Exclusive Remedy in Vermont

State Snapshot

BASIC RULE

In Vermont, workers’ compensation is an employee’s sole legal remedy for a work-related injury. 21 V.S.A. § 622.

This means that an injured employee cannot sue his employer in tort for monetary damages, such as by bringing a negligence claim. The injured employee’s family members also cannot sue based on the employee’s claim, such as by bringing a wrongful death action or loss of consortium lawsuit.

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE RULE TO APPLY

The rule applies if:

1. An employment relationship existed;
2. The employer was subject to Vermont workers’ compensation law;
3. The injury qualifies as a compensable injury; and
4. The injury arose out of and in the course of employment.

EXAMPLES OF CLAIMS BARRED BY THE RULE

The types of lawsuits against which an employer is immunized by the rule include lawsuits bringing the following claims:

• Negligence
• Unsafe workplace claims
• Failure to supervise
• Failure to train
• Ordinary premises liability
• Loss of consortium or derivative claims by family members
• Wrongful death damages outside workers’ compensation remedies

EXAMPLES OF CLAIMS NOT BARRED BY THE RULE

Generally, the rule does not bar:

• Discrimination claims
• Retaliation claims
• Wage claims
• Certain contractual rights

INTENTIONAL INJURIES

An employee can still sue his employer in tort if he can establish that the employer intentionally injured him. In Vermont, this is very difficult to establish. The employee has to show that employer:

• Desired to bring about the consequences of its act; or
• Believed that the consequences were substantially certain to result from the act.

It is not enough for the employee to show that the employer was careless, negligent, or grossly negligent. Merely showing, for example, that an employer was cutting corners with respect to safety is not sufficient to show intent.

THIRD PARTY LAWSUITS

The exclusive remedy rule does not apply to lawsuits against third parties. For example, if the employee is struck by a car driven by a member of the public while the employee is on the clock, the rule does not bar the lawsuit against the driver. To take another example, if an employee is injured during work by defective equipment that is manufactured by another company, the employee may still sue that other company.

EMPLOYER FAILS TO SECURE COVERAGE

If an employer fails to maintain the mandatory workers' compensation insurance required by law, it forfeits its tort immunity. The injured worker can file a tort claim against his employer.

LEASED EMPLOYEES

Vermont expressly extends exclusivity protection to both the employee leasing company and the client company when workers’ compensation coverage is in effect.

RECENT CASES

Lewis v. VR US Holdings II, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-639  (D. Vt. 08/18/25) 

A professional zip line guide at Stowe Mountain Resort died during a high-speed descent (estimated between 30 and 51 mph). The zip line's terminal brake failed, and his lanyards burst, launching him into a solid anchor platform. His mother sued the employer in tort, arguing that it negligently fostered a culture of extreme speed to give customers greater thrills and that it used flawed equipment. To fall within an exception to the exclusive remedy rule, the court said, even foreseeable injury is not enough. The law requires a specific, deliberate intent to cause injury—akin to an employer intentionally punching an employee in the face. While the employer may have prioritized profit over safety, it was motivated by financial concerns, not a specific desire or intent to cause harm or injury to its employee. Concluding that the mother’s exclusive remedy was workers’ compensation, the court dismissed the lawsuit.

Buksh  v. Sarchino, No. No. 2:21-cv-190  (D. Vt. 08/17/22) 

Three podiatry medical residents filed a civil tort action against their clinical supervisor, a medical doctor. The doctor asked the court to throw out the case based on the exclusive remedy provision. The residents pointed to the exception for intentional injuries. The court acknowledged that establishing intent is a very high standard. But it refused to dismiss the case at this early stage of the lawsuit. It pointed out that the doctor allegedly forced the residents to take X-rays without protective equipment, thus exposing them to high levels of radiation, on numerous occasions. Further, the doctor allegedly continued with this behavior even after the employer was found to be in violation of the VOSHA statute. These allegations, along with claims that the doctor operated with hostility and racial animus towards the residents, was enough to allow the case to proceed. A jury or judge, the court said, “could find that [the doctor’s] actions were taken with either the intent to injure or with substantial knowledge that injury would result.”

EXCLUSIVITY RULE IN NEARBY STATES

Connecticut

Massachusetts

New Hampshire

Rhode Island

Share This Article: