 All right welcome back everybody it is Thursday the 24th and we have Damian Leonard in his home office at home with my kids this afternoon so yeah sounds good so Damian and thank you for being ready do you have it so we I tried to leave the question to Ron to ask you was did you have a draft of 329 that we can work with today that incorporated what we're discussing yep I do I can post it as soon as Ron makes me a co-host I'll put it up on the screen and take you through the changes should be posted to the website as well yes both documents are posted great so I just sent Ron literally moments to go side by side by side of the existing law age 329 has introduced and age 329 as currently proposed for amendment all right I will pull up the amendment now and yep and then if you'll just bear with me during the presentation I will try to stick with you but just in case I have have my two kids in the next room and I may need to step away for a moment so okay so with the amendment draft that's up on your screen now the changes in section one are limited to the end of the section so we're going down to page three lines 10 or line 10 where severe and pervasive has been changed to severe or pervasive moving on to section two this is the definition of sexual harassment this is a change that wasn't in the original bill but it's something that was highlighted in the proposed document from the stakeholders that the committee asked me to base the initial amendment draft on and so we've added the words written auditory or visual to verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature so we're covering a broader array of conduct to recognize that sexual harassment is not just unwanted touching or inappropriate comments it can can take other forms as well the next change on page four again this is from the proposed amendments from the stakeholders would be to and this is going to the definition of sexual harassment here so striking the word substantially before interfering with an individual's work and instead of work performance so the the old language is substantially interfering with an individual's work performance the new language is interfering with an individual's work and then again on line seven changing the word and between severe and pervasive to or so it's now severe or pervasive on line 10 the first change here is uh my cleanup this uh so originally in the definition it had been harassment uh and so now to be consistent with the way be consistent with the way we're using the term throughout the bill it's harass means to engage in unwelcome conduct based on a protected category and then so it's unwelcome conduct that interferes with the employee's work uh I believe the prior draft was substantially interferes with the employee's work performance uh and then the so again that's the same proposed changes we've looked at above with sexual harassment uh and then below here this is all new language based on the proposal from the stakeholders uh line starting on line 14 in determining the conduct that constitutes harassment determination shall be made on the basis of the record as a whole according to the totality of the circumstances a single incident may constitute unlawful harassment so that's identical to the language they proposed uh incidents that may be harassment shall be considered in the aggregate with varying types of conduct and conduct based on multiple characteristics viewed in totality rather than isolation so I condensed their language here and got rid of the uh examples which were primarily focused on sexual harassment to reflect the fact that this is a general discrimination statute uh and then see here is the list of instances when conduct may constitute harassment regardless of the following so whether the complaining individual is the individual being harassed whether the complaining individual acquiesced or otherwise submitted to or participated in the conduct whether the conduct is also experienced by others outside of the protected class involved in the conduct whether the complaining employee was able to continue carrying out the employee's job duties and responsibilities despite the conduct whether the conduct resulted in a physical or psychological injury or whether the conduct occurred outside the workplace so in that list I made some minor changes for consistency and style uh related to our statute but otherwise the the substantive intent of the stakeholders language uh remains are there questions on that before I go on or would you like me to just push on mr chair representative frana I have I struggled some with this severe and or pervasive since that attorney testified a week or so ago so this sentence goes into the negative need not be and I'm thinking if it if it's severe and pervasive then it needs not be both and is that where we're trying to get with this um I'm I'm just still puzzled by this language okay so the current standard is that in order to be uh to constitute hostile work environment harassment or discrimination the conduct either needs to be sufficiently severe or sufficiently pervasive in order to create that hostile work environment the proposal here is to say that it need not be severe or pervasive it can just be discriminatory or sexually harassing conduct in order to be unlawful so what it's saying is that a single instance of discrimination even if it is not uh exceptionally severe would would constitute unlawful discrimination or harassment so that's the got it okay yeah thank you I cleared it up okay representative parson now you're outside representative bloom lead and look here I was just going to say that the rationale for that being that courts have really you that's in the eye of the beholder and this piece of legislation is as described by um terry brown and bore gang is to really clarify for the courts um kind of how to understand how to look at harassment because severe um the words severe and pervasive themselves have been construed to being all kinds of things um over a period of time and that this sets the bar severe pervasive sets the bar too high looks good i was um glad to let i was going to really finish that thought because mine goes a little bit further and actually what you interjected really cement home for me that I have concerns about um section 2 c roman numeral vi the conduct occurred outside of the workplace I I truly think we're um with good reason making it clear what harassments are that have been allowed to occur and potentially this would exclude some but I just think this is really over each be going outside the workplace and include it when it's actionable so just just to be clear there are instances under current case law when into the uh you can find discrimination that occurs outside of the physical workplace and it's a violation of the employment discrimination loss so um I just want to be clear that this is not so this language is saying that it may constitute harassment regardless of whether it occurred outside of the workplace um and this is consistent with some existing law there's always discussion over whether it's work related conduct whether that conduct is attributable to the defendant or whether the defendant can be held liable for it uh whether this language is appropriate I can't can't say but I did just want to say that we wouldn't be necessarily extending the law although anytime you write something in statute you may be indicating to the the court that it's your the sense of the legislature uh that the law needs to be clarified and and maybe those parameters about how you look at conduct outside the workplace need to be uh set somewhat differently so the rule of construction is that the uh the legislature um you know every change that you make to the statute has a purpose whether you're deleting words or adding words and you want to just add words that are meaningless so um courts would of course ask what the meaning is and what the intent is so um I I just do find it causes me discomfort because there aren't parameters around it and I think that we've made some real loosening of parameters in other areas and so to reinforce one that in my mind really needs parameters I I'm just not comfortable with that and I want to put it on the table I mentioned it before and I just wanted to keep it active yeah representative Parsons and then I go over and then fire up yeah to representative Murphy's point um I feel like in the for me anyway that part of it certainly is problematic and I don't know if I'm conflating or the the way we're talking about it is conflating the idea of whether the workplace is conflating with like in the course of your work I mean not in the workplace the function of your structural building before that or it's in the course of your work you know you know I'm just not sure if we're doing that or if we're purposely saying on saturday when you're not at work and you meet up 50 miles away and you're like hey we're at the same restaurant we're not engaging in a work function yeah sorry functional work that really looks to me that's that counts as harassment as far as work's concerned yes you eat well quick that's well if they're like out on their own time they're not working quick but is it actionable to the employer that's what I'm saying yeah it's still harassment but we're talking about actionable yes I'm just building off that point yeah but my question is you know like people engage outside of work both like socially sometimes not but if they're outside of the managerial umbrella and they the way I read this this will open up bad behavior outside of a managerial or supervisory umbrella to be actionable via lawson because it just says outside of the workplace like I think it needs to be very specific that it is within a role of like a work based function or duty I think if we didn't include it at all the fact that everything else speaks to employees you're speaking about workplace yes yeah okay oh so what you're saying is like what that's trying to what we perceive it's trying to accomplish is not being accomplished within the other unless you're trying to expand beyond when I'm your employee correct yes okay so nope I agree with your point representative so it occurs to me that if you are being harassed in the workplace on a regular basis and you finish your work and you're heading out to the parking lot with your coworker who continues to harass you that is outside the workplace it is not conducting a work function but it is still harassment so how would we cover that how what do we do about that situation I mean I just I think that it's likely to happen more likely than going 50 miles down a road no no but to your point you said on the way out of work because it's that harassment that means the harassment began at the door so exactly what occurred here when it occurred there it happened here well suppose it happened only in the parking lot suppose it didn't happen on a daily basis this is your workplace but on your way out of work somebody starts calling your names and making references that are that are in my mind that's how it's selling the property right so if we eliminate it then it's gone and there's no way to protect against that it's not okay so I agree with representative person my wrong on this that if it's happening on the grounds of whatever you consider your workplace to be then yes that falls under employment if it happens elsewhere I don't feel that it is part of someone's employment and I do feel that this the way this is written broadens it to encompass anywhere and what I was going to suggest originally is that we hear from Damien what his interpretation of this is because this really is a legal document um lucky walls of Howard we'll get to that we'll get to the punchline of that not the punchline I'm sorry that's not the reward we'll get Damien's comment on that there's been many stories we've heard um with women talking about was like like a Harvey Weinstein being asked to go to a hotel and meet him for meetings for a professional they weren't professional meeting they were harassed that was off-site we've heard uh it's a case for the city council of Burlington where two people one of the counselors and someone else off-site and the woman felt she was coerced into having a relationship so I think you know what I'm thinking of this now Joe from what you were talking about because I'm thinking of we ran into your supervisor at a restaurant on a Sunday afternoon and then suddenly you feel like you're kind of stuck in a corner there with your supervisor and forced into something I think that that there it does that's how I read this part that it's that that that's the kind of harassment that I see in that so representative walls and Howard can I respond to that point very briefly sure the point that you made where it was like a need to be requested outside of work in my mind links that to work so someone who is in a position of power authority is like I want to meet you outside of work in purpose board and then does something various in my mind that is a bridge to these other harassing positions because it was a meeting that was requested under the guides of your work duties okay representative walls well I I'm in favor of the more expansive interpretation of this because I can see the harassment very easily happening through email through phone calls at home wherever the person is and could have a direct impact on their work conditions even though that's not happening at work so I'm not in favor of saying it has to be narrowly defined to happening at the workplace or is that a power thank you I'm going to sound repetitive to what representative representative wall just said um yeah my concern would be if it's an off-site training for example the harassment takes place there I feel that you know it it should be extended to not just in the workplace in the building thank you and so I guess my for a good about the thing and should I mention no I guess the example I would ask put on the table is is if I go to if I travel from my house I'm not at work it's a weekend day and I run I go to home depot and I see a coworker and I make comments that are perceived to be harassing I can make comments about tools I can make comments about hammers I can make comments about whatever and then and then we go back to work on Monday yeah and I make tool to make comments about tools and hammers at work that have innuendo is that off-site was that off-site harassment am I using that that interaction that happened off-site that happen stance that happened off-site to then turn it around in my position of being a harasser to to continue the harassment of somebody but it started off-site but to your point and then continue to onsite which makes it a violation of the current right but it started off-site is a sort of that instance it just sort of happened in passing is that it had nothing to do with work except for there was a relationship between those two people a work relationship to those people so I know my point is like that the scenario you're describing is like it'd be an initial engagement of you know inappropriate contact happening outside of work occurs outside work but then it rolls into a continued conversation in work so thereby the violation as far as workplace liability still occurs it just happens in the second instance okay um we'll represent the hangover Damian I was just going to comment that um first of all I think we're narrowing or we're broadening this so much that it doesn't have to be multiple incidences it could just be the incident that's happening at work and also um where was I going with that the fact that it is off-premises and there were whatever comments I wasn't following that um that would let that if it caused a negative interaction would that not come up as discrimination in some other place of public accommodation because it happened at a store I don't know I just feel that this is so broad we're all going to be afraid to go anywhere and say anything to anybody Damian is waiting okay we we're yeah I everybody can if you can just pause for a second okay first public accommodations harassment involves the place of public accommodations harassing or public accommodations discrimination involves the place of public accommodations discriminating against an individual not one individual in that place of public accommodations who has no affiliation discriminating against another individual in that place of public accommodations so that that's outside the law there with the workplace harassment it is existing and current law that discrimination and sexual harassment can be unlawful under employment discrimination statutes whether it occurs on or off-premises and this is very very important for the committee to understand this is existing law it can occur on or off-premises so to quote from the EEOC which is the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission at the federal level they enforce the federal discrimination law and their FAQs their question is does harassment have to occur at work for it to be illegal answer no federal law protects you from job discrimination and harassment whether it occurs on or off the work site for example you may have a potential claim for sexual harassment if your manager pressures you for dates while at a work-related conference likewise on their more general page regarding harassment they say harassment can take many forms it can involve verbal physical or visual conduct it can occur on or off the work site the raster can be your manager a manager in another area a coworker others in your workplace including clients or customers however for an appropriate behavior to rise the level of illegal harassment it must be unwelcome or unwanted and then they get into the severe or pervasive standard which is in the current law inappropriate behavior is also illegal if it results in your employer making an employment decision about you such as refusing to promote you or demoting you so an example of off-site illegal discrimination that could occur here and going in the sexual harassment realm would be you see your manager at the bar your manager uh makes an advance to you or asks you on a date that's off the off-site you get back to work after saying no there and you're demoted or you're assigned to a bad shift this looks like retaliation for turning down your manager this is actionable sexual harassment potentially so by the same token racial discrimination could occur if your manager doesn't know you're in a biracial marriage sees you outside of work with your spouse who happens to be of a different race you then get demoted or punished because of your association with that individual who has a protected characteristic in both of these cases the burden is on the individual making the complaint to show that it's actionable workplace harassment and the employer has the opportunity to show that no the reason I demoted you is because your performance has been terrible for the last six months or some other legitimate workplace reason the reason I put you on that shift is because we were short of people and you're the junior person and under our union agreement you're the one who gets reassigned to shift first so there are a number of legitimate reasons here but there are instances where something that occurs out of work can become part of a workplace harassment or discrimination claim and this is existing law this would not be changed by the bill what I was noting earlier is that when we spell things out in the law the court does sometimes take this as is the legislature telling us that we need to do something differently than what we've already been doing or are they just restating the existing law what california has done on these issues is they've cited cases that they agree with and they're saying we're reiterating this and telling courts to follow this decision because we agree with it that's one way to say we're not changing the law we're following precedent and we want you to look to this precedent for guidance going forward uh so I just wanted to be clear about that though because this is it's important to know that we wouldn't on its face be changing the law there is a question of is the judiciary going to say is this going to you know this should change our interpretation in some way I can't predict that but that's probably the policy consideration for you as you're deciding whether to include this language uh going forward so but that that's all I wanted to clarify is it's it's important to understand that there are instances when you get into these instances though too it has to be able to be tied to the workplace and for the employer to be liable you have to be able to show that they were aware of it and did nothing to stop it or they allowed that hostile work environment to grow and exist at work and that that's where the uh some of the defenses that we've talked about come in where the employer has a program designed to prevent it and takes reasonable steps to prevent that um from going forward so you know for example you could come to your supervisor after an incident like that and say hey this happened and now I'm being ostracized at work because of what happened off-site and then your supervisor could step in and take appropriate steps to keep that from turning into a hostile work environment or stop the hostile work environment before it goes further that's how employers avoid liability under the law is they find out that something is going wrong and they take steps to stop it or they prevent supervisors to uh where employers are liable for a supervisor's actions if they're they prevent supervisors from from doing something wrong in the first place um through training etc so with that I'll just let the conversation continue I just would again say that we aren't dealing with what is currently in the law if we leave this in because we're changing the current law to say that severe or pervasive is not required so we are changing parameters that otherwise give a level of security protection for those of us that are a little concerned about how much this could no offense intended my son in law is a lawyer but how much this could just pay some folks a little bit of money to do some actions um and so I I just think that in my mind with what we're doing to try to really anchor down that harassment doesn't have to be the severity of what people have really had to prove to the point of injuries um we're lightening things up and I don't feel comfortable leaving this line in represent the pango thank you Damian for clarifying the federal law because I was not clear on that and now it kind of has me wondering where h3 29 is going um you mentioned having um the internal grievance process be part of the proof that the employer did nothing to stop the harassment or discrimination if an employee has made a complaint through the internal grievance process and it's gone nowhere so by removing the internal grievance process what are we now doing to this I'm really concerned about that section now so um the internal grievance process is part of uh one of the affirmative defenses that an employer can assert uh and the key the key in that is first that you have taken reasonable steps to prevent um the discrimination or harassment from occurring the second is that the employee unreasonably failed to take advantage of the internal procedures so um there are instances where there it could be reasonable for example your harassers the person you have to report the harassment to and there's no alternative um and uh or uh you know another potential instance when it could be reasonable as if the other people have reported harassment have all been retaliated against um publicly by the the company so it's you know the perception is that if you call the anonymous helpline uh and report the harassment three days later you're fired then that might be an instance when an employee could argue it was reasonable but generally if you have a good program set up the employee is going to need to show uh or the employer can can argue that the and show that the employee was unreasonable in failing to take advantage of that process and insulate themselves to reduce their potential liability in that case so there are there are some instances when you can't apply that such as when a supervisor takes a tangible employment action as part of the harassment or discrimination whether that's demotion withholding a pay raise bad assignment etc but the the that defense is there i think uh you've heard from advocates on their concerns about removing that law uh that language or or taking away that ability to assert that or consider that so it really comes down to a policy um question of whether you think it's appropriate uh to keep that uh defense or to reduce it or limit it um and i can't really speak to that but that is one possible defense that an employer can assert the other i mean the the basic way these cases go if you don't assert that defense is as you'll remember Karen Stackball talking about the mcdonald douglas which is basically just the the order that you prove your case so the employee shows that there's a on its face they were discriminated against then the employer has to show that it there was actually a legitimate reason why they took their action like i mentioned before performance or something like that and if the employer shows that then the burden shifts back to the employee to show that that was just a pretext for the discrimination so the at each stage one or the other party has a burden of proof so without the with the the language related to the ferriger l-arth defense which is that language about failure to take advantage of the internal grievance process you're removing just one one of the ways that an employer can insulate themselves from liability or affirmatively defend themselves against a lawsuit so but again i i would defer to the advocates who've spoken on that issue as to you know whether or not that's the appropriate change to make in the law and i i think you've heard a lot of testimony on both sides so yeah i'll just i'll go back to our previous what we were talking about the court what you explained is how it's currently dealt with seems perfectly reasonable to me because everything had at least a link to work a conference we're only at the conference because of work it being turned down by a supervisor outside of work and then there's something actual in the workplace and i feel like that one little site that one little line there just says you know that doesn't actually work workplace doesn't have to be anything anything so my suggestion would be i it sounds good the way it's dealt with now and i think we should remove that one is that a collect but i realized we haven't gotten through the whole bill yet so so i like this conversation and um if i'm if i'm understanding Damian what you said if we remove that one line it wouldn't change current obligations and statutes no if you if you remove that line you would still be able to make the case that conduct that occurred outside of work was part of a pattern or uh you know that was part of creating the hostile work environment or is the reason for the sort of quid pro quo adverse employment action that occurs um which is you know the uh that individual turned me down so now i'm going to demote them or now i'm going to refuse them the promotion um that is sort of the the common image of sexual harassment from uh from years ago uh before we started talking as much as we are about hostile work environment okay thank you damian um yep so i i think that's a factor for us to look at when we land on that one the other one i i think uh what representative hango talked about about the um not pursuing it turn grievance my thought is just to be silent on that and not to have that in this bill and um because damian i i think you said already it's not a determinative factor if they pursue one or not pursue it can be uh if you can show that they were unreasonable and not pursuing that in turnover events so that's because the if you think about it this way um the employer's argument is because the individual didn't pursue their internal grievance i had no idea this behavior was going on so i couldn't stop the behavior so how can i be held liable uh and that that applies when you're talking about someone who's not a supervisor so that's when you can assert this defense is so is one coworker harassing another coworker neither one wasn't a supervisory role uh the employer uh is going to assert in that case if the individual didn't pursue the internal grievance the they'll say we have a robust prevention program uh and the individual didn't take advantage of it so we had no idea this was happening and couldn't prevent it um the so that would continue to be a defense available to employers if you take the language out of the bell if you leave it in uh i think that defense is uh i'm not sure how you would assert that defense anymore uh going forward uh and i'm not sure what what the courts would do with that except saying that we're being told by the law that we can't can we shouldn't consider whether an individual uh pursued an internal grievance okay well those are my two things at moment come to look at a consensus on different aspects but could could we finish going through the bill uh we have 12 or 13 minutes sure all right let me right back to that three we're on page one not quite that bad the vortex holds us back 40 okay so we're uh we're actually now in the section pray um and the rest of this should go quickly because we're discussing sort of the big pieces um the first change here on page six line two i just noticed i forgot to capitalize the reference to the americans with disabilities act the next change here is uh oh so this is uh what we're doing here is we're amending this language to get rid of the substantially interferes with um and i think i highlighted it just because it's part of this phrase that tracks from undermines or interferes with in this draft the underlying bill said or substantially interferes with the person's terms conditions privileges etc and this is with respect to the sale or rental of a dwelling or other real estate or services or facilities can in connection with that the change on line two of page seven is to change severe and pervasive to severe or pervasive and then again on lines beginning on line three uh it's the same list uh to consider with respect to harassment uh as with employment discrimination so if you were to take out the um the the change here is that the conduct occurred outside of the place of public accommodations public accommodation it should be singular or dwelling um so again if you took out that language uh in the employment instance you may want to consider removing it here uh likewise if you keep it you may want to keep it here for consistency but the otherwise these are the exact same as the provisions we discussed earlier just referring to housing uh and public accommodations and section five gets us into the education law uh can you scroll just back down a little bit there does that is that the 26a is that do you need to change that to Harris or is that no no you're right yeah right oh yeah you mean this right here no beginning of the education center section oh the very start no i'm going to leave leave this because that's the underlying definition so and for committee and for committees information i shared the section section five with the chair of the education committee to see um just been shared with her to uh to read and see how it would affect her world and if we need to take testimony from um the agency of education or anybody else yes school boards association would be another one uh potentially impacted um if they have concerns the uh yeah so it's the same changes here um the so that the way this impacts the agency of education and school boards is the agency of education puts out a model harassment policy which is why we're keeping the word harassment um and then school boards adopt policies for dealing with student misconduct including harassment which is again why we're keeping the word harassment at the start um so this would take out the substantially undermining or detracting from or interfering and instead of the student's educational performance the student's education um so with the again the focus that the stakeholders are proposing here is that does this undermine detract from or interfere with the student's education in general not whether they're able to perform highly in the educational environment so damien i know from experience that the model policies are often adopted by school districts who don't want to for whatever reason write their own policy but it's different from the model policy um so would individual school districts then have to go back in and vote on these changes when they come down to them through the sba so that is uh that's a good question um i'm and this is getting outside of my area of expertise i'm not sure how school school boards adopt these policies if they adopt the model policy i imagine they would have to review the changes and approve them um and one of the questions that i just don't know the answer to is would these changes require aoe do modify its model policy um and so i that's i think part of why the chair has sent this over to the chair of the education committee to see if if testimony needs to be taken on this uh because it's okay sorry yeah that makes sense um just because i know from experience that i sit on a policy committee and periodically we go through all of the policies and if there are any changes we have to bring them to all the individual schools to vote on um board has to vote on them um it's it's a long process so just by changing this in vermont statute may not change this um for quite some time within school districts representative blue i just have a question damian i i am assuming that um that the the bill um written as it is to include public accommodations and education um settings is that harassment discrimination law should be consistent across areas of law right so that that they're um and that that's why the language is inserted in here it's um and that and and does this typically happen when there are changes made to um discrimination law uh so to answer your first question yes my understanding of the uh of the sponsor's goal was to make this consistent uh across the board um the uh in my experience this is somewhat unusual uh i typically the bills that i deal with on discrimination are uh their employment focused they may incorporate public accommodations this is the first time i've gotten into title 16 and one of my bills um um the i do have other bills though um that you know uh run a much wider uh across a much wider range of law in terms of discrimination the the best example is the genetic discrimination the earlier version of the genetic discrimination bill that's currently being considered in senate finance in five minutes um not that i'm on a timeline but yes i do need to go in five minutes so um but the earlier version of that bill uh went into public accommodations employment and uh insurance where it's the the new version of that bill is is focused entirely on insurance um so uh there are some bills that that run across this gamut but typically the bills are more focused on a specific issue such as employment and labor law or public accommodations housing uh so uh it this would be i think one of maybe three bills that i've done over over my eight years here that's that's gone across uh um employment education and public accommodations and housing for discrimination it's something that danian doesn't necessarily need to be there to give us opinion on but it could be quick i just have another piece that i was trying not to drop so you could finish the bill right it's on page six line seven small d the the language notwithstanding any state or federal judicial precedent to the contrary the provision shall be construed liberally to accomplish remedial purposes any exceptions and exemptions shall be construed narrowly so again to maximize the deterrence of discriminatory behavior so i think again there are things we're changing their intent to really tighten up how harassment and discrimination occur and i just think we kind of reused over that section the only reason i yeah the only reason i skipped it today is because that uh doesn't have any proposed changes in it um but it's part of the bill we are changing statute yes yes but not and it's not changed from the underlying bill in this amendment is what i meant but that is a proposed addition to the law which is uh is a is a construction clause that we'd be adding to the law there so yes you're you are correct yeah and for the for the kind of edification that as we move these drafts just because we go to a new draft doesn't mean that everything hasn't been diagnosed and agreed upon in the first draft so that's why just you know it would get lost and it would be presumed i wasn't having issues if i hadn't brought it forward so sure okay um representative more than kalaki then i just have one before well it is um damian i if i remember remembering correctly you said um that this was very standard language right that is used in um uh similar types of legislation i think the better word is that it's it's common language so it's it appears in several dozen places in the breman statutes annotated i i don't have an exact count because uh of the way the search engine works with the statute sometimes pulls up cases rather than statutes um but uh yeah there there are dozens of instances of language like that in the vermont statutes um but this it is each time you put it in like i i mentioned before um you know the court will look at that and say okay we've been told to construe this liberally to prevent discrimination does that change the way we look at this case so uh i think that's all i can add on that thank you jar i i think another section we need more conversation on is i think you're on the summer judgment part i'm not now but when we go back to what the witchery i didn't hear that what's hard summer summer judgment right so i gotta get about um then you can get for our next we're not going to take this up till we get back but we're not going to take this up tomorrow um so so committee what i've heard over the last couple days that summary judgment is a is a question so if you could put brackets around that section i'd like to i'd like the next um draft again hearing what i've heard that the um internal review or whatever that section is like to put brackets around that as a questionable piece of piece to to determine same thing brackets around um the workplace so what is this bi the little bi section three and then brackets around the education section in total till we find out from and and again i want to make clear to the committee when i ask for brackets it's not i don't want to say prepare draft this deletes all those things but i think that those are the sections that i've heard are the most problematic in the bill right now and they're still there for conversation i'm inviting people back in on monday the eighth right tuesday right no it's my monday but yeah yes a legislative monday right so yeah tuesday i see it so david if you could just do that prepare that and um because that's something that i want to if you could let me know when that's ready then i can share that with the perspective witnesses i will yeah i'll try to have that sorry can i just confirm my list with you um yes so the the things to bracket are the liberal construction language the appropriateness for summary judgment language the language relating to conduct outside of the workplace and the section relating to the education law did i miss anything yes summary judgment did you say that yeah sorry yes internal grievance the workplace internal grievance thank you okay the repetition of it and if we're bracketing all of education then you don't i mean maybe within bright education that should still be bracketed but i don't know i leave that to you yep what i'll do is i'll put notes in a different color next to anything that is uh needs additional committee discussion um or you know i'll say like flagged for additional committee discussion uh and then i'll resend the draft um whenever i get a chance to do this understanding that uh i've got a lot of work to do on age 96 um so uh i i will try to get this back to the committee by tomorrow so that uh people can be reading it over the break thank you dania you're welcome thank you thank you