Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Welcome

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: everybody to the House Committee on General and Housing. It is Wednesday, 03/18/2026. March marches on. We're gonna up we're gonna spend this morning on S two thirty, which is a bill that's just come to us from the Senate on it's relating to fair employment practices, and our first witness is none other than Senator Thomas Chittenden, who happens to be the sponsor of the bill.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: So,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: no? That's who we are. It

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: was originally Senator Birchall.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Report he was the reporter.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: He was the reporter. Uh-huh. Okay. I thought Andy at some point wasn't Andy on here? But I guess not. Alright. So, Tom, welcome to the committee. Take it away.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: For the record, I'm Chittenden, Chittenden Southeast. I serve in the corresponding body in the committee and the senate. So thanks for having me today. There are really three parts of this bill. I'm the impression from conversations with some of you on this committee in the hallways that none of us should view it for big trials. The first section, I really see this as definitional synchronization and then some language cleaned up in the third section. So in the first section, when we passed the Parental and Family Leave Act for unpaid leave last year, we didn't do a, I don't think carve out's the right term, but we did a recognition of a federal definition for flight crews and how they are determined to meet certain hours and thresholds. But there is one other federally defined that I'm aware of and that I believe Ledge Council can speak more authoritatively to. There is one other federally defined role labor position, which is that of a teacher, because there are federal I'm married to a teacher and every year I get a big, $250 tax credit for being married to a public school teacher. So all this does doesn't expand the costs or expenses from a question I've asked. It just allows for consistency with the paid family, a parental family need that with the federal definition of a teacher so that there isn't some interpretation window gap that can just create the confusion and cost a lot of time at the local level. So it's just to synchronize those two things.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Got a question here.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Oh yeah. I'm so sorry, did I mishear? You said paid parental leave?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Unpaid.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Okay, sorry. Thank you.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: So that's the first section. The second section, similarly, since 1963, we've had the Fair Employment Practices Act in law here at the great state of Vermont. And when we passed the Parental Family Leave Act last year, Parental Family Leave Act, there was a difference in definitional terms. The Fair Employment Practices Act, which has been in place for fifty years and revised multiple times, does recognize crime victim as one of the categories that is addressed in that. But the definitions that we passed last year in the Parental and Family Leave Act left a window of opportunity for different interpretations. And so this synchronizes those and you'll see that language, which I am under the impression you've all seen before with one exception in our committee that worked up. There were concerns, I guess a fair word, concerns around the self attestations. And so the ability to self attest to these things caused some committee conversation. We heard a house committee was looking at the coerced debt terminology. And so we to support and discussion, we took a statement that you'll see in the bill would, similar to what you see in the coerced debt, which would allow for that, make the self attestation include a statement signed by the self attestor that what they say is true and accurate to the best of that person's knowledge and belief and an acknowledgment that if the statement is false, the employee would be subject to penalty for perjury or other sanctions at the discretion of the court. So that was something that just came up in discussion that we saw as a valid useful language just to give people confidence in what was being tested to. The third section was really because Senator Phil Baruth announced he wasn't gonna run for reelection, but he did say he was gonna keep teaching at UBM and we didn't want him to get any ideas. There's this little scrappy language out there that says that you have to retire at age 70 if you're faculty. We really wanna keep him around at UBM for as long as possible. So I believe this is language that the chair is fully familiar with it, so probably considered as well. So it strips out language that is in the Fair Employment Practices Act that is effectively mute or blunted since the update to that back in 1986. It was left in there because there were some conditions to still be in effect until 12/31/1993 for certain conditions when that time has passed, and so the statute is really a cleanup effort.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You will see that in a bill from us that has that in it. Stand alone. Okay. Any questions of Tom? Yes and yes. Go ahead.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: No, you go.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Might be for you, Senator, might be for ledge counsel and remind me of maybe the process. Enacting to flexible working arrangements.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: He stripped out all of the original language, and you'll notice one of the last things in the bill is to change the name of the union.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I was gonna say,

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: gorgeous, and Miriam just printed us off copies of the bill, so I confirm that. I appreciate it. Thank you so much.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: Words of vehicle.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, no, that's right. Right. I was curious about that as well.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do you have anything you want to say to your senator? I do. Oh, say you're the fan.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: No, I'm

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It's something an election No,

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm going going to say something nice. Thank you. And I'm going to be reporting parts of this bill today on the House floor. And I appreciate the work the committee did. I have many of the companion elements, so it's nice to see it in one place and look forward to working on that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Great. Thanks. Sophie, you got it. But you all want to talk? Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Don't be a stranger.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Did you have a time for

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: straight tour or was that

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: this time? I do need to be as soon after 09:30 as possible. Two builds that came across both are being up for discussion today. So as noted, title of the bill has been changed to Saoquent Practices, because it did strip out the original language, which dealt with flexible work practices. So these are all going to seem very familiar to this committee because it's actually a combination of three bills that we also have in here, H552, H87 which is on the floor today and H532 which you've already passed out and is actually sitting on the wall and sunny.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It was 08:37?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Eight eighty seven is another one and five thirty two is the last one. So this first one, as discussed, this is just an amendment to the Parental and Family Leave Act last session, Act 32 added in as reference to the service requirements for airline flight crew. This just has a corresponding reference to federal regulations for the federal Family Medical Leave Act for full time teachers. I did want to just very quickly review that language with you. Hold on one second. The

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: left is I'm looking at the left side of upsets, like, not working.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Everything is a little is a little foggy, this line. This was a page that wouldn't be helpful. So the language we're actually talking about, this is in the code of federal regulations and again there's reference here that you can see in A2 around special hours service requirements for airline flight crew employees. So that's what you addressed last time because they have a sort of their own unique situation. What this bill is doing is dealing with this language that's highlighted here. So under the Family Medical Leave Act, an employer must be able to clearly demonstrate, for example, that full time teachers of an elementary, secondary school system or institution of higher education or other educational establishment or institution who often work outside the classroom or at their homes did not work the twelve fifty hours during the previous twelve months in order to claim that teachers are not eligible for FMLA. So this is really not changing anything. All this is doing is providing a cross reference to the federal law, which makes clear that because teachers often they're not the hours they're working aren't necessarily just the hours they're in the school, but they're also working weekends and evenings at home. It just clarifies that the burden on the employer, if they're going to argue that a teacher has not included enough hours to be eligible under the FMLA, this is the burden that they're going to have to meet.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Just a comment for the committee. If you are under the assumption that there are 180ish days of school and a teacher is in the classroom or in the school for seven hours a day, that's 12:60, or 12:60. So regardless of if they're working on the weekend, if they're staying late, they still should be covered under this. So I think this is great, but just as a frame of math, I think that's helpful. And I

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: just wanted to emphasise this, because when this bill, which was H552, was introduced in this committee, there were concerns about why are cafeteria workers, bus drivers not included, why are teachers getting special treatment? And it's not that they're getting special treatment per se, it's simply just noting that the burden is on the employer, which it always is, but the burden is on the employer to demonstrate that they haven't worked the necessary number of hours. So I just thought it might be helpful for the committee to understand what this code of federal regulations that's referenced Bill two thirty is, what it actually means. Back to Sure. Yeah. I okay. So they have to work they're working a whole year before this goes into effect. So it's always based on your previous year. So if you had a bad year, let's say as far as working, would then the next year, would you still be eligible for So the family medical leave act looks it's twelve month look back, you look back the last twelve months, the employers actually have a choice in how they do that, so it can be a calendar year, it can be a rolling year. There are different methods, but the employer has to, they can't pick and choose for individual employees, they have to decide what method they're going to use. But yeah, you have to meet, the individual employee to be covered under the FMLA has to meet the eligibility requirements.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And under this, they wouldn't?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: All this is doing is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's short circuiting that.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not short circuiting anything. All it's doing is referencing language that's in the code of federal regulations that it talks about, it's really just highlighting in the back that it teaches their hours aren't necessarily limited to the time they're physically in the school building, that they work, you know, do work outside of school and that the burden is on the employer to clearly demonstrate that if they were to challenge the eligibility of a teacher to receive FMLA. Yeah,

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I agree.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So that's the first section. The second section, again, should be very familiar with this, this is H887, and this is again, it's just adding in victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking under the definition of crime victim under the Fair Employment Practices Act. So the Fair Employment Practices Act is our state law. It's sort of an amalgamation of various federal laws against the ADA discrimination, the ADA on age and employment, Title VII. And this is the act that covers discrimination, harassment on the basis of being in a protected category. So this is just clarifying for those victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking, that they are included in the definition of crime victim. And this is bringing over the language that was passed in Act 32 under the Prenton and Family Leave Act and just aligning it and putting it into the Fair Employment Practices Act. As Senator Chittenden noted, there was additional language, this language here, this sentence, where the, you can see.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, penalty of perjury.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, a self attestation shall include the following language. So that is the difference between what's in the Senate version of what's in H887. Is there somewhere that talks about what digital harassment is? Like, is it defining what harassment or stalking? So the definitions that are used in this bill as in the other, in the PFLA, sorry, is these definitions. It just cross references other titles in statute, so domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking. And again, these are the same references that were included in Act 32, they're the same ones about the France and the family event. Okay.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Currently self attestation, I think I've just always assumed that there's that penalty of perjury. Assume, do we, I mean, I'm fine with this. I just, like I said, I've just always assumed that if you're giving a self attestation, there's the intent that if this is proven to be false, there's that penalty.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, I think if an employee were to provide a statement to an employer and claim something based on this status and it turned out that was completely false, Certainly as an employer you could take disciplinary action against that employee. Mean lying is never an acceptable thing to do

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: in an employment

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: situation. So again, this was just the language that was added in Senate Economic Development. Otherwise, this is the same language that is otherwise in the parental family DBAD that was processed here. And then the final section, section three, again, was your H532, which already passed this committee, passed the chamber and is on the wall and said economic development. This is again just removing that language that has been essentially a lawful protest of the Grasseurs, so that is what is in S230.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Any questions of Sophie? We're now four minutes late.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: If you need me another couple of minutes, I can do that.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Any questions? Great, thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: See you on the floor. Support me.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So is the next series of witnesses that we have, Emilie Adams, Colin Robinson, and Charlie Blisserman, Are they, is any of them available? Charlie?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: Here, Emily. Emily, I'm from the AG's office. Emily,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have a seat. Emily, why don't we introduce ourselves to you since I don't think you've been here before?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: A very long time. I would appreciate it. I think I was talking with Todd that it was 2020, right before the shutdown, the last time I was in front of House General. So just for the record, I'm gonna introduce yourself. My name is Emilie Adams from the Attorney General's Office. I'm co director of our civil rights department. I would love

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin (Member)]: to meet all of you. I'm Debbie Dolgin. I represent St. John's Hood, Concord, and Kirby.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Hi. I'm Charlton. I'm Adams, Chester Crafton, and Joe Parsons, Groton Thompson, and New York.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Good Bartley, Sheriff Crafton, Georgia.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And I'm Marc Mihaly, and I represent Caledonia, and Plainfield, and Marshfield.

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

[Rep. Mary E. Howard (Clerk)]: Mary Howard, I represent Burlington City District 6. Welcome, Gayle Pezzo, Chittenden Twain, Colchester. Excellent.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. Emilie, take it away.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: Great. So as I mentioned, I'm co director of our Civil Rights Unit. The Attorney General's Office Civil Rights Unit enforces many of the laws that we're talking about here, including the Fragile and Family Leave Act and the Fair Employment Practices Act. So we engage in investigations and litigation as necessary to ensure employers are complying with those laws. I've been asked here today to talk about S-two 30, I think, as it compares to particularly the H-eight 87. So my focus is going to be on those domestic violence and sexual assault provisions. But I will just touch on the other, at least the teacher part very, very briefly, which is that AGO would have no objection to that cross referencing of the Federal Register. We do have instances where we see investigations relating to whether or not teachers have worked the hours to meet the parental and family leave threshold hours when there's kind of, you mentioned a bad year working, think, when there's some questions of that. And so that language be consistent with how we approach those review of hours to the home hours or that there's evidence that they did not in fact meet those hours and that that burden would be on leave. So that we have no objection to that or concerns around that language. I think I'd like to focus on 02:30 and H-eight 87. I do know that Todd was in here, I think last week speaking briefly on H-eight 87 to you. So I apologize if I'm repetitive in any way, but I will try to keep it brief. Our office supports this definitional change in the Fair Employment Practices Act to bring in that language from the Parental and Family Leave Act to ensure that crime victims are adequately protected under the Fair Employment Practices Act. Just to put a little bit of a frame of reference on this, because I do know there was some confusion in the Senate. When we're talking about the Fair Employment Practices Act, we're really talking about protections. This is not a benefit. This is simply being protected in your employment. So the Fair Employment Act has a myriad of protected categories that employers cannot lawfully base an employment decision on. So they cannot fire someone because of their gender or disability, sex, age, any of those categories. Crime victim is currently in those definitions. An employer cannot fire, discipline, or harass an employee because they're a crime victim. But of note, in 2018, when that crime victim definition was passed, it was limited to being identified, individuals were identified in a law enforcement document. So a police affidavit, a court document as being a crime victim. And so that has been the definition for the past eight years. When

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm sorry. Identified in a charging document or in a

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: There's a variety of cross references to criminal documents, but in essence, it's essentially it can be a police affidavit, There doesn't have to be charges filed, but there has to have been some engagement with law enforcement for them to be considered a crime victim in that context. When the legislature passed the expanded parental and family leave protections last year, and so now those are more of a benefit. That's a leave benefit, an unpaid benefit. The choice was made, which we supported, to include that safe leave provision, which includes leave for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, intimate partner violence. And that definition was broader than that choice of crime victim definition of Fair Employed Depress Act, which included what you're familiar with here, which is that you can have information from a shelter, a counselor, or self attest that you're the victim of domestic violence, sexual assault, or stockings. And so what our office's interest is here and what this bill seeks to do is better align those definitions so that it is not We have had circumstances where individuals have come to us claiming their employer has fired them because they're a domestic violence survivor, but they have said, But I never went to enforcement, but I did go to a shelter and I did see counseling, but I'm not identified in a court document anywhere. And under the current definition, they would not be protected from being fired if in fact, the firing was truly on that basis based on the current definition. So bringing in this slightly expanded definition that allows for other ways of showing that you are a victim is what we are seeking here and what this definition I'll change would seek to correct. I think it's our office's position that the language

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: in, I wanna make sure I

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: have this right, H887 is preferred over the two thirty language with the additional requirements under oath. Make sure I have that exactly what they were referring to, the penalty of perjury question. And I think the reasons that we believe that's unnecessary is that it simply creates more barriers for an individual seeking protections. Swearing or self agitation is not required for any other protective class to be covered. That would be sort of unique to being a crime victim and would place an undue burden, we feel, on the individual to have to do that. And again, here, particularly in the discrimination context, we are talking about a protection, not a benefit. In the lead context, you might be self attesting to say, here's myself attestation because I'm seeking time away to go to court to seek housing. But here we're simply talking about when an employer cannot take that adverse action because someone is a crime victim and the circumstances where someone would be affirmatively submitting evidence of their participation in the protected category seems limited and also seems unnecessary to require them to swear to that under the penalty of perjury.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: This is really helpful because I'm reporting eight eighty seven today on the floor. Excellent.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions, Emilie? I have questions.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Sure, excellent.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, I just want to reflect back what I think I heard. You think you prefer it without the penalty of perjury provision. I want to repeat the question that was asked earlier of a prior witness. If someone just lies in their attestation, What would the remedy to the employer be?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: Sure. So a fundamental concept of all employment discrimination law is that an employer can take disciplinary action or fire someone for any non discriminatory reason. And so if they learn that someone has lied, has claimed to be subject to a protection that they're not, or lied about anything else not relating to that protection, an employer can always lawfully take action in that circumstance.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Safe and fire,

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: yeah. Right. And that's the same for any other, if someone were to lie about any other protective category in order to obtain some benefit or seek protections.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I'm just trying to figure out, I'm trying to nose my way into the question of what's the real world difference between penalty of perjury and its absence. I guess if, so a landlord could essentially take action if they find there's a lie, and then it would be up to the lawyer, employee, to engage the courts. If they said, well, no, I didn't lie, they'd have to sue the employer, right?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: Right. So the way that employment law works, not to get too into the legal back and forth, if someone, I'm just going use our office as an example, if someone were to come to our office and say, My employer fired me because I'm a crime victim. And we were to go to that employer and say, We're investigating you to see if you engaged in this unlawful activity. And the employer were to come back and say, We didn't fire them because they're a crime victim. We fired them because they lied

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: about

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: part of this. And here's our evidence that this is a lie. We would then weigh those two things. Or if it were a court, the court would weigh those two things, perhaps obtain further evidence, testimony, and make a decision. And so like many other legal frameworks, it does come down to the weight of the evidence, but that is how that would play out in real life.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, and what would happen if penalty of perjury were there? Would it be different?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: You know, in an investigative standpoint, I can't say it would. I suppose in a court setting, there could be If a court was I don't know what happens. Exactly.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Difference is that I'm just trying to run this through. I know we're in the weeds, but I guess my inclination is there's really not much difference. A court if the court was convinced that, yes, they were lying, they would find that the employer could fire them. They also could censor them and find them under the penalty of perjury provision.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: The language likely

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: has a chilling effect. So if somebody sees perjury in language and maybe more think twice before submitting a lie. I see that argument. However, that chilling effect is broad as well in terms of perhaps being detrimental to individuals who are already in a vulnerable place and being afraid to disclose something. And that is, I think, of our offices concerns around that additional language, because it does appear unnecessary.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So in other words, it might Someone who's already scared, already inclined not to wanna make waves, when they see that, they might just think, I'm not gonna push this.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: That's our view. And again, we're talking about employment discrimination. So, the circumstances in which someone is sitting there considering whether they're self attesting to a victim status, I don't see those circumstances coming up very often. I see them having a genuine conversation with an employer. But for an employer to then say, I suppose maybe there's some overlap between the laws. Maybe someone's seeking leave and then self attesting in the course of that, and then that's used in the course of a firing. I guess that's the scenario we're talking about. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I was just gonna say, and as we have discussion as a committee on the bill, this will be very helpful testimony because when we were talking about it earlier, I was trying to explain the difference and you articulated it a lot better than I can. Like, we can decide as a committee what language And we want in the

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: I think I just do want to remind the committee that the self attestation language in its original form is already in the parental and family leave act. And that was passed last year. So this would actually create a further burden

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: in the laws that would not exist. August language aligns with the federal, and the one that came out of the Senate doesn't completely align because it has that one. That's

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: really really important. Important. Seven aligns with the current lead laws. Two thirty would add an additional burden solely for the purposes of the discrimination law.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So that's really helpful. Thank you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, the only other question I have is I'm not fully sure that I understand the teacher matter. Could you just one more time? I know our counsel went through it, but could you briefly tell us how it works? How does a teacher and So what this

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: I will go on the record to say I'm not fully familiar with the nuances of the CFR, the Code of Federal Register that's referenced, because we enforce the state law and that is a federal provision. But what I can tell you is within state law, the state law equivalent to the federal FMLA, which is that PFLA, Parental and Family Leave Act, to be eligible to take unpaid leave for a myriad of reasons, an individual has to work a certain hourly threshold in the year prior. As Sophie referenced, there's various ways to calculate that. Because teachers work certain months of the year, they don't always work in the classroom through the summer. Sometimes they are relying on hours outside of their classroom hours to reach that number. And my understanding is bringing in that CFR provision simply says that it's the employer's burden to show that they didn't in fact work certain hours outside the classroom if the teacher seeking leave is asserting that those hours should bring them across that threshold.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Is the See, what if we didn't pass this? Who has the burden?

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: It's still on the employer to show, again, using our investigative process as an example, if we had a teacher come to us and say, I was denied leave to which I was entitled because I worked the hours, we would go to the employer and say, show us their We would actually go to both parties and say,

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: show us your hours worked.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: But if the individual was able to, in good faith, say they worked that amount, it would be on the teacher Excuse me, on the school to show in the investigative process they did not reach that absolute Regardless

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: of if this is passed or not, it is always on the employer. This, while I think it's important as we are recognizing that this has become an issue, is more of a statement for teachers. And I mean, could be a teacher sends an email at 07:00 at night, and then when it's brought up, they can say, well, hey, look, it's 07:00 at night, that's outside the teaching hours. Most schools have, we have a cabaret coming up where it's after hours, and so all of those hours, regardless of if it's in their job description and job duties or not, are considered hours worked. And there have been times where employers are saying, well, you're scheduled from seven to three, anything after that is just- Doesn't count. Doesn't count. And I think this is where we're trying to say, No, it does count. It's always counted, but we're

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: just- Making it clear. Making it clear.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Shoot, Bob.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other questions of the Attorney General? Emilie? Allison, thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Maybe we'll see you for another six years next year. I hope so, thank you. Thank you for having me. Nice to meet you.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Really, thanks for your answer. It's really helped. It's clarified. Thank you. That was really articulate. Is Carly Robinson here?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Colin Robinson.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Colin, excuse me. The Carly's the reporter. That's right, yes. Colin, I think, has been here. Oh, yeah.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: It's been a minute, though. Spend a little more time these days in the education phase. When did last?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, wonder

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: why. Is

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: there something happening?

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Yeah, it's right. So for the record, Colin Robinson, Vermont, yay. My colleague Rebecca McBroom was originally gonna be joining me, but she's returning from a conference and got caught in the travel misadventures that our folks are interfacing with. I will be honest with you, after hearing the testimony from legislative counsel, the bill reporter from the Senate and the Attorney General's office, I don't have much of grand substance to add. I will say that the reason why we pursued and looked for this language when the Senate Economic Development Committee was looking at this is recognizing that there are two cohorts of workers under federal regulations, airline and flight attendants and teachers, that have these specific regulatory definitions. And given the work that was done last year in Act 32, we said, well, there's this federal sync up for airline pilots and flight attendants. Seems reasonable to do that for the only other category of workers that has that rebuttable production in federal regulation the same way. So if there's an effort to do some cleanup work on these, let's just do that to avoid any potential confusion that could pop up and just make sure that everybody's on the same page as I think you've heard from Marc. So at that point, I don't really have anything of substance to add, but obviously appreciate community's consideration, very much happy to answer questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions or caller? I

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: bet you're glad you went after the attorney general.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: She was

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: really helpful and nice. No, that was great. I guess, oh, we do have a question. I was just going to say thank you.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: You could say thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yes. I guess I'm just curious who, and as Ashley stated, this is more of kind of a clarifying thing of already practice. But I'm just curious who in that full time teacher thing in a school setting isn't covered.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: I think it's more, again, when somebody's looking to apply for and work with their employer to determine eligibility for unpaid leave, There have been, and I think you've heard the attorney general speak to this, there have been on occasion moments where, okay, people are trying to figure out is this person eligible or is this individual not? And as Representative Bartley spoke to, the facts are presented in that case. And I think the intention here is just to say, okay, we're syncing up. So if somebody's utilizing the state unpaid leave or utilizing federal family leave, there's not any opportunities for inconsistency. I'm not sure if I fully understood your question, but that was my attempt to read.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Were you asking about other staff in schools?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Yeah, I'm just, I mean, I feel I completely understand. This is like a more just making, as you said, making a statement kind of thing. But in doing so, are we making a statement as to a very small well, I shouldn't say small as a large group of people. But it's a select group of people who fall under that same situation within a school.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Yeah. Totally understood. And so, you know, a point of information, and I think, Representative Parsons, you're familiar with this, we represent two thirds of our members are teachers, one third of our members are other school employees, so school support staff. And one difference, of course, is the majority of school supports, if not all, most are hourly workers versus salaried, and so there's a hierarchy there. But I think in this particular scenario, the reason why we pursued this conversation with your counterparts in the Senate was recognizing that airline flight crews and teachers are the only two folks in federal statute that have this specific sort of regulatory definition and just saying, okay, if it's good enough for airline flight crews to kind of tie into that definition, shouldn't we do that for teachers? It wasn't sort of intended to give preference or deference or import to one category of work or another. It was purely intended to sync up what exists at the federal FMLA regulatory language.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think a question would be how support staff hours are calculated under the FMLA, and I assume I'm about to be told.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: It is quite literally If no you if you can prove that you, know, if one of the things, I mean, all of our support staff, regardless of teachers, not, they're running to Costco, they're doing all these things, that is considered work, and if they can prove that, then

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: And that is considered how it's

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it would be up to the school district to show it's not true. Superbug. Do you have any opinion at all on the attestation? No. I

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: I will say as a general matter, obviously, we believe people are the best intentions, people are trying to play by the rules and do the right thing. And the notion that somebody would, you know, we, our members, we're union, we work with our members and as you heard legislative council speak to, lying in the workplace is not a good thing and not looked at favorably. So as a general matter, the notion that somebody, whatever their status or whatever need is going to lie intentionally, especially, quite frankly, given the circumstances under which that specific component can be very surprising. But I don't want to stay and get out of my lane, but as a general matter, tend to believe people when they say things.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: That's good.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions for Colin? Colin, thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: Thanks for taking the time.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And if Becca, at any point, has anything to add, we can always have

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: her She's signed their attorney. Yeah, she's their general counsel. Thank you. She will be back in theory at some point later today, but she texted me saying, Not a time to buy. Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And we ran through all of it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, surely.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I don't know if she's coming in. I saw her in the building earlier.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: While we're waiting, instead of going offline, let's talk a little bit about several questions that I wanna put to the committee. First of all, this bill, this is kind of an omnibus labor bill. You know, it has different labor issues. So, if there is on the wall a bill, a labor bill that we have not gotten to, that we want to get to, we could consider attaching it to this bill. And so I'm just letting the committee know that this is something we don't have to do today, but it's something that's out there. The second is a specific proposal, and it has to do with farm workers and minimum wage and housing. As you remember, we had a bill on farm worker minimum wage and overtime, and that bill was, at their request, transferred to the Committee on Agriculture. That bill, after a lot of work and thought, that bill was kind of paired down to minimum wage, and it, after even more discussion, did not make it out of committee. There just, people weren't really ready to, not enough people were ready to go that route yet. One of the issues that disturbed the committee, this is Chair Durfee talking to me, one of the issues that was talked about is an issue that was talked about in here, which is the deduct available for housing and how that deduct may not be adequate and in fact hasn't been revisited for a long time. So, David wanted to suggest that we might consider simply a language that requested the Department of Labor to investigate that issue and make a report to us over summer study in December before the next session, get the report back to us. Emilie, do you have anything

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: you Yeah, want to I do. So, that is, to me, not a huge lift. We're not having a study committee of us. It's just a directive to the Department of Labor. So, have asked legislative counsel to work up that language so we can see it in front of us as a committee, because I think it's a pretty small but important information to get.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, that's, I just want to, I mean, next step, I'm not asking the committee to make a decision on this. I'm just saying-

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Heads up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Heads up that we've asked counsel to at least-

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Take a look.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Take a look at it and propose something, yes?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: As you work with counsel, my request is that this study is very defined and specific, because we did have a study committee two summers ago. I sat on it. We were unable to make a recommendation because we felt that there was not enough time, which honestly, study committees tend, that's what we get. And with the understanding that the committees of jurisdiction would take more testimony, more time. And it's my understanding that the ag committee really did not take enough time to have even taken a vote last week. And so I'm just, I agree, I don't think it's a big lift. Just want to make sure that whatever that study is for the Department of Labor is very defined and very specific.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You should. I Chair Durfee forwarded me proposed language. I've read it. And you saw it. And you should, I think, weigh in before it gets back to the committee. Happy to.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, please. And again, I just put it in, like, I wanted the committee to do the work. I just put it in just as, like, the formality piece. No, no, no. And I appreciate it. And maybe we won't put it in. I just thought we It could be something we could discuss because we have the time to see if But yeah, if you could, that'd be amazing. All right. Because whenever you're happy with it, I'll be happy with it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So we'll just see This will be an ongoing discussion and you'll see some language and hopefully we'll have worked that language over to make it specific enough so that it makes sense.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: And I also, for omnibus bills, I'm always cautious too. If you do put too many things on a Christmas tree, it can fall down. So I just wanna be cautious of but, you know, just in general, like, when and the senate and the comp like, I just so but if folks have ideas, that's I'm always cautious to load up the omnibus bills because Okay. It's too

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So, I believe that our next witness, Charlie Glisserman, from the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence is with us. Good morning. Good morning. So, do you know the committee or should we introduce ourselves?

[Charlie Glisserman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I do know the committee, though it is my first time testifying in front of you all today. I appreciate you making the time.

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

[Charlie Glisserman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Perfect. I'm Charlie Glisserman. I'm the policy director at the Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I did wanna note that despite this being my first time testifying in front of your committee this year, that we've been monitoring issues in your committee and have seen that the committee's thoughtful work in support of survivors of domestic and sexual violence. And I just wanted to thank you and note that we see and appreciate that. So speaking today on S two thirty, I'll keep my comments to the difference between h eight eighty seven and this Senate bill, and my comments will be brief, and I would be happy to answer any questions afterwards. So the difference between these two bills is in Fair Employment Practices Act language specific to self attestation. So in s two thirty, the Senate added language requiring that a self attestation statement be sworn under the pains and penalties of perjury. This language was not in h eight eighty seven. So this edition stemmed from concerns raised in Senate Economic Development regarding potential for false statements and the desire to add an extra safeguard against misuse within the Fair Employment Practices Act. The intent of the underlying language of these bills was to standardize documentation requirements between the Fair Employment Practices Act and unpaid job protected leave. This job, unpaid job protected leave was passed through this committee and through the legislature last year. It does not require employees to sign under pains and penalties of perjury when they're making a self attestation. I'm not aware of any reports of fraud or misuse through self attestation in safe leave or any other forms of self attestation. So ultimately, it is a policy decision for this committee about whether you would like to standardize the language as originally intended in the bill, or if you would like to add that self attestation statements be sworn under pains and penalties of perjury. I'm not sure if this committee has heard yet, from Emilie Adams with the attorney general's

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: office. Have. Perfect.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: She she made the point that she thought it would have a chilling effect.

[Charlie Glisserman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Yes. And I think that's exactly I think that's exactly right. You know, in these laws, it's always a balance between, security and access. And survivors are making these statements in a very sensitive point in their life about a very sensitive topic in their life. And we think that anything that we can do to make that process easier for them, especially when we don't see any real risk of fraud or misuse in our current landscape, is the decision that we would recommend. So I appreciate you all taking testimony from the attorney general's office and myself, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Questions? No, thank you. Questions of Charlie. And one other part that was pointed out that I think is really important was that in August, that language aligns with the federal language, which I think is important if we're aligning things. So, that was, I forget who testified that, but.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It aligns with the federal language in the federal Parenta Federal Leave Act.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, and whereas the one they did in the Senate, FLMA changes it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The FLMA has a self does the FLMA have self attestation, finished?

[Charlie Glisserman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: I don't know that offhand, but I am happy to follow-up.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think we can check that out. Thank you.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Never never mind.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: We'll find it out. But no, thank you and I If the committee has questions, maybe we'll have you back in. Because we have some other people who aren't here, so

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: they might have questions.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Questions? Oh, Charlie. Charlie, a thousand thank yous.

[Charlie Glisserman (Vermont Network Against Domestic and Sexual Violence)]: Thank you. I it, and again, be happy to connect one on one offline if any questions come up from the other committee members and appreciate your great work.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great. Thank you very much. We have nothing else scheduled

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: for For the day.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: The

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Although we have a long floor, and of course, brilliant floor report coming up from one of our guest members here. I guess I would use this time just to ask briefly, do people have anything, any reaction to the only difference between the Senate bill and the House bill, which is the self attestation penalty of perjury matter. Any thoughts on that that people want to express preliminarily? Do

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: have time for further discussion? Yes.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I don't necessarily feel strongly either way. I

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: think this is a really great example of

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: potentially unintended consequences when we, in good faith, try and pass legislation without understanding what could happen on the other side. So Harley, if you're still, I see you're on, but just as a thank you for coming on, sharing that this is a chance to really look at what are, what could be an unintended consequence, and hearing that there could be a chilling effect. I think that's really important to take into the conversations that we have. Really in all legislation, I think sometimes we could look into that more, but I'm just grateful that you're here today. And I think it will be an interesting conversation.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Thanks, Ashley. Yeah, I did have the chance to go back and kind of watch the Senate's thinking on it and, but I agree with our vice chair and the language that we have. I prefer myself.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Other reactions? Any thoughts, ladies and gentlemen? I'm not seeing a rush to talk of.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm I'd like to change it back

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: to what we had, but

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I do have, unfortunately, substantial experience with the issue of abuse, not personally, but professionally and with friends. I have to say my personal experience, so now I'm just speaking personally. My personal experience is that is what Charlie just said that you're talking about a sensitive topic and a sensitive time in people's lives is a massive understatement. My experience is that abuse, it it is such abuse that that occurs it's one thing to be a victim of just generalized violence from strangers, but it's another to be a victim of abuse with someone basically that at least at one time or another you loved or still do. And to get to the point in the abuse where you are willing to take action of any sort is a huge struggle and one that I think in many circumstances simply never occurs. That people just continue being abused and may end up dead, or may not, but certainly continue being abused for the rest of their lives. And it just takes either a lot of violence or some change in the internal workings of the person, perhaps a counselor, a friend, perhaps it's that a child is abused and witnessing that, it could be. But it usually takes something pretty awful before people are willing to break out of the envelope of the relationship and do anything. And I I think that the idea that they have to make an attestation that's paperwork is gonna be an additional burden, and I think that they have to know that they're swearing or that it's under perjury is scary, and so I guess I have to say I favor our original language, which does not have that requirement. That's at least my view for that reason. This is really I know I'm coming across as perhaps biased, but I'd have to say I have strong feelings on this issue, because I think it's unfortunately pervasive, that is, that a surprising number of relationships act violence in them, and that enduring violence in relationships is more common than any of us, including myself, would have liked to admit. Really, very hard to admit that it occurs, and I would favor our language because I think it's just a little easier, just a little tiny bit easier. So that's my view, expressed at length, my apologies for going on. Yes.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. Again, I just go back to my original question, and I am using AI, but I just asked Google, is there an assumption of perjury and a self attestation? And Google AI says yes. So I guess to me, that language isn't necessarily necessary, because I think in any formal self attestation, there is that assumption of like, hey, if I'm lying about this, that could get me into some trouble. It's my 2¢. Me and AI's 2¢.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, agree. I guess it's AI.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's just quicker than I am.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I think that one thing, I don't know how it would play out, but it's pretty damn attenuated. I mean, you heard me talking to the AG. You'd have to get into a situation where somebody clearly lied, the employer said, well, I'm gonna fire you, fired them, and then they sue the employer, and it goes to court. And in the court, the court fines for the employer, says, yes. You did lie. Then the question is, in addition to allowing them to be fired, can the court fine them for perjuring themselves? I what I strongly suspect is, at this point, we are so far down the road, I'm just not I think that's a highly attenuated situation. It's just not likely to occur. And if it did and the court was that pissed, they could do it. If they could find them anyway, which is perhaps what Google would say. They could find them for any number of reasons, including just lying to the court. Any other comments on these three sections?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: So, got the teacher section and the professor one.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's a pretty

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: minimal Well, and it's what yeah. It's pretty much what we did the exception Yeah. Of the teacher Ours are

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: just not in one place.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: That's my only genuine question as to if it's seems almost like we're intentionally saying teachers. And by intentionally doing that, we're saying, like, and keep in mind, that doesn't include any alright, or whatever term we use for other educators.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Supports that.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Supports that, they're not included in that in that definition. It almost seems like we're

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I think from my read from the witnesses is that the teachers were the only other full time that was exempted from or that doesn't align with the federal. But I see what you're I do see your point. I'm just saying I think that was that it was the federal bill or legislation has the teachers and the pilots. And last year, the Senate added the pilots. And so the teachers were like, hey, we're this we're in the same boat and have kind of, like

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: There's a ton of people in that boat.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: They said that there aren't. Don't support staff. I believe, Colin, did you say that the teachers were the only other exclusion?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. No, but the point's being made that

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Because other jobs are included in general, But because teachers and pilots have, like, a funkier schedule, I think, that, like

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But I think if you're salaried at whatever

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But they wouldn't they be included already in general?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Like I'm just it just seems odd to me to call it. I don't know. Figure it out, I guess.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: My read is that everyone's included, except these two professions had kind of a funkier schedule, so it wasn't defined, and that's why they had an extra so the other ones aren't not included.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: But I think the whole underlying process covers anyone's schedule. It doesn't the whole the process to determine it is above everyone else's schedule, and they're all treated the same. Just show us that you work that number of hours. And we're specifically being like, hey. These people have weird schedules. Keep that in mind. But it's like, yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No. I get that.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Nurse. So does it

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: No. But this

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: person could it's covered.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Well, they're under a certain day amount contract.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: That would

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: be the school

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I guess also, I think it's important that we, regardless like, align with the federal like, if it's written federally, why should we not shouldn't we be the same with

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: if foreign meets the see, one of the problems I hear what you're saying. I do too. The way this is structured, for better or for worse. Here's my understanding. Right now, without this change, right now, according to our expert, mainly our vice chair, Right now, if people have to demonstrate they've worked the number of hours required in state statute and if the employer disagrees with them, then the employer carries the burden of showing that have to prove that they're wrong. So if someone can document their hours, I guess the employer would have to have that breach, and that's the existing law. So, what is gained by sticking, right now the law includes airlines, flight crew, and what's gained by putting the teachers in? Well, I don't know, not a lot. But the reason that it does it, structure it this way, is that it's using the CFR, the Code of Federal Regulations, and so it says, for a period of one year for an average of at least thirty hours per week, or, this is everybody, or meets the requirements set forth in 29 CFR 25.801, which is about airline crew and teachers. That's what that's what it adds. It's just entirely referencing and incorporating the CFR, and the CFR, I guess, does not respond exactly to your It doesn't It doesn't have a whole paragraph on support staff. And I'm not sure it makes much difference, but all I'm saying is I think they're just doing it because they're using the CFR and it's just limited to these two. Yeah. But I think that as a practical matter, if we wanted to treat teachers and staff equally, we'd have to kind of make our own language, you know, we'd have to work up our own language, and I don't know that we would add anything.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But they're not

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What we could say, with respect to teachers and staff, we really mean it. But, I mean, you know, it's all I'm saying is, I think that your concern is kind of an artifact. You're reacting to an artifact of just the way that this was crafted.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: But, yeah, they're included in a different way.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, they're all it applies everywhere.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: The world, right, the world is included. Anyway, I don't write the laws of how airline pilots and teachers, but it's the way it is. And I'm gonna be

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm supporting.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I'm supporting those I'm supporting the whole bill. The professor one, I don't really know if we should be having you there for

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: are you a professor? I'm actually an adjunct.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay. Or Senator But, yeah, no. But

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah. You want me to conflict myself out?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. No. Anyway, so, you know, I think Senator passed it over. I don't have an issue. I personally don't have an issue with any of the provisions and

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: What we're doing, Saudia, is we heard all the testimony and we just have a little time, so I'm taking the liberty of a little discussion. We did agree that we're asking counsel to draft up an amendment for us that's on another issue entirely, but labor that we potentially put in here, having to do with housing and farm workers. And I just, since we had time, I wanted to ask people on the provisions of the bill, what we heard, I guess, I'm not sure, I don't think you were here and you weren't online, we heard really interesting testimony from the Attorney General's office, where they took, you know, they are the ones that enforce, it was the co lead of civil rights section and she said that she thought that the addition by the senate, one of the differences between the Senate bill and our bill on putting in the Vermont Employment Practices Act the same language as the victim, you know, the safe, that we put the safe leave in the FMLA, the Vermont rental leave. She thought it would have a somewhat chilling effect if people, if you put penalty of perjury in there, which is what the Senate did. You have to have the self access. The way she explained it, which I didn't really understand before, was that the language used to make it clear that if you were a victim status, you had to have some connection with the law enforcement, you had to have gone and complained to law enforcement or complained or something like that, and what this does is it changes it, it adds, what if you've just been to a counselor? She said a lot of people don't go to law enforcement, they just go to counselors, and if you've just been to a counselor, it adds that, but it also adds, or you can self attest, and what the Senate did is add penalty And of

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: in our bill that I'll be reporting this afternoon, we have the language that they prefer that doesn't have that added thing. And so I'm proposing that we take our language and put that in the Senate bill instead. Would be preferred to me, and I think some others. I also am getting a vibe check that the farm thing may not be unanimously or even I I so what I'm gonna say, and I know that I kind of, like all I did was put my name for the request, but I'm not, like, pushing it through the committee, like, you know, but, you know

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I It'll be a subject of discussion.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: Be a subject of discussion, but I am comfortable if it's not in there too. I am not comfortable stripping the things that are currently in here, but I'm open to I'm not does that make sense? Yeah. Like, so I know some people are like, or or not as into the farm one, and that's okay. Like, I'm not gonna be, out on the the limb for that one personally. Maybe others are, but so I just all I'm saying is that when an amendment comes from Sophie, know that I'm not like this is you know what I'm saying?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: No.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: I wasn't articulate, Joe. I don't need that. I'm gonna be I'm gonna fight for the ones that are in here. The professor one is whatever, but the other two I really do care about, but the farm one not as much, but I still would love to see the language that Sophie comes up with better.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right, Saudia, do you have any opinions you want to express at this point? You just came in well. We ran out, we had time, so I was asking people's opinions.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I think to put, to add, penalty of under the penalty of perjury is redundant because perjury exists. Mean, like that, it is, it's already there. So I don't think that's necessary to be in there. I don't know how many people, I guess maybe there was so many people lying about being abused. Don't know that that's a pain, so I don't really see the need for that language. It seems counterproductive, especially when given the nature of the circumstance of what you're talking about, it feels off. And as far as the teacher and other staff member conversation is concerned, most folks in those institutions are already categorized separately. So when you look at sexual harassment and assault and all those other things, they're not even considered the same category. And so to merge them under this, but not everything else would be odd. So I think in keeping the separate, the full time teachers separate makes sense because that's the way they're categorizing other things within the school system. Support staff and staff of the institutions are not considered the same way as everyone else. So that just makes sense, in my opinion.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: All right.

[Unidentified committee member]: I could have started with representatives of my IH center. I promoted you. I think it's, when there is a victim of violence, it is very difficult for some of them to report it. We have had cases where people just wouldn't come to

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: court. And

[Unidentified committee member]: we had a case where this woman lived out of state and she did come with her children to testify. So if it's federal law, I feel we should comply with the federal law. Perjury part is a little, I know, I think it's a little threatening. If they have to make out reports, you have the evidence, and, you know, if they're lying, it'll be found out. I have the utmost respect for teachers because they it it's not, you know, an eight to three job. Some of these teachers do amazing, amazing work. They take such interest in their students and they work weekends. I have a teacher in my neighborhood that during COVID she went and visited her students to make sure that they were keeping up with their work.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah, I think it's, I support it.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Elizabeth, it's just to bring you up to speed, since we have the time, I'll do it briefly. We're hearing, we heard testimony on two thirty, which you can read. Yes. But two thirty is much of it is identical to bills we've passed. Yep. There were the two differences are this one, we had on a wall, but we never addressed the issue of

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: adding teachers. Yeah, I've read that. Right. And

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it seemed to be pretty simple and straightforward. It's not changing very much, it's just making it a little easier by referring to the CFR. Joe made the point that we have to think about staff as well as teachers, and that was discussed a lot. Then we had really interesting testimony from the E. A. T. In which they felt, I'm gonna summarize, that the Senate's addition is the only difference between our bill and theirs. The penalty of purgatory was a little chilling in terms of encouraging people to court abuse, And we discussed that. Wait, the Senate bill

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Has a chilling effect?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: The Senate bill was identical to our bill in terms of the language that we added to the Fair Employment Taxes Act to sort of mirror the victim's safety, victim status, the difference being remember, under current law, for someone under FIFA to come under the protection of the law, they have to have had a connection to the law enforcement. What this language does is it makes it clear that even if they didn't, but they went to a counselor or something, and also, as an alternative to that, they could self attest. The Senate added that the self attestation, they used the same language, but that it had to be under penalty of perjury. They added that. The AG is the co director of their civil rights section that investigates these cases. The AG reported to us that they believe that the requirement of adding the penalty of perjury would have a chilling effect. Okay, that's

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: what you meant by chilling.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. By including that it will be subject to that internal language. Yeah.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, so I'm just bringing you up to speed. Also, there's another possible addition to the bill that we could just add legislative council to add, and rather than go over it again online, I'll bring you up to speed afterwards. Is it alright, does anybody have anything else to add before we go online?

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I have something so important to add. Believe. In the absence of Rutt Harrison, being a self appointed commissioner for March Madness, or a team of commissioners has been lackadaisical. And so if you're participating in

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: the women's bracket, and have done that in the past, you should

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: have gotten an announcement about an hour ago. But yeah, let's as a committee do really well this year and beat every other committee. Is that a thing? Yes. Yes.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: As somebody who diligently checks their emails to make sure they're responding to people, Your bracket thing requires a password.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Your what?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: When I tried to join your bracket,

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: entered the password.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's really great. You know, it's fantastic.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: Secondly, more of an overarching, still something that's stuck in my craw, if you will. Which should be crop reference. But so that whole thing we have where it's like, it seemed odd to call out to like, call out teachers in that. And so I looked it up. Airline pilot flight crew stuff is very random. Like, they have guaranteed hours that they can work, but you might not have to work, might not need just. So as long as you work, like, 60% of the hours that we said, you definitely have a job. As long as you work, like, 60% of those, then you're covered because we might we just might not need need to. So it's it's wildly different than pretty much any appointment that I could compare it to.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: However, to me and their privilege,

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: they have just an odd employment. However, in the next section, the 29 CFR a twenty five one ten c three, that is purely referencing jobs such as a teacher that fall under that category. However, do we then call out only full time teacher? It gives full time teacher as a reference of what they're talking about.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I mean, it's not really

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It's not directed at. They're saying, and here's a job that falls under it. Here's the, like, kind of what we're talking about.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Ranking Member)]: It's the whole Jobs outside of this. Identical.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: It's it's But then we, like, specifically afterwards, we're, full time teacher. When your statue prior is, hey, here's like a job that fits under what we're talking about.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: So you're asserting that it's not only possibly useless, but really useless.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I think it's more than useless because it actually seems like we're narrowing down what the point of that was.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's in parentheses. Does that mean anything?

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's a lawyer. I mean

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: say that again. I'm a flooring installer.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You are successful.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: I haven't mentioned it and so I'm looking at it and it says in the event an employer does not maintain an accurate record of hours worked by an employee, including for employees who are exempt from FLSA requirement, so I think that's another thing because most teachers are, that a record be kept of their hours worked. Bonafide executive, administrative, and professional employees as defined in FLSA regulations 29 CR Part five forty one. The employer has the burden of showing that employee has not worked requisite hours. An employer must be able to clearly demonstrate, for example, that full time teachers of an elementary or secondary school system or institution of higher education or other educational establishment or institutions who often work outside the classroom or at their homes did not work twelve fifty hours during the previous twelve months in order to claim that the teachers are not eligible for FMLA leave. I think the parentheses is implying that it's for example. I think maybe, based off of the way you just read that. But I could be completely wrong when it comes to lead counsel.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's a lead counsel question. Are you saying to take it out or to add, for example?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: No, it was stated that it was that the NEA wanted the full time teachers in there. So it seems like we're trying to get at that it's for full time teachers, but I don't know if it's written in a way that's what you're saying. Mhmm. But, like, to me, I just see it, and I seems like we're not following the purpose of the statute referencing. It seems like we're narrowing it down a bunch. They're just using teachers as an example.

[Unidentified committee member]: They're both in

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: if they're both in there.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: If they're just using teachers as an example, like, they're not saying it's for teachers.

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: They're saying it's for people whose job looks like this.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Under that code. Yeah. Teachers and other

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: people fall under the category.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It falls Teachers and other people look like this. Yes. I want to quickly

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: I have to go up to human services in just a second. I just wanted to tell you all that appropriations just not yet voted on 1861.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Do they do you have any idea when they will?

[Unidentified committee member]: No. Surprise. And they won't go

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: on the floor until the day after they vote. Right? Two days. Two days after they vote.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Yeah. So if they vote it today, then

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: they'll

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: vote They on they do have a proposed amendment which strips out the funding, and it's not a surprise. But representative Yacoboni had some questions about Oh, you justified. Yeah. Cool. Sorry. This morning, representative Yacoboni had some questions about the process that was undertaken in this committee. So they're talk about that and then now I'm gonna go up to human services, I'll report back from there.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Great, thank you. We're gonna adjourn, because we don't have any other witnesses ready yet, and then we'll be on the floor, all of us, for a substantial floor period, during which time, I guess, you will not be reporting. Tom and I will be reporting. Anybody else reporting on the floor? Emilie. Emilie is reporting today on the floor. I'll tell you, this committee is cooking with gas, as they say. Debbie?

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Before we adjourn, what if we just said teachers and not have the word full product?

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: They're just using it as a definition. They're using it to get to the definition that's provided.

[Emilie Adams (VT Attorney General’s Office, Civil Rights Unit Co-Director)]: I don't know how many people have.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: It's not the full time that's the issue,

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: because you have to be, you have to work at least an average of thirty hours a week, or twelve fifty in a year, I think.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Colin, did you have something you wanted to add? Excuse

[Colin Robinson (Vermont-NEA)]: me. Thanks, Chair. Tom Robinson of Ron and E. A. Two things, I would obviously encourage the committee to continue this conversation with the legislative council. Also, Rebecca McBroom, our general council, will be happy to come in and participate in this conversation in a more fulsome way, if that would be helpful as well. I will just note that obviously, as has been pointed out, the standards exist for all workers, right, around externalization assumptions. In this particular case, the effort was just to align these two statutory or regulatory references. But again, I would encourage legislative council because I think previously they testified downstairs in a case that I believe was perhaps different than the conversation is.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Debbie? Well, so let's say you're hired for, they're saying thirty hours. What if you're hired for like twenty hours, but you work extra off- Then you're included. Then you're gonna, and it adds up to those hours.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, as long as it is.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows (Member)]: Then you'd be included. It's not about scheduled

[Rep. Ashley Bartley (Vice Chair)]: hours. It's about worked hours.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. You'd be considered full time.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: And is the burden of proof always on the employer? So that part of the statute doesn't matter at

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: all. Right.

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: I think if we wanna get to that point, I think you'd just have that statute and then delete the anything after three, c three, because that statute itself tells you what it's trying to get at, And you'll see that in it, that it's just purely an example of their talking about.

[Sen. Thomas Chittenden]: But that's for what you can also chat with us or me about,

[Rep. Joseph Parsons (Member)]: if I'm correct.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well I think we should pursue this. Else before we adjourn? Okay, so we are going to be we'll start again at nine. Alright, At 09:00 tonight. No, 09:00 tomorrow.

[Sophie (Legislative Counsel)]: Hey, I want us to work overtime.

[Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Oh, you're going to have to document your documents. We've got to prove that.