(a) No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because
the employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any
proceeding under or related to this chapter or has testified or is about to testify
in any such proceeding or because of the exercise by the employee on behalf of the
employee or others of any right afforded by this chapter.
(b) Any employee who believes that the employee has been discharged or otherwise discriminated
against by any person in violation of this section may, within 30 days after the violation
occurs, file a complaint with the Commissioner alleging the discrimination. Upon receipt
of the complaint, the Commissioner shall conduct an investigation of the complaint
as the Commissioner deems appropriate. If, after the investigation the Commissioner
determines that the provisions of this section have been violated, the Commissioner
shall bring an action in any appropriate State court against the person alleged to
have violated this section. In any such action, the State courts shall have jurisdiction,
for cause shown, to restrain violations of subsection (a) of this section and order
all appropriate relief, including rehiring or reinstatement of the employee to the
employee’s former position with back pay.
(c) Within 90 days after receiving a complaint filed under this section, the Commissioner
shall notify the complainant of the Commissioner’s determination under subsection
(b) of this section. (Added 1973, No. 214 (Adj. Sess.), § 20; amended 2023, No. 85 (Adj. Sess.), § 75, eff. July 1, 2024.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc., 738 A.2d 86 (Vt. 1999).
Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc., 738 A.2d 86 (Vt. 1999). · cites it 14דPlaintiff pleaded two claims for recovery: (1) Kaytec violated 21 V.S.A. § 231 by discriminating and retaliating against him for complaining about work place health and safety regulations, and (2) Kaytec negligently failed to prevent its employees from violating 21 V.”
Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). “§ 495(a)(1); (2) retaliation for requesting accommodations for her disability and filing complaints under the Vermont Occupational Health and Safety Act, 21 V.S.A. § 231 and Vermont Workers’ Compensation Act, 21 V.”
Cole v. Foxmar Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D. Vt. 2019). “VOSHA includes the following provision regarding retaliation: No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or…”
Wyatt v. City of Barre, 885 F. Supp. 2d 682 (D. Vt. 2012). · cites it 2ד” Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 231 (a). As previously discussed, the Vermont Supreme Court has stated the elements of a VOSHA retaliation claim as (1) the plaintiff was engaged in a protected activity, (2) the defendants knew of that activity, (3) plaintiff suffered an adverse…”
Buksh v. Dr. William Sarchino DPM Foot & Ankle Surgeon (D. Vt. 2022). · cites it 3ד§201 for failing to provide “safe and healthful working conditions” and retaliation following Plaintiffs’ complaints in violation of 21 V.S.A. §231 by Dr. Sarchino, SVMC, and SVHC; (6) a violation of the standard of ordinary care against Dr.”
Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC (D. Vt. 2025). “21 V.S.A. § 231(a). “Although VOSHA is ‘patterned after the federal [Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”),|’ VOSHA provides for a private right of action for any aggrieved employee who has a claim for retaliation under the statute, while OSHA does not.”
Worthen v. Gaulin (Vt. Super. Ct. 2005). “21 V.S.A. §§ 231–232. This statutory right of action provides for such relief as “reinstatement, triple wages, damages, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees”—certainly far beyond relief available at common law through a wrongful discharge action.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 231(a) — 3 cases
Haverly v. Kaytec, Inc., 738 A.2d 86 (Vt. 1999). “Plaintiff pleaded two claims for recovery: (1) Kaytec violated 21 V.S.A. § 231 by discriminating and retaliating against him for complaining about work place health and safety regulations, and (2) Kaytec negligently failed to prevent its employees from violating 21 V.”
Cole v. Foxmar Inc., 387 F. Supp. 3d 370 (D. Vt. 2019). “VOSHA includes the following provision regarding retaliation: No person shall discharge or in any manner discriminate against any employee because such employee has filed any complaint or instituted or caused to be instituted any proceeding under or related to this chapter or…”
Chandler v. Long Falls Paperboard, LLC (D. Vt. 2025). “21 V.S.A. § 231(a). “Although VOSHA is ‘patterned after the federal [Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”),|’ VOSHA provides for a private right of action for any aggrieved employee who has a claim for retaliation under the statute, while OSHA does not.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.