In August, we informed you of a decision by a federal district court in New York (the “Court”) that invalidated four key provisions of the federal Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) regulations interpreting the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).  On September 11, 2020, the DOL acknowledged the nationwide impact of the Court’s ruling, and issued much-anticipated revised regulations addressing the four provisions.  The new regulations will be formally published, and become effective, on September 16, 2020.

As described in detail below, in the new regulations, the DOL: (a) affirmed the “work-availability” requirement; (b) affirmed the “employer consent” requirement for intermittent leave; (c) narrowed the scope of the “health care provider” definition for purposes of the available exemption from the leave entitlement; and (d) clarified the timing of notice and documentation requirements.  The DOL also provided new and revised Q&As on these subjects (see Q&A #s 16, 21, 22, 56, and 98-103).

Work-Availability

In the revised regulations, the DOL held firm to the requirement that employees are only entitled to leave if they are unable to work “because of” a COVID-19 qualifying reason.  The DOL addressed the Court’s concerns with consistency by clarifying that this work-availability requirement applies to all qualifying reasons for FFCRA leave.  Thus, according to the DOL:

• FFCRA leave (both Paid Sick Leave for any qualifying reason and Expanded FMLA leave) may only be taken if the employee has work from which to take leave. In other words, an employee cannot take FFCRA leave if the employer would
  

Employers’ efforts to comply with the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) were further complicated on Monday when the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York invalidated several key provisions of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule (or regulations) interpreting the law.  Unfortunately, the Court’s holding creates a number of questions on key issues, including retroactivity and the applicability of the decision on a nationwide basis in light of the court’s failure to issue a nationwide injunction.  Further, the holding may not be final, because the DOL may appeal the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  At minimum, it appears likely that the DOL will issue revised Questions & Answers, and potentially revised regulations, in light of Monday’s ruling.

As we await further guidance from the DOL and/or the courts, employers should become familiar with the changed FFCRA landscape and consider how Monday’s ruling may impact their FFCRA policy and practices.  Below is a discussion of the four provisions that have been struck down, at least within the Southern District of New York.

Work-Availability

The FFCRA statutory language provides that employees are only entitled to leave if they are unable to work “because of” a COVID-19 qualifying reason.  The DOL interpreted this language to mean that employees are not entitled to FFCRA leave if their employer has no work available for them, even if the lack of work is the result of a government directive such as a closure or “stay-at-home”

As states across the country see spikes in COVID-19 cases, employers continue to wrestle with how to handle “high risk” employees, i.e., employees who are at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.  Guidance from a variety of agencies on the topic, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), has been published in waves, leaving many to wonder how this guidance may or may not continue to be relevant.

Below are six important areas of the law to consider when navigating this evolving landscape.  As a reminder, each individual employee’s circumstances are unique, so while employers should have a consistent procedure in place for triaging high risk employees’ presence in the workplace, employers should also be prepared to develop individualized solutions based on an employee’s specific needs.

With more and more states reopening their economies, employers are facing a barrage of new requirements from state and local governments.  But compliance with local law isn’t the only thing employers must consider as they resume business operations.  Federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), continue to impact which workers may be required to return to work and what information employers may gather in the process.

Just as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, so, too does guidance on these topics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws.  In its most recent publication, the EEOC offers new insights on antibody testing, older workers, and accommodations.  Below are four key takeaways from the updated guidance for every employer to consider.

The federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) is closing in on 100 informal “questions and answers” (the “Q&A”) relating to the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), having issued Q&A #s 89-93.  The new Q&A address steps employers may take when determining whether employees truly “need” FFCRA leave; issues relating to domestic workers; and a reminder for joint employers that prohibitions on adverse action, interference and retaliation may apply even to employers who are not covered by the FFCRA.

Determining Whether Employees Have A Qualifying Reason For Leave

Three of the five new Q&A provide critical guidance for employers on permissible questions and documentation requirements to ensure that leave is being taken in appropriate circumstances.

In the first Q&A (# 91), the DOL posits a factual scenario in which an employee with children has been teleworking productively for several weeks despite school closings, but then requests FFCRA leave.  The hypothetical employer wonders:  “Can I ask my employees why they are now unable to work or if they have pursued alternative child care arrangements?”  The DOL responds affirmatively, indicating that an employee may be asked “to note any changed circumstances in his or her statement as part of explaining why the employee is unable to work.”

Employers should “exercise caution” in this area, however, because, according to the DOL, the more questions asked, the greater “the likelihood that any decision denying leave based on that information is a prohibited act.”  There are many reasons why an employee may not have initially

Employers preparing to reopen their places of business have many logistical considerations, including compliance with state and local health orders relating to face coverings, temperature and wellness screenings, and other measures designed to help keep employees healthy and safe during the COVID-19 pandemic. Last week, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its own “Return to Work” guidance by adding Q&A guidance on how employers should handle a “high risk” employee, i.e., an employee with an existing and known disability that may make the employee more susceptible to severe illness from COVID-19.  The guidance is a helpful reminder to employers that even actions taken with the best of intentions may not comply with legal obligations and restrictions.  Below are three important questions for employers to consider in light of the EEOC’s updated guidance.

How does the Interactive Process Apply to COVID-Related Requests for Accommodation?

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”), employers are obligated to consider requests from a disabled employee for reasonable accommodations to the employee’s work environment that would permit him or her to perform the essential functions of the job. While the EEOC’s earlier guidance addressed the nuts and bolts of the “interactive process” during the pandemic generally (including the timeframe in which employers should respond to requests for accommodation and what qualifies as an “undue hardship” during the pandemic), many employers were left questioning how the outbreak of COVID-19 would impact their

Across the country, state and local governments are considering safe ways to “reopen” their economies and revise some of their strict shelter-in-place orders. One such consideration includes masks and “face coverings,” with many implementing a requirement that members of the public, including employees reporting to work, wear such coverings.  Below are four things that employers should do now to be prepared to comply with mask and face covering requirements as they “reopen” their businesses.

Public health authorities at the federal, state, and local levels are likely to continue revising their recommendations on face coverings as they learn more about COVID-19. For example, last month, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued guidance recommending that individuals wear “cloth face coverings”[1] in public settings where other social distancing measures are difficult to maintain (e.g., grocery stores and pharmacies), especially in areas of significant community-based transmission. The CDC makes clear that the purpose of such coverings is primarily to “help people who may have the virus and do not know it from transmitting it to others.” In other words, a face covering primarily protects others from an asymptomatic wearer.

Although the CDC’s guidance is only a recommendation – and thus not binding – a variety of local and federal agencies rely on the CDC’s guidance generally to identify “best practices” for employers, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). State and local

Although the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) declared April 1 – 17 to be a temporary period of non-enforcement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), the DOL was far from idle during that period.  To the contrary, the DOL hosted an FFCRA webinar, published versions of the required FFCRA poster in additional languages, and actively encouraged employers and employees to become familiar with the FFCRA through posts on social media.  Importantly, the DOL also provided key revised and new guidance for employers by: (1) issuing technical corrections to the temporary rule; and (2) posting additional informal questions and answers (the “Q&A”).

As described below, this new guidance provides much-needed clarity on key issues, especially since the period of non-enforcement is now over.

Interplay Between the FFCRA and Employer Paid Leave Policies

Although the rules remain complicated and not entirely clear, there is now more information regarding whether and when an employee may choose, or an employer may require, leave under an employer’s existing paid leave policies to be used before, concurrently with, or as a supplement to, the use of leave under the Paid Sick Leave (“PSL”) and Emergency FMLA (“EFMLA”) provisions of the FFCRA.

In this context, “concurrently” means “to cover the same hours as.”  In other words, to the extent various types of leave run concurrently, then the employee’s leave entitlement is used / reduced under both types of leave at the same time.  “Supplement” means that paid leave under an employer’s

The call to HR is becoming more common:  I have COVID-19. Should I go on a leave of absence, and if so, will I be paid while I am out?

It is clear that an employee who has tested positive for COVID-19 (or who is likely positive based on symptoms and/or exposure) should remain away from the workplace so as to avoid spreading the disease.  What can sometimes be less clear is what leave entitlements apply to the employee, and whether the employee will be paid for all or some portion of the leave.  When faced with these questions, employers should consider the following:

Leave Entitlements Under Federal Law

For employers covered by the new Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), an eligible employee may be entitled to up to 80 hours of Paid Sick Leave, if the employee is unable to work (including telework) due to either:

• Having COVID-19 and being advised by a healthcare professional to self-quarantine; or
• Having symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a diagnosis from a healthcare professional.

Importantly, this leave is both job-protected and paid (subject to caps, although employers may permit employees to supplement these wages with other available accrued paid leave).  Of course, some employees who have COVID-19 are asymptomatic or have only mild symptoms and are able to keep working (remotely).  In these cases, the FFCRA does not apply.  Click here for our latest blog posts on the FFCRA.

The federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) may

This weekend, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) released yet another set of updated and revised Questions and Answers (“Q&A”) regarding the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).  This updated informal guidance comes just days after the DOL published its formal Temporary Rules (“Rules”) interpreting the FFRCA.  As we’ve summarized in earlier posts, the FFCRA was signed into law on March 18, 2020 and generally requires U.S. employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide paid sick leave (“Paid Sick Leave”) and emergency family and medical leave (“Emergency FMLA Leave”) benefits to employees in connection with COVID-19.

The FFCRA’s Paid Sick Leave and Emergency FMLA Leave provisions became effective on April 1, 2020; however, as the DOL previously announced, to enable covered employers to come into compliance with the new law, the DOL will observe a temporary period of non-enforcement through April 17, 2020.  This temporary period of non-enforcement only applies if an employer makes a reasonable, good faith attempt to comply with the FFCRA.  As such, if they have not already, employers should take steps to comply with the FFCRA immediately, and should continue to monitor and incorporate guidance from the DOL into their policies and practices.

Below is a summary of new or revised guidance outlined in the updated Q&A (that was not previously summarized in our earlier posts) that employers should consider as they comply with the FFCRA.  Links to our posts summarizing the earlier guidance are available here.

Revised Q&A Guidance