Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 710 (2026)

Unlawful discrimination

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 710)

§ 710. Unlawful discrimination

(a) No person, firm, or corporation shall refuse to employ any applicant for employment because the applicant asserted a claim for workers’ compensation benefits under this chapter or under the law of any state or of the United States. Nothing in this section shall require a person to employ an applicant who does not meet the qualifications of the position sought.

(b) No person shall discharge or discriminate against an employee from employment because the employee asserted or attempted to assert a claim for benefits under this chapter or under the law of any state or of the United States.

(c) The Department shall not include in any publication or public report the name or contact information of any individual who has alleged that an employer has made a false statement or misclassified any employees, unless it is required by law or necessary to enable enforcement of this chapter.

(d) An employer shall not retaliate or take any other negative action against an individual because the employer knows or suspects that the individual has filed a complaint or reported a violation of this chapter, or has testified, assisted, or cooperated in any manner with the Department or other appropriate governmental agency or department in an investigation of misclassification, discrimination, or other violation of this chapter.

(e) The Attorney General or a State’s Attorney may enforce the provisions of this section by restraining prohibited acts, seeking civil penalties, obtaining assurances of discontinuance, and conducting civil investigations in accordance with the procedures established in 9 V.S.A. §§ 2458-2461 as though a violation of this section were an unfair act in commerce.

(f) The provisions against retaliation in subdivision 495(a)(8) of this title and the penalty and enforcement provisions of section 495b of this title shall apply to this section. (Added 1985, No. 194 (Adj. Sess.), § 9; amended 2009, No. 142 (Adj. Sess.), § 8, eff. June 1, 2010; 2013, No. 31, § 9; 2017, No. 74, § 43; 2017, No. 148 (Adj. Sess.), § 1.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 14 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1995–2024 · leading case: David A. Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., 2015 VT 108 (Vt. 2015).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

David A. Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., 2015 VT 108 (Vt. 2015). · cites it 2× “” 21 V.S.A. § 710(b). In the absence of direct evidence of unlawful discharge or discrimination, as is the case here, we apply the three-part burden-shifting framework as laid out by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.”

Trosper v. Bag 'N Save, 734 N.W.2d 704 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “§ 451-001 (Vernon 2006); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 710 (2003); Wash.”

Murray v. St. Michael's Coll., 667 A.2d 294 (Vt. 1995). · cites it 3× “The Attorney General has filed an amicus curiae brief, in which he takes no position on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, but urges this Court to recognize that employees have a private right of action to bring suit alleging that their employer discriminated against them in…”

Payne v. US Airways, Inc., 2009 VT 90 (Vt. 2009). · cites it 2× “Accordingly, we review only the purely legal question of whether the WCA permits employees to be held individually liable and reverse summary judgment on that ground.”

Angela M. Gates v. Mack Molding Co., Inc., 2022 VT 24 (Vt. 2022). “She alleged that defendant retaliated against her for taking four hours of PFLA leave on May 6, 2016 and filing a workers’ compensation claim on May 12, 2016, by terminating her employment on May 20, 2016. ¶ 39. Under Vermont law, “[n]o person shall discharge or discriminate…”

Mellin v. Flood Brook Union Sch. Dist., 790 A.2d 408 (Vt. 2001). “§ 231 and Vermont Workers’ Compensation Act, 21 V.S.A. § 710; and (3) damages and equitable relief through the doctrines of laches, waiver and estoppel.”

Carr v. Peerless Ins., 724 A.2d 454 (Vt. 1998). “2d 294, 298 (1995), we inferred a private right of action for damages where an employee alleged that an employer had violated 21 V.S.A. § 710(b) by discriminating against the employee in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim.”

Wentworth v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 765 A.2d 456 (Vt. 2000). “Plaintiff next argues that she was wrongfully terminated, in violation of 21 V.S.A. § 710, after she suffered a workplace injury.”

Lowell v. Int'l Bus. MacHines Corp., 955 F. Supp. 300 (D. Vt. 1997). · cites it 2× “1996); retaliatory discharge for having pursued a workers’ compensation claim, in violation of Vt.Stat.Ann. tit. 21, § 710 (1987); and violation of a duty of good faith and fair dealing.”

gates v. mack molding (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). · cites it 11× “Gates’ third-party 6 Unlawful discriminatory practices are set forth in 21 V.S.A. § 710. 7 claims under FEPA and the WCA must allege that he suffered adverse employment actions because his wife opposed, as unlawful under FEPA or the WCA, an act or practice of Mack Molding or its…”

Paul Westcott v. MacK Molding, Co., Inc., 2024 VT 85 (Vt. 2024). · cites it 2× “21 V.S.A. § 710(d). This language is similarly cabined; only participation in an investigation by “the Department or other appropriate governmental agency or department” qualifies for protection under the WCA’s anti-retaliation provision.”

Guyon v. Intake Advantage, Inc. (Vt. Super. Ct. 2015). · cites it 4× “§ 495(a) and 21 V.S.A. § 710(b), alleging that Defendant discriminated against her by terminating her employment in response to her workers’ compensation claim and by refusing to accommodate her injury.”

Show all 14 citing cases →

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 710(b) — 9 cases

David A. Gauthier v. Keurig Green Mountain, Inc. f/k/a Green Mountain Coffee Roasters, Inc., 2015 VT 108 (Vt. 2015). “” 21 V.S.A. § 710(b). In the absence of direct evidence of unlawful discharge or discrimination, as is the case here, we apply the three-part burden-shifting framework as laid out by the United States Supreme Court in McDonnell Douglas Corp.”

Payne v. US Airways, Inc., 2009 VT 90 (Vt. 2009). “Accordingly, we review only the purely legal question of whether the WCA permits employees to be held individually liable and reverse summary judgment on that ground.”

Murray v. St. Michael's Coll., 667 A.2d 294 (Vt. 1995). “The Attorney General has filed an amicus curiae brief, in which he takes no position on the merits of plaintiff’s claims, but urges this Court to recognize that employees have a private right of action to bring suit alleging that their employer discriminated against them in…”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 710(d) — 1 case

Paul Westcott v. MacK Molding, Co., Inc., 2024 VT 85 (Vt. 2024). “21 V.S.A. § 710(d). This language is similarly cabined; only participation in an investigation by “the Department or other appropriate governmental agency or department” qualifies for protection under the WCA’s anti-retaliation provision.”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 710(f) — 2 cases

gates v. mack molding (Vt. Super. Ct. 2024). “Gates’ third-party 6 Unlawful discriminatory practices are set forth in 21 V.S.A. § 710. 7 claims under FEPA and the WCA must allege that he suffered adverse employment actions because his wife opposed, as unlawful under FEPA or the WCA, an act or practice of Mack Molding or its…”

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.