Court to Vermont State Employees: No Irreparable Harm, No Injunction – Return-to-Office Stays on Track
The conflict now moves to the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) for adjudication,
The conflict between Vermont’s state government and its largest employee union over a mandatory return to the office escalated into the Washington County Superior Court. The Vermont State Employees Association (VSEA) sought an immediate preliminary injunction to stop the Governor’s directive requiring most state workers to return to their duty stations a minimum of three days per week, effective December 1, 2025.
The court denied the injunction, ruling that the Union did not meet the high legal standard required to halt the policy.
Background: The Shift from Remote Work to a Hybrid Standard
Following Governor Phil Scott’s declaration of a state of emergency in 2020 to address the COVID-19 pandemic, Vermont’s state bureaucracy rapidly transitioned to a remote-first operational model.
Over five years, this temporary safety measure evolved into an established practice, influencing recruitment and the personal lives of thousands of employees.
In August 2025, the Scott administration announced a significant shift: the Hybrid Work Standard , which mandates a minimum of three in-office days per week for most employees starting December 1. The Administration framed this as necessary to restore collaboration, ensure the efficient use of state assets, and revitalize Montpelier’s downtown economy.
The VSEA, led by Executive Director Steve Howard, fiercely opposed the directive. The Union argued that the five-year precedent of remote work had established a “status quo” that could not be unilaterally changed without substantive negotiation. This dispute led the VSEA to file an unfair labor practice charge with the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB) and a simultaneous request for an injunction in Superior Court.
The Court’s Decision: Why the Injunction Was Denied
The primary subject of the court hearing was whether the VSEA could prove its members would suffer irreparable harm if the mandate took effect on December 1.
A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy,” and the burden of proof rests heavily on the plaintiff to demonstrate that an injury is certain, great, and cannot be remedied later by monetary damages, following the standard four-factor test mirrored in Vermont law.
The VSEA’s Argument: Irreparable Harm
VSEA attorney Alfred O’Connell argued that the December 1 deadline was a “cliff” for employees, causing irreversible damage to their lives. The Union cited the widely reported example of a breastfeeding mother who faced a potentially impossible choice: resign, or commute three hours each way, physically preventing her from breastfeeding. The Union contended that this loss of tenure, income, and familial strain constituted irreparable injury, especially if employees were forced to sell homes or break leases to relocate closer to Montpelier.
The State’s Defense: The “Safety Valve” of Exemptions
The State’s defense, led by attorney Peter Sterling and supported by testimony from Agency of Administration Deputy Director Sean Brown, countered the argument of immediate and inevitable harm. The State emphasized the existing process for employees to request Reasonable Accommodations or Flexible Work Arrangements.
Crucially, the Department of Human Resources (DHR) had issued guidance stating that any employee who submitted an exception request by November 21 would be permitted to continue their current telework arrangement until a final determination was made.
The State successfully argued that because this “pending status” protection exists, no employee was actually required to report to the office on December 1. They had an “adequate remed” available in the short term by simply filing an exemption request, meaning the administrative process must be exhausted before the court intervenes.
Judge Richardson’s Finding
Washington County Superior Court Judge Dan Richardson’s denial hinged on this procedural safety net. The court effectively accepted the State’s assurance that the pending status protection was a binding delay, reasoning that the Union members had an adequate administrative remedy available to them. Because the mandate was paused for applicants, the immediate “emergency” required for a judicial intervention did not exist.
Dissecting the Data and Public Narrative
A review of the testimony revealed several points of contention and potential public misinterpretation that defined the legal debate.
The Misleading “425 Requests vs. 25 Approved” Statistic
During the hearing, testimony indicated that out of approximately 425 exemption requests received by the State, only 25 had been approved at the time of the hearing.
Factual Correction: The testimony and DHR documents clarified that the remaining 400 requests were pending, not denied. The low approval number reflected administrative backlog in the time-intensive review process. Because a pending request allowed the employee to continue remote work, citing the low approval count without the pending context created a picture of mass denial rather than administrative gridlock.
The Office Space Paradox
Both sides presented seemingly contradictory data regarding office space capacity:
Union’s Claim: VSEA cited a 77% vacancy rate at the Waterbury State Office Complex to argue that the state should consolidate and save money.
State’s Claim: Administration officials cited a “shortage of office space” at the same Waterbury complex as a reason for delaying the return of some specific agency employees.
Synthesis: The “vacancy” is a measure of current absence (low utilization), while the “shortage” is a measure of potential future capacity relative to the new three-day-per-week mandate.
The Taxpayer Cost Argument
The VSEA argued that remote work saves taxpayers money, citing the State’s plan to spend $2.3 million on new leases to accommodate the returning workforce, which they claim is a waste. The State countered with the argument that RTO is necessary to “make use of existing, underutilized state office spaces” and boost intangible assets like “collaboration.” The broader context involves national political trends, as the RTO push aligns with directives seen in the federal government, where administrations argue for presence as essential for service delivery, and unions highlight the potential for reducing overhead .
Economic and Social Implications
Beyond the courtroom, the mandate raises significant questions about the social contract between the state and its residents.
Montpelier’s Economy vs. Employee Choice
Business owners in Montpelier expressed excitement about the return of “foot traffic,” explicitly linking the mandate to their survival. VSEA Executive Director Steve Howard’s comment that “employees feel insulted that they’re viewed as an ATM for downtown” highlights the divergence in philosophies, where the State’s policy is viewed by some as a tool for municipal economic stimulus.
The Risk of “Brain Drain”
Data shows that remote workers in Vermont tend to be higher earners, older, and more likely to be women. For employees who moved to distant areas or border states, the three-day-a-week mandate is physically untenable and may be seen as a constructive discharge. The Union’s warning about losing “experienced staff.”
Impact on Rural Emergency Services
An often-overlooked consequence of the RTO mandate involves rural volunteerism. Many remote tech workers and state employees serve as volunteer firefighters and EMS providers in their home communities. Forcing these individuals to commute removes them from their communities during the day, potentially weakening the emergency response capacity of rural Vermont towns.
What Happens Next?
The denial of the preliminary injunction is not a ruling on the ultimate merits of the return-to-office policy; it only confirms that the Superior Court will not stop the policy’s implementation now.
The conflict now moves to the Vermont Labor Relations Board (VLRB), where the VSEA’s underlying unfair labor practice charge over the unilateral change to the status quo will be adjudicated.
In the short term, the battleground shifts to the hundreds of individual administrative skirmishes over the 400+ pending exemption requests. The rate at which DHR processes these claims—and the percentage it ultimately approves or denies—will determine the true, immediate impact of the mandate. If the State issues mass denials in the coming months, the VSEA may be able to return to court with new evidence of actual terminations or forced moves, a development that could revive the claim of “irreparable harm.”