An act relating to crime victim status under the Fair Employment Practices Act
H.887 amends Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act to expand the definition of “crime victim.” Under current law, that definition already covers people with certain protective orders, victims identified in a law-enforcement affidavit, and some household family members of those victims. This bill adds a new category for survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who can provide supporting documentation from a court, law enforcement, a government agency, a victim-services program, a professional who has assisted them, or through self-attestation.
The bill also defines “domestic violence,” “sexual assault,” and “stalking” by cross-reference to existing Vermont statutes. The change is scheduled to take effect on July 1, 2026. In practical terms, the bill broadens who may qualify for protections or accommodations available under the Fair Employment Practices Act by recognizing more survivors as crime victims for purposes of that law.
This bill would amend 21 V.S.A. § 495d, the definitions section of the Fair Employment Practices Act, by expanding the statutory definition of “crime victim.” The new language would affect employers and employees by extending legal recognition to survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking who can document their status, including through self-attestation in some cases. It would likely increase the number of workers eligible for any employment protections tied to crime-victim status under the Act, while leaving the underlying definitions of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking to existing Vermont law.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the materials provided. Based on the bill’s purpose and structure, the measure appears to be a victim-protective employment bill intended to broaden access to workplace protections for survivors. The absence of recorded votes or discussion prevents a more specific assessment of legislative sentiment.
The main potential point of contention is the bill’s expansion of eligibility through self-attestation, which allows a person to establish survivor status without further corroboration unless another law requires it. Supporters would likely view this as an important access measure for survivors who may not have formal documentation, while critics could raise concerns about verification, administrative burden, or the scope of employer obligations. Another possible issue is the breadth of the new definition, which extends beyond traditional criminal-justice documentation to include assistance from a range of professionals and service providers.