An act relating to reports or complaints of sex offenses or sexual harassment
H.107 expands Vermont’s anti-SLAPP law, which is designed to prevent lawsuits that are filed to punish or chill protected speech and petitioning activity. The bill adds good-faith reports or complaints about sex offenses, sexual harassment, and retaliation for making those reports to the list of protected activities covered by the special motion to strike procedure. Under the bill, a defendant sued because of such a report could ask the court to dismiss the case early if the plaintiff cannot show the report lacked reasonable factual support and an arguable legal basis and caused actual injury.
The bill also sets out the process for these motions, including filing deadlines, a stay of discovery while the motion is pending, a prompt hearing requirement, and fee-shifting rules that can award attorney’s fees and damages to the prevailing party. It preserves appellate review of orders granting or denying the motion and excludes state enforcement actions, criminal proceedings, and cases involving tortious interference with legally protected health care. The act would take effect July 1, 2025.
H.107 would amend 12 V.S.A. § 1041, Vermont’s anti-SLAPP statute, by expressly extending its protections to good-faith reports or complaints involving sex offenses, sexual harassment, and related retaliation. This would give people who make such reports a stronger procedural defense against civil suits aimed at discouraging complaints, while also affecting how courts handle discovery, hearings, and fee awards in those cases. The bill would not change criminal law or substantive sexual harassment law, but it would alter civil procedure and litigation risk for plaintiffs and defendants in these disputes.
The bill’s stated purpose suggests a generally supportive policy goal: protecting people who report sexual misconduct or harassment from retaliatory litigation. The available materials do not include committee testimony or recorded votes, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from the legislative process beyond the bill text itself. On its face, the proposal appears framed as a civil-liberties and victim-protection measure rather than a controversial substantive policy change.
The main point of contention is likely the balance between protecting good-faith complainants and preserving access to the courts for people who believe they were falsely accused or defamed. The bill requires a plaintiff to overcome the anti-SLAPP motion by showing the report lacked reasonable factual support and an arguable legal basis and caused actual injury, which may be viewed as a high threshold. Another possible issue is the scope of the new protection, including whether it should apply broadly to workplace harassment and retaliation claims and how it interacts with existing civil claims, though the bill excludes state enforcement actions and health-care-related tortious interference cases.