Vt. Human Rights Comm'n v. State

• Decision Date: 08 June 2012
• Docket Number: No. 11–081.,11–081.
• Citation: 49 A.3d 149,19 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 839,2012 VT 45
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: VERMONT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and Ursula Stanley v. STATE of Vermont, AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION.

49 A.3d 149
19 Wage & Hour Cas.2d (BNA) 839
2012 VT 45

VERMONT HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION and Ursula Stanley
v.
STATE of Vermont, AGENCY OF TRANSPORTATION.

No. 11–081.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 8, 2012.

[49 A.3d 150]

Robert Appel, Executive Director, Vermont Human Rights Commission, Montpelier, and Thomas H. Somers of Bergeron, Paradis & Fitzpatrick, LLP, Burlington, for Plaintiffs–Appellants.

William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Megan J. Shafritz, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Defendant–Appellee.

Present: REIBER, C.J., DOOLEY, SKOGLUND and BURGESS, JJ., and KUPERSMITH, Supr. J., Specially Assigned.

BURGESS, J.

¶ 1. Plaintiffs Vermont Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Ursula Stanley, an employee of the State Agency of Transportation, appeal the Washington Civil Division's decision to grant the State's motion to dismiss her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Ms. Stanley complains that, under the Vermont Parental and Family Leave Act (VPFLA), 21 V.S.A. § 472(c), which requires continuation of certain “employment benefits” during family leave, she was entitled to accrue, but was denied, paid vacation and sick time during the course of an unpaid parental leave. The trial court held that under § 472(c) an employee does not continue earning paid leave during unpaid parental leave. We affirm.

¶ 2. The facts, as summarized from the trial court's findings, are undisputed. Ms. Stanley took unpaid parental leave in 2007 while she was a state employee. Advised by the state that during her parental leave she accrued no paid vacation or sick time, Ms. Stanley filed a complaint with the HRC, alleging that under § 472(c), which provides that an “employer shall continue employment benefits for the duration of [an employee's] leave,” she was due some twenty-nine hours of annual vacation time and twenty-nine hours of sick time accrued during her leave. (Emphasis added.) The

[49 A.3d 151]

HRC determined that there were reasonable grounds to find the State violated the VPFLA and, along with Ms. Stanley, filed suit. The State moved to dismiss, arguing that paid time-off and sick time were not employment benefits continued under the VPFLA when employees take unpaid leave. Ms. Stanley and the HRC responded with a motion for summary judgment.

¶ 3. The trial court granted the State's motion to dismiss, reasoning that to permit an employee to earn paid leave conflicts with the VPFLA's narrow requirement that employers provide “unpaid” parental leave. The court stated that “paid leave is treated as pay; parental leave affords the employee no statutory right to be paid.” In support of its reading, the court noted that, prior to passage, an earlier proposed version of the VPFLA specifically continued only certain benefits during parental leave, including insurance and retirement plans.

¶ 4. The sole issue on appeal is whether paid leave is among the benefits mandated under § 472(c) during unpaid parental leave, a statutory construction that we review de novo. Marine Midland Bank v. Bicknell, 2004 VT 25, ¶ 3, 176 Vt. 389, 848 A.2d 1134. Ms. Stanley and the HRC argue that the plain language of § 472(c) requires employers to continue all employment benefits, including accumulation of paid leave,...