Justia Vermont Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Two state senators filed a declaratory judgment action, arguing that Governor Phil Scott exceeded his authority by appointing Zoie Saunders as Secretary of Education on an interim basis without the Vermont Senate's advice and consent. The Governor appointed Saunders after the Senate rejected her initial nomination. The senators contended that the Governor's action bypassed the Senate's constitutional role.The Superior Court, Washington Unit, Civil Division, dismissed the suit on the merits. The court found that the Governor had the constitutional authority to make interim appointments without the Senate's advice and consent. It concluded that the relevant statutes did not apply to interim appointments and rejected the senators' arguments about bad faith and the invalidity of Saunders' actions.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and found it moot due to subsequent events. In November 2024, the Governor appointed Saunders as Secretary of Education while the Legislature was in recess, and her nomination was later submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. This appointment superseded the earlier interim appointment, rendering the controversy over the April 30 appointment no longer live. The court dismissed the appeal, noting that any opinion on the April 30 appointment would be advisory and that the case did not meet the criteria for the "capable of repetition, yet evading review" exception. View "McCormack v. Scott" on Justia Law

M.R., a minor, was substantiated by the Department of Children and Families (DCF) for sexual abuse of another minor. DCF sent the notice of substantiation to M.R.'s father, who requested an administrative review but did not participate in it. The review upheld the substantiation, and M.R.'s father did not appeal further. M.R. later sought a second review from the Human Services Board after the appeal period had expired, claiming he was unaware of the substantiation and the review. The Board dismissed his appeal as untimely.The Human Services Board found that M.R.'s appeal was not filed within the required 30-day period after the administrative review decision. M.R. argued that he was entitled to personal notice under the statute, that the lack of direct notice deprived him of due process, and that there was good cause for his delay in filing the appeal. The Board rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board's decision. The Court held that the statutory requirement to send notice to the minor's parents or guardian was sufficient and did not violate due process. The Court found that the procedures in place were reasonably calculated to apprise the minor and their parents of the substantiation decision and their rights to request reviews. The Court also held that there was no good cause for M.R.'s untimely appeal, as the failure to appeal was due to factors within his father's control. Therefore, the Board's dismissal of the appeal as untimely was upheld. View "In re Appeal of M.R." on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with disorderly conduct, attempted assault on a law enforcement officer with bodily fluids, and misdemeanor unlawful mischief after an incident where he threatened a bystander and spat on an officer. Following his arrest, the defendant urinated, spat, and rubbed his genitals on various parts of his holding cell, leading to the cell's closure and $75 in clean-up costs.The Superior Court, Orleans Unit, Criminal Division, granted a judgment of acquittal on the disorderly conduct charge but denied acquittal on the attempted assault and unlawful mischief charges. The jury found the defendant guilty of both remaining charges. The defendant appealed, arguing that his actions did not constitute "damage" under the unlawful-mischief statute, 13 V.S.A. § 3701(c).The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the denial of the Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal de novo. The Court held that the term "damage" in the statute should be interpreted broadly to include actions that impair the use or function of property, even if they do not cause physical harm. The Court found that the defendant's actions resulted in a substantial impairment of the holding cell's use, as it had to be taken out of service and cleaned, incurring additional costs. Therefore, the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that the defendant's conduct constituted "damage" under the statute.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the jury had sufficient evidence to find the defendant guilty of misdemeanor unlawful mischief. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law

Landowners Nicole Ritchie and Elisabeth McIntee, in collaboration with the Brewster River Mountain Bike Club, replaced an old footbridge on their property in Underhill, Vermont, with a new bridge to provide access to a recreational trail network. The new bridge was larger and more secure than the old one, and a ramp was added to connect it to the existing trail. Neighbors David Demarest and Jeff Moulton contested the improvements, arguing that they violated the town's zoning regulations.The Town of Underhill Developmental Review Board granted a retroactive conditional-use permit and variance for the bridge and ramp. The neighbors appealed to the Environmental Division, which found that the bridge's installation caused minimal land disturbance and was used for recreational purposes by the landowners and the public. The Environmental Division voided the permit, ruling that the bridge was a de minimis recreational use of private property and not subject to zoning regulations.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Environmental Division's decision. The Court held that the bridge constituted a de minimis recreational use of private property, as it involved minimal land disturbance, had a small footprint, posed minimal health and safety risks, and was used for recreational purposes. The Court concluded that the bridge was outside the scope of the town's zoning ordinance and did not address the neighbors' other arguments regarding the permit and the Club's standing. View "In re Brewster River Mountain Bike Club, Inc. Conditional Use Application" on Justia Law

The claimant worked for the defendant when he suffered a hernia in March 2021. The defendant accepted liability for the injury. Shortly after, the claimant left his job with the defendant and began working at Meeting House Furniture Restoration. In July, he also started working at Black Back Pub, holding both jobs concurrently until he left Meeting House in September 2021. The claimant continued working at the Pub until October 8, 2021, when he underwent hernia surgery. The parties agree that the claimant was disabled from work as of the surgery date.The Commissioner of Labor reviewed the case and determined that the claimant's disability benefits should be calculated based on his "average weekly wages" as defined by 21 V.S.A. § 650(a). The claimant argued that his wages from both Meeting House and Pub should be included in this calculation. However, the Commissioner applied Workers’ Compensation and Occupational Disease Rule 8.1500, which states that only wages from employers the claimant was working for at the time of disability should be included. The Commissioner concluded that Rule 8.1500 was a valid exercise of the Department’s rulemaking authority and excluded the wages from Meeting House.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Commissioner’s decision. The Court held that Rule 8.1500 is consistent with 21 V.S.A. § 650(a)(4), which requires that wages from concurrent employment be included in the average weekly wage calculation only if the claimant was employed by multiple employers at the time of injury. The Court found that the rule was within the Department’s legislative grant of authority and did not compromise the intent of the Workers’ Compensation Act. Therefore, the rule was a valid exercise of the Department’s rulemaking authority. View "Hill v. Agri-Mark, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiff Curtis Hier requested records from the Slate Valley Unified School District related to incidents of restraint and seclusion of students at Fair Haven Grade School. Specifically, he sought redacted copies of "Rule 4500 forms" from January to April 2021, documents related to the use of certain rooms between 2015 and 2022, and any redacted restraint and seclusion documents concerning the assistant principal. The school district denied the requests, claiming the records were student records and thus exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act.The Superior Court, Rutland Unit, Civil Division, denied the school district's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff. The court found that the Rule 4500 forms were not student records but were meant for monitoring the use of restraint and seclusion in schools. It ordered the school district to disclose the forms with specific redactions to protect student privacy. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the judgment to remove certain redactions.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the trial court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the Rule 4500 forms are categorically exempt from disclosure as student records under the Public Records Act. The court emphasized that the language of the student records exception is broad and unqualified, similar to its previous ruling in Caledonian-Record Publishing Co. v. Vermont State Colleges. The court concluded that the forms, which contain information related to specific students and incidents, fall squarely within the statutory exception for student records and are not subject to redaction or disclosure. View "Hier v. Slate Valley Unified School District" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of second-degree aggravated domestic assault and one count of felony unlawful mischief. The charges stemmed from an incident where the defendant allegedly slapped the complainant's arm, pushed her into a wall, and slammed her onto the floor, causing her head to hit the ground. Additionally, the defendant was accused of damaging the complainant's laptop and phone.The Superior Court, Windham Unit, Criminal Division, admitted a 911 caller's statement that the defendant was beating the complainant, excluded a statement by an investigating officer that the situation was "a wash," and did not strike the complainant's testimony that police had to tell her she had been assaulted. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and he was sentenced to one-to-three years, suspended except for 120 days to serve, and five years of probation.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case. The court upheld the admission of the 911 caller's statement, finding it admissible as a present sense impression and rationally based on the caller's perception. The court also upheld the exclusion of the officer's statement, agreeing that it was an opinion on the defendant's guilt, which was for the jury to decide. The court found no plain error in the trial court's failure to strike the complainant's testimony about the police chief's explanation.However, the court found that the jury instruction on the intent required for the unlawful mischief charge was erroneous. The instruction allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty if he acted knowingly, which is a lower standard than the statute's requirement of intent. This error was not harmless, as the defendant's intent was the central issue. Consequently, the court reversed and remanded the unlawful mischief conviction for a new trial but affirmed the other convictions. View "State v. Lyddy" on Justia Law

Employee Paul Westcott was terminated by his employer, Mack Molding Co., Inc., for lying about secretly recording conversations at work. Westcott sued the employer, claiming that his recording activities were protected under Vermont’s Fair Employment Practices Act (FEPA) and Worker’s Compensation Act (WCA), and also alleged breach of contract and promissory estoppel.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted summary judgment to the employer. The court concluded that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected under FEPA or WCA. It also found that Westcott could not sustain his breach-of-contract claim because the employee handbook clearly stated that employment was at-will and could be terminated for any reason. Additionally, the court held that Westcott’s promissory estoppel claim failed because his termination was not connected to any promise made by the employer regarding his return to work after short-term disability leave.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court’s decision. The Supreme Court held that Westcott’s covert recording of workplace conversations did not constitute protected activity under FEPA or WCA. The court also agreed that the employee handbook did not create a binding contract that altered Westcott’s at-will employment status. Furthermore, the court found no basis for the promissory estoppel claim, as there was no specific promise breached by the employer related to Westcott’s termination.In summary, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the employer, concluding that Westcott’s recording activities were not protected, his employment was at-will, and there was no breach of a specific promise that could support a promissory estoppel claim. View "Westcott v. Mack Molding, Co., Inc." on Justia Law

S.S. was receiving temporary housing assistance through the Department for Children and Families (DCF) and staying at a shelter. After a confrontation with shelter staff over a mistakenly reassigned locker, S.S. was asked to vacate the shelter without prior warning. Consequently, DCF imposed a thirty-day period of ineligibility for further temporary housing assistance due to the shelter-rule violation. S.S. requested a fair hearing to challenge this decision, and a hearing officer recommended reversing the ineligibility period, which DCF subsequently did.S.S. then filed a motion with the Human Services Board to adopt the hearing officer’s findings and issue a final order. The hearing officer questioned the mootness of the case since DCF had already lifted the ineligibility period. The Board ultimately dismissed the case as moot, concluding there was no further relief it could provide since DCF had already granted S.S. the requested relief.The Vermont Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Board’s decision. The Court held that the Board lacked the statutory authority to provide the relief S.S. sought, as the Board can only affirm, modify, or reverse DCF decisions and provide appropriate relief. Since DCF had already reversed the ineligibility period, there was no live controversy for the Board to address. The Court also found that the capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply, as S.S. did not demonstrate a reasonable expectation of being subjected to the same action again. Consequently, the Board’s dismissal of the case was appropriate. View "In re appeal of S.S." on Justia Law

The plaintiff filed a civil suit against the defendant, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) after the defendant reported to the police that the plaintiff had sexually and physically assaulted her. This report led to the plaintiff being criminally charged, arrested, and held without bail for almost two years before being acquitted. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant's report was false and made with malicious intent to harm him.The Superior Court, Windsor Unit, Civil Division, granted the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged as communications preliminary to a judicial proceeding. The court also granted the defendant's special motion to strike under Vermont's anti-SLAPP statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1041, and awarded attorney’s fees to the defendant. The court reasoned that the defendant's statements were protected under the anti-SLAPP statute as an exercise of her right to petition the government.The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's grant of judgment on the pleadings, agreeing that the defendant's statements to the police were absolutely privileged. The Court held that public policy supports extending absolute privilege to such statements to encourage free and full disclosure to law enforcement without fear of civil liability. The Court also affirmed the trial court's application of the anti-SLAPP statute, concluding that the defendant's statements were made in connection with a public issue and were an exercise of her constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to consider the plaintiff's constitutional challenges to the anti-SLAPP statute, which the trial court had not adequately addressed. View "Talandar v. Manchester-Murphy" on Justia Law