Windham County Sheriffs Department v. Department of Labor, 195 Vt. 1

WCSD elected to be a reimbursable employer under 21 V.S.A. §1321(e).
Employee was discharged for theft of department equipment (gross misconduct).
Initial DOL determination in 2011 used pre-July 1, 2011 §1338(e) to compute base-period wages included for liability.
Effective July 1, 2011, §1338(e) was amended to exclude wages paid based on gross misconduct from the base period.
Employee filed for unemployment benefits; WCSD was charged for benefits in the years ending March 2012 and March 2013, under pre-amendment law.
WCSD argued the 2011 amendment should apply retroactively and relieve liability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 2011 amendment applies retroactively to liability	WCSD contends liability accrued under pre-amendment law.	Labor argues the amendment governs going forward.	Liability is governed by the pre-amendment law at initial claim.
When liability for reimbursement accrues	Invalid claim, liability arises later.	Liability established at initial monetary eligibility.	Liability accrues at the time of the valid initial claim.
Whether Myott supports retroactive application	Remedial/procedural language suggests retroactivity.	Myott does not override 1 V.S.A. §214(b)(2).	Myott does not permit retroactive application of the amended statute.
Whether the 2011 amendment affects WCSD’s status as reimbursable	Remedial nature favors retroactive relief.	Remedial status does not override specific retroactivity rules.	WCSD remains liable under the law in force at the initial claim.

City of Burlington v. Department of Employment & Training, 148 Vt. 151 (1987) (valid claim/liability determined at time of disqualification—retroactivity overridden by amendment)
Sanz v. Douglas Collins Construction, 2006 VT 102 (2006) (liability/right acquired at injury; timing of statute changes governs applicability)
Myott v. Myott, 149 Vt. 573 (1988) (remedial vs procedural language not to override 1 V.S.A. §214(b)(2))