line between those two class of employees that already have some dividing lines between them. Before Tracy goes into his lived experience, I just want to talk about some experiences that have been brought to me over the last couple of years. So I want to talk about a man named Josh. Josh is a man who's worked to support his family for many years. He works in a dangerous industry. He has to work in the elements. He has to work long hours. He's not been a stranger to personal tragedy, having had a child who had cancer years ago. He spoke to me and anyone else who listened to him about his time working at PS, an employer that does have a notoriously high rate for workers' compensation compensable injuries, and he told us his own story about being injured while working outside of faulty equipment. Chau struggled for months to recover from his injury, finally to make it back to him. UPS and the Hartford group had sent him letters letting him know that they had opened up a Vermont parental family leave claim on his behalf. When he questioned it, they even had a term for it. They called it double dipping, telling him that because he had his injury at work, his employer was able to use up his entitlement to state and federal leave without his consent. Josh knew from his past experience just how important it could be to have this leak available, and his sixth sense was sadly spot on. Shortly after returning to work from his injury, Josh's wife is back in his vacation. She would need regular and, at times, intense medical treatments for the rest of her life. Josh would have to go months caught between a rock and a hard place, risking discipline for absenteeism if he was out to take care of his family, all because his employer was allowed to double dip, basically, without his consent. Jobs talks about how stressful it is working at one of the most dangerous employers in the state and having to worry about being forced into a lose situation if he gets hurt. I want to talk to you about an employee named Dave. I'll also be submitting an email from Dave that correspond to my testimony. Dave's a man who lives with his nephew. He adopted his nephew at a young age and has raised him as his son. When he was very young, his nephew began to struggle with mental illness. David has Lamoille parental family leave set up, so if he can attend doctor's appointments with his son, he can see his health needs. One year, David injured himself and he was put in a position where, while he was out of work, his employer filed on his behalf for Lamoille Parental Family Leave without David's consent. When David returned to work, David started to rack up disciplinary actions due to his absenteeism, time which had previously been protected due to it being for medical appointments. Dave was eventually issued a termination, all because he was doing the right thing, taking care of his family. In the long run, he ended up having to move his son's medical appointments to a online format, which were just not as effective as it had been receiving in person treatment, because he just wasn't able to get that time. I want to talk to you about a worker named Cameron. Cameron also works for UPS. Company, as I mentioned earlier, has a high rate of workplace injuries, maybe even the highest in the state. He suffers with Crohn's disease, which is a well known serious illness. He told me about how he'd been run into at UPS by another vehicle, no fault of his own, severely injured. He struggled for a year to return to work. He talks about how this happened to him when he had been out of work recovering from his severe injury. He had been notified that his Vermont Parental Family Leave and his federal leave entitlements were being used by an employer. After this severe injury, he was unable to take any days to get his very necessary treatment for Crohn's disease. Cameron talked about the worry that this circumstance puts him under. He talked about how this could, you know, making this so that workers have to consent to this could really help a lot of people in the state. I want to read a letter sent to me by a gentleman named Mike Alickey. Through absolutely no fault of my own, I was injured at work on 01/11/2024. My injury occurred while I was manually opening an overhead door at the UPS Brooklyn facility. This particular door had been written up for repair six times prior to my injury. Facility engineering department at UPS did not address the issue until after the insurance report. Spent the next nine months on workers' compensation. During this time, the Hartford insurance notified me, reached out to me via mail, The Hartford is a Vermont parental family leave provider for UPS. They notified me that UPS opened a claim in my name. This was done without my knowledge or consent. I called them immediately to let them know that I did not, was not on for my parental family leave, that it was a workman's comp through Liberty Mutual, my employer's insurance company. I was extremely confused as to how the company was in both buckets simultaneously. I did and still don't understand how it could be on both items at the same time. I was told by many sources that unfortunately, this was something that the law lacked. Unfortunately, during that time, when I was out for my injury, my father, Stanley E. Yulicki, was diagnosed with cancer. My parents live in Tegucay, Caledonia, South Carolina. I worked extremely hard to attend all of my doctor's appointments and physical therapy sessions while working to help my parents navigate a difficult time. I did almost all of this over the phone due to the trials between us and the physical therapy appointments that I was doing to get myself back to work as fast as possible. I was successfully cleared and returned to work in September. I called to Hartford to let them know that I would like to open up a parental family leave plan because of my father child situation, they told me that all my days had been used up for that. This was thanks to UPS' wrongful use of my Vermont parental family leave while I was on Vermont purpose compensation. Spent the next three months working sixty hours a week, twelve hours a day, five days a week driving a UPS package car. On three weekend occasions, I flew to South Carolina on Saturday morning, flew home on Sunday night to help my parents during this very hard time, all while returning to work in time for Monday morning. My parents needed a lot more help and more time for me than I was for. Unfortunately, UPS threatened me with discipline if I was to miss any days because I had no days left in my life. I was just trying to hang on until I earned new days from a lot of parental family leave to take time off and take care of my parents' needs. Stan did pass away, and I was only afforded by four days a few. Something needs to be done to change the improper use these days by employers like UPS. I'm joined today by a fellow teamster and a veteran, Tracy Brantland, who's right now, this very day, out of work due to a work related injury and having this very trapsity affect him personally. To close, I will reiterate, you will hear from some interests discussing that there is a benefit to workers doing this, that these workers have something to gain by employers doing this. We think this is a livable, and the decision should be left up to the worker whether double dipping is beneficial for them

[Speaker 0]: or Thank you very much. Any questions of Curtis before Tracy testifies? We can ask them both questions later. Tracy? Go ahead.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: I'm sorry not to get emotional. Told her

[Speaker 0]: I won't be the

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: first time I've

[Speaker 0]: been emotional, and we've all been through things that have made us emotional, so do not feel ashamed of being emotional.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: Last year, I broke a rib, not at work. They took all that from the late days, which stopped me from going to my mental health appointments weekly through the meeting. Employers for medicine, appointments for know checkups, all that. I tried to kill myself last year because I wasn't able to go to my appointments. I was out of work for two weeks at White River to try to get me back on my meds and all of that all because I got hurt and they took all of my stuff. Again this year I will be up for at least twelve weeks. Who Who knows what's going to happen after that. Again, I have weekly appointments with my therapist, bed checks, yearly appointments at White River just to keep it all up and I'm not going to have that because I got hurt at work and I got the email saying that they took or take my asthma right now. Those are, like I said, I need to

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: know,

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: stay in society. I did three combat tours, Ramadi, Iraq in 'five, Afghanistan twice, 02/2011, and I need my appointments and my days up even for flare ups. I sleep three to four hours a night because of my nightmares, because of the stuff that I've had to do and I've seen. Some days it's just hard to wake up, let alone be functional while working twelve to thirteen hours a day and trying to be safe and getting written up for not being safe or getting injured. I've been fired four times for using FMLA through UPS. I got my job back ultimately because the Teamsters got me my job back and then they brought it up as suspension for using FMLA.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Questions? Yes, Mary. First of all, thank you so much for your service. I'm gonna get emotional. I always feel we can't do enough for our veterans. My husband served in Vietnam, so I am amazed that this happened to you. A good employer would always treat their employees well if they want to keep them. And obviously, you're a good employee because you keep going back. I'm sorry that this happened to you. How do we prevent companies from automatically putting you on to family leave? Doesn't the insurance company contact you and say, by the way, you have been put on family leave? I mean, don't they require, they should require your signature to do this?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: You actually give them everything they need when you fill out the workers' compensation information for their workers' compensation insurance company, and they forward that right along to their FMLA, or they just use it internally. And you don't need to consent to be put unpaid leave. You just need to be notified.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Any other questions? I

[Speaker 0]: thank you as well, both for your service. My regrets for what you had to see.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: I

[Speaker 0]: do have ask. Yeah, go ahead.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: I was saying, in the testimony you provided, some repeated companies. UPS certainly, repeatedly, Hartford repeatedly. Has this been an issue in negotiating contracts with these employers? Has it been brought up? Has it been, do have the question asked?

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: So, in certain instances where we do negotiate on local levels, we don't negotiate on local levels. So we've been trying to fix the issue as much as we have the ability to do with our negotiations, locally, but we just, with some of these national employers, they just have contracts and statement.

[Thomas "Tom" Charlton (Member)]: You. The FI understood previous testimony. Some of the criteria for FMLA is not discretionary, it's part of FMLA. The federal government has certain criteria and when their ballot starts. There, know, the are a nationwide organization, is there any effort in Washington to deal with this at the federal level? Because if we change it here, we still have to deal with the fact that our laws probably end up abel anyways.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: So are the Teamsters at the national level addressing the same question? So I guess what usually happens when companies use FMLA and not parental family means they run them concurrently. Right. Law says

[Speaker 0]: Well, I'm not sure. Let's just say, I want to confirm this. Julio. Yes, Mr. Chair.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Julio Townsenden.

[Speaker 0]: Julio, you sort of test under the federal law and under the state law. Each. Must the employer start both simultaneous? If it's a serious, if the injury qualifies for both, must they start both?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: The question's been expressly addressed by the courts on federal law. Supreme Court has not had a case for signing that, but that's typically how it's been

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: interpreted. That

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: because it is, because the idea of putting someone on PFLA is that the employee immediately gets child protection under the Act, gets a guarantee of continued benefits under the Act.

[Speaker 0]: I understand, but do what, I remember your testimony is that the federal cases have decided that under federal law, the FMLA must run concurrently?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: I didn't speak about concurrently. I will say that it is incorrect that Vermont could offer a different benefit contrary to the FMLA. It does so already, like FMLA does not cover leave for in laws. So the FMLA has a specific provision that says, in the event of a conflict between state and federal law, the law which provides more generous benefits to the employee

[Speaker 0]: Right. But what I'm trying to address is the issue that was raised by Tom, which is the issue of, let's start with the state law. I understand that your testimony is that no case has yet decided whether the employer must start the FMLA simultaneously with the PFLA, right?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: That's right. I'm not a very

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Are you aware of any decisions by the federal courts that an employer must start FMLA simultaneously with workers' comp?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Yes, with workers' comp as opposed to a serious health condition?

[Speaker 0]: Right. Must they do both at the same time?

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: There may be cases, I mean, the FMLA only arises if there's a serious health condition. So if you get rust in your ride, the FMLA doesn't arise. For example, and that could be

[Dirk Anderson (Director of Workers’ Compensation and Safety, VT Department of Labor)]: a workers' comp. Right.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: So I wanted to distinguish too,

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: just

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: to make sure I

[Speaker 0]: understand. But supposing that both do apply. Right.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Now, there's no court that I'm aware of that has preserved for the employee the rights to elect FMLA if it's a work related injury. The only question, if it's a serious health condition, when the employer learns that it's a serious health condition, the FMLA clock starts ticking, irrespective of the source, broken arm on the weekend or

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: a broken arm at work, they're treated

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: the same.

[Speaker 0]: Under the FMLA. So an employer, if it qualifies under both workers' comp and the FMLA, the clock on the FMLA automatically starts to run.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Right, and for me, can't change from the FMLA.

[Speaker 0]: And we cannot change the FMLA here. That's

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: right, but

[Speaker 0]: you By preventing the clot from running.

[Julio Thompson (Assistant Attorney General; Co-Director, Civil Rights Unit)]: Right, you can only affect the PFLA clot, which can run concurrently or independently.

[Speaker 0]: Or independently, but we could. So, as I understand, Curtis, your testimony is not that you either do or do not want them to run simultaneously, you want the employee to decide that.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: We'd like the employee to be able to decide regarding their statement. Right, their statement. Yes. Understand that you guys said that.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I got it. I just wanted to say that I wanted to ask you, did your injury occur on

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: the job? Yes, January 2. At UPS? Yes. How did it happen? I was putting my truck into park and jumped up and my thought just bent back. Okay. And then I pulled the tank.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Right. But

[Speaker 0]: your job is on a truck, a UPS truck? Correct.

[Tracy Wayland (UPS driver; Teamsters member; veteran)]: I'm a driver. Right.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for taking the time to come and talk to us, really. Not everybody is willing to do that.

[Curtis Clough (President, Teamsters Local 597)]: Again, sorry, again, I got motion like I don't

[Speaker 0]: think you should apologize for that ever.

[Unidentified Committee Member (diarization mixed multiple members)]: Thank you very much.

[Speaker 0]: Questions by the committee. We're, at this point, thank you very much, both of you. At this point, we're gonna stop, we're gonna take a break. And Cameron will be here. He's supposed to be here right now. Let's take a short break. Everybody, buy a break here.