Vermont
Vermont Workplace Recording Laws
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited November 1, 2026). · Reviewed by the RecordingLaw editorial team. · Law checked current as of November 1, 2026. · 3 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Vermont has no state wiretapping statute, so workplace recording is governed by federal one-party consent under 18 U.S.C. 2511. Vermont employees may generally record a workplace conversation they participate in without notifying other parties. One exception matters for health-care workers: a provider or patient may record a telemedicine or audio-only telephone consultation only if both the patient and the provider consent (18 V.S.A. 9361(d), 9362(d)). Before Act 80 took effect on April 20, 2026, those consultations could not be recorded at all. Employers can still enforce no-recording policies, and Vermont's voyeurism law (13 V.S.A. 2605) bars secret recording in private spaces.
Vermont's one-party consent framework, governed by federal law (18 U.S.C. 2511), allows employees to record workplace conversations they participate in. This guide covers employee rights, employer surveillance, NLRA protections, and evidence use.
Employee Recording Rights
You can record meetings with supervisors, HR conversations, coworker discussions, client calls, and training sessions without telling anyone. One-party consent requires only your participation.
You cannot record conversations you are not part of, record coworkers' intimate areas in bathrooms or changing areas (13 V.S.A. 2605(c)), or secretly record anyone in a private area of a home (13 V.S.A. 2605(d)). State v. Geraw (2002) separately bars police from secretly recording an interview in a home without a warrant.
If you work in health care, a telemedicine or audio-only phone consultation with a patient may be recorded only if both the patient and the provider consent (18 V.S.A. 9361(d) and 9362(d), Act 80 of 2026).
Employer Surveillance
Permitted: Sales floors, warehouses, parking lots, lobbies, hallways. Prohibited: Cameras that view or record employees' intimate areas without their knowledge and consent in bathrooms, locker rooms, or changing areas, even as part of a security or theft-prevention program (13 V.S.A. 2605(c), (f)).
Audio surveillance by employers requires one-party consent. Many employers use video-only systems.
Employer No-Recording Policies
Employers can restrict recording through policy. The NLRA protects recording that is protected concerted activity. Blanket bans may violate Section 7.
Evidence Use
Recordings are admissible in employment disputes, EEOC complaints, OSHA complaints, and court proceedings. Keep originals unedited.
More Vermont Recording Laws
Audio Recording | Video Recording | Voyeurism & Hidden Cameras | Workplace Recording | Recording Police | Phone Call Recording | Security Cameras | Recording in Public | Landlord-Tenant | Dashcam Laws | Schools | Medical Recording
Back to Vermont Recording Laws
More Vermont Recording Topics
More Vermont Laws
- Vermont AI Meeting Recording Laws
- Vermont Dashcam Laws
- Vermont Data Privacy Laws
- Vermont Deepfake Laws
- Vermont Employee Monitoring Laws
- Vermont GPS Tracking Laws
- Vermont Police Bodycam Laws
- Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I record my boss in Vermont?
Yes. Federal one-party consent (18 U.S.C. 2511) allows you to record workplace conversations you participate in. Employer policies may restrict recording.
Can my employer record me at work in Vermont?
Video in common areas is permitted. Cameras that view or record employees' intimate areas in bathrooms and locker rooms violate 13 V.S.A. 2605. Audio requires one-party consent.
Can I be fired for recording at work in Vermont?
The recording is legal, but employers can discipline for policy violations. NLRA protections may apply to recording that is protected concerted activity.
Can I use a workplace recording in court?
Yes. Lawfully recorded conversations are generally admissible. Federal civil damages for illegal recording are the greater of actual damages or statutory damages of $100 per day or $10,000 (18 U.S.C. 2520).
Does my employer have to tell me about cameras?
Vermont does not require notification, but signage is a best practice.
Updates
We clarified that Act 80 of 2026 loosened an earlier outright ban on recording telehealth consultations, so they may now be recorded when both patient and provider consent.
We clarified that Vermont's voyeurism law, not the police-search case State v. Geraw, is what bars private secret recording in homes and changing areas, and added that since April 2026 a telehealth or phone consultation between a patient and a provider may be recorded only if both consent.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Corrected the federal civil damages description to the actual statutory formula.
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources; governing law re-checked for recent changes
Governing law re-checked for recent changes
Reviewed and approved by an editor
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Vermont Statutes Annotated, Title 13: Crimes and Criminal Procedure, Chapter 59: Lewdness and Prostitution, Subchapter: LEWD AND INDECENT CONDUCT
§ 2605VoyeurismIn forcecited in 15 of our articles
(a) As used in this section: (1) “Bona fide private investigator or bona fide security guard” means an individual lawfully providing services, whether licensed or unlicensed, pursuant to 26 V.S.A. §§ 3151 and 3151a. (2) “Female breast” means any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola. (3) “Circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy” means circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that his or her intimate areas would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private area. This definition includes circumstances in which a person knowingly disrobes in front of another, but does not expect nor give consent for the other person to photograph, film, or record his or her intimate areas. (4) “Intimate areas” means the naked or undergarment-clad genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or female breast of a person.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-24 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.vermont.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2022
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):In State v. DEVOID (2010) the Vermont Supreme Court reversed an attempted voyeurism conviction under section 2605(b)(1), holding the evidence could not show the defendant, on the ground, was able to see the complainant's intimate areas as the statute defines them, so looking at her window was not an overt act.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- State v. DEVOID (Supreme Court of Vermont 2010, 188 Vt. 445)✓A man stared up at a second-floor shower window from the parking lot; a photograph taken inside the bathroom showed the complainant's intimate areas, as the statute defines them, were below the sill, so the court reversed his attempted-voyeurism conviction as unsupported.
- State v. Squiers (Supreme Court of Vermont 2006, 179 Vt. 388)“…r any object into the genital or anal opening of another”); 13 V.S.A. § 2605(a)(4) & (b) (prohibiting the viewing or…”
- State v. Beaudoin (Supreme Court of Vermont 2008, 185 Vt. 164)“…ter 1 includes §§ 2601 and 2602 and a section on voyeurism, 13 V.S.A. § 2605. Section 2601 makes it a felony to enga…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Vermont Smart Glasses Recording Laws 2025, Vermont Recording Laws (2026): No Wiretap Statute, One-Party Default, Vermont Medical Recording Laws
United States Code Title 18
§ 2511Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibitedIn forcecited in 441 of our articles
Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication; intentionally uses, endeavors to use, or procures any other person to use or endeavor to use any electronic, mechanical, or other device to intercept any oral communication when— such device is affixed to, or otherwise transmits a signal through, a wire, cable, or other like connection used in wire communication; or such device transmits communications by radio, or interferes with the transmission of such communication; or such person knows, or has reason to know, that such device or any component thereof has been sent through the mail or transported in interstate or foreign commerce; or such use or endeavor to use (A) takes place on the premises of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign commerce; or (B) obtains or is for the purpose of obtaining information relating to the operations of any business or other commercial establishment the operations of which affect interstate or foreign…
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-17 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 2,045 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Griggs-Ryan v. Smith (1990) applied the Section 2511(2)(d) prior-consent exception, treating a tenant repeatedly told that all incoming calls were taped as having impliedly consented. United States v. United States District Court (1972) read the then-current Section 2511(3) as conferring no presidential surveillance power.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Mitchell v. Forsyth (Supreme Court of the United States 1985, 472 U.S. 511)✓The Attorney General authorized a warrantless 1970 national security wiretap that caught the plaintiff's calls; the Court held the since-repealed Section 2511(3) disclaimer left the tap lawful under Title III, and that Mitchell had qualified immunity.
- United States v. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 407 U.S. 297)✓The Attorney General approved warrantless wiretaps on members of a domestic group accused of bombing a CIA office; the Court read Section 2511(3) as a congressional disclaimer conferring no surveillance power, then held the Fourth Amendment required prior judicial approval.
- Forsyth v. Barr (Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 1994, 19 F.3d 1527)✓Dallas police used, in an internal affairs probe of an officer, calls private parties allegedly intercepted illegally; assuming that was unlawful, the Fifth Circuit held Section 2517(1) and (2) allowed the disclosure and use, defeating the Section 2511(1)(c) and (d) claims.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Can an Employer Record Conversations Without Consent? (2026), Can I Record My Boss Harassing Me? State-by-State Legal Guide (2026), Can I Sue Someone for Recording Me on Private or Public Property?
§ 2520Recovery of civil damages authorizedIn forcecited in 130 of our articles
Except as provided in section 2511(2)(a)(ii), any person whose wire, oral, or electronic communication is intercepted, disclosed, or intentionally used in violation of this chapter may in a civil action recover from the person or entity, other than the United States, which engaged in that violation such relief as may be appropriate. In an action under this section, appropriate relief includes— such preliminary and other equitable or declaratory relief as may be appropriate; damages under subsection (c) and punitive damages in appropriate cases; and a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation costs reasonably incurred.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-28 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at uscode.house.gov
Cited in 860 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Walker v. Darby (1990) held a 2520 plaintiff need not prove the contents of intercepted conversations, only interception and a justified expectation against it. Bartnicki v. Vopper (2001) barred 2520 damages against defendants who took no part in the interception, obtained the tape lawfully, and disclosed a matter of public concern.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Jessie Walker v. Thomas E. Darby, Hugh L. Robinson, Jr., and Kenneth Day (Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit 1990, 911 F.2d 1573)✓A postal letter carrier said three supervisors wired an intercom near his workstation to listen in. Reversing summary judgment, the Eleventh Circuit held a section 2520 plaintiff can show interception without proving the contents of specific conversations.
- Gelbard v. United States (Supreme Court of the United States 1972, 408 U.S. 41)“…disclosure, or use is entitled to recover civil damages, 18 U. S. C. § 2520 . Title III also bars the use as eviden…”
- DirecTV, Inc. v. Hoa Huynh (Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 2007, 503 F.3d 847)“…7 U.S.C. § 605 (e)(4), or alternatively, for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (a), or alternatively, for violations o…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Federal Wiretap Act and ECPA: The Complete Guide (2026), How to Detect and Block Listening Devices in Your Home (2026), Is It Illegal to Video Record Someone Without Their Consent? (2026)
Sources and References
- 18 U.S.C. 2511 -- Federal Wiretap Act(law.cornell.edu)
- 13 V.S.A. 2605 -- Voyeurism(legislature.vermont.gov).gov
- NLRA(nlrb.gov).gov
- EEOC(eeoc.gov).gov
- 18 U.S.C. 2520 -- Civil Damages(law.cornell.edu)