BCLP At Work

BCLP At Work

Leaves of Absence

Main Content

Paid Sick Leave to Take Effect in Maryland, Despite Governor’s Veto

Maryland has joined the growing ranks of states across the country mandating employee sick leave. Last year, the General Assembly passed the Healthy Working Families Act, requiring employers to allow employees to earn time off from work.  While Governor Larry Hogan vetoed the bill late last year, the General Assembly reconvened in January and overrode the veto. The Act takes effect on February 11, 2018, and employers should be prepared to implement changes quickly.

Coverage:

The Act applies to full-time, part-time, and temporary employees. However, it does not apply to any employee who works fewer than 12 hours per week, or employees under 18 years old.  Additionally, the Act contains other exceptions for certain categories of workers, including agricultural workers, construction industry employees that are covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and “as needed” shift employees in the healthcare industry.

Whether sick leave is paid or unpaid depends on the size of the employer. Employers with 15 or more employees must provide up 40 hours of paid sick leave per year.  Employers with 14 or fewer employees must provide employees the same amount of unpaid sick leave.

Accrual:

An employee begins accruing leave immediately upon starting work.  Employers must allow employees to accrue one hour of sick leave for every 30 hours worked, and the accrual rate is the same whether leave is paid or unpaid.  Additionally, employers must allow employees to carryover at least 40 hours of earned sick leave from one year to the next.  However, employers

California Enacts New Law Expanding Parental Leave to Small Employers

On Thursday, October 12, 2017, California Governor Jerry Brown signed legislation that extends twelve weeks of unpaid parental leave to California employees who work for small businesses.  The New Parent Leave Act applies generally to California employers with at least 20 and no more than 49 employees.  The practical effect of the Act is to expand the parental leave required under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) to smaller employers.  The new law takes effect on January 1, 2018.

Under the New Parent Leave Act, an employee may take up to twelve weeks of unpaid parental leave within one year of a child’s birth, adoption, or foster care placement, so long as the employee (1) works at a location where the employer has at least 20 employees within a 75 mile radius, (2) has at least twelve months of service with the employer, and (3) has worked at least 1,250 hours during the previous twelve months.  The new law requires the employer to maintain the employee’s health care coverage, but the employer can recover the premium paid if the employee fails to return from leave due to a reason other than a serious health condition or “other circumstances beyond the control of the employee.”

The law also creates a “parental leave mediation pilot program” that will last through January 1, 2020.  Under the “pilot” mediation program, if an employer requests mediation within 60 days of receiving a right to sue notice,

ADA Does Not Require Employers to Provide Multi-Month Leave Beyond Expiration of FMLA Leave – Seventh Circuit

This week the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision helpful to employers grappling with whether they must extend an employee’s time off following the expiration of Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).  See Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., No. 15-3754, 2017 WL 4160849 (7th Cir., Sept. 20, 2017).

In Severson, the court found that “[a] multimonth leave of absence is beyond the scope of a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.”  Plaintiff, Severson, had a physically demanding job working for a fabricator of retail display fixtures.  Severson took twelve weeks of FMLA leave due to serious back pain.  During his leave, he scheduled back surgery (to occur on the last day of his FMLA leave), and requested an additional three months of leave.  Defendant, Heartland, denied Severson’s request to continue his medical leave beyond the FMLA entitlement, terminated his employment, and invited him to reapply when he was medically cleared to work.  Instead, Severson sued, alleging disability discrimination.

In affirming summary judgment in favor of the employer, the 7th Circuit noted that “[t]he ADA is an antidiscrimination statute, not a medical-leave entitlement.”  Following its earlier decision in Byrne v. Avon Prods., 328 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2003), the court also stated that “an employee who needs long-term medical leave cannot work and thus is not a ‘qualified individual’ under the ADA.”  In other words, “an extended leave of absence does not give a disabled individual the means

Temps in Tenth Circuit Face Stricter Scrutiny When Seeking Time Off as Reasonable Accommodation

On July 6, 2017, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reiterated that physical attendance in the workplace is an essential function of most jobs and emphasized this is particularly true for temporary workers filling short-term vacancies.

In Punt v. Kelly Services, the plaintiff, Kristin Punt, was a temporary worker assigned to work for GE Controls Solutions (“GE”) as a receptionist.  The essential functions of that job included being “physically present at the lobby/reception desk during business hours.”  However, during her six weeks in the position, Ms. Punt was absent or tardy on multiple occasions, often due to medical appointments related to a recent diagnosis of breast cancer.  GE terminated her assignment after she informed GE on a Monday morning that she planned to be absent the entire week and would need unspecified additional time off for “some appointments and tests” and “five times of radiation.”

Ms. Punt filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging failure to accommodate a disability.  In the Tenth Circuit, the plaintiff must make a prima facie showing that (1) she is disabled, (2) she is “otherwise qualified,” and (3) she requested a plausibly reasonable accommodation.  The burden of production then shifts to the employer to present evidence either (1) conclusively rebutting one or more elements of the prima facie case, or (2) establishing one of the affirmative defenses, such as undue hardship.  The Tenth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for GE, concluding as a matter of law

Think Your PTO Policy Complies With the Chicago or Cook County Paid Sick Leave Ordinances? Think Again.

The City of Chicago’s (the “City’s”) and Cook County’s (the “County’s”) paid sick leave (“PSL”) Ordinances took effect on July 1, 2017, generally requiring employers to provide employees in Chicago and non-opt out locations in Cook County with 40 hours of PSL per year, plus additional PSL for employers/employees covered by the U.S. Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). Based on “safe harbor” provisions in both Ordinances, many employers are assuming that their Paid Time Off (“PTO”) policies are sufficient – as written – to comply with these new PSL obligations. However, a careful reading of the Ordinances and their respective rules (“Rules”) leads to the inescapable conclusion that almost no traditional PTO policy satisfies the Ordinances’ burdensome and somewhat complex requirements.

Safe Harbor Provisions

Both Ordinances contain a “safe harbor” provision that essentially says that if the employer grants paid time off to employees in an amount and manner that meets the requirements for PSL under the Ordinance, the employer is not required to provide additional paid leave. The final Rules adopted by the City and the County include additional guidance with respect to this issue:

Chicago Safe Harbor Rule, MW 3.01

The Paid Sick Leave portion of the Ordinance has three main categories which must be complied with: (1) accrual / grant of hours of Paid Sick Leave; (2) carryover of Paid Sick Leave from one year to the next; and (3) usage of Paid Sick Leave. Grant of sufficient hours may exempt an Employer from carryover as

Arizona Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Update: Can We Use Our Old PTO System?

As Arizona employers prepare for the imminent July 1 effective date of Arizona’s first mandatory paid sick time law (The Fair Wages and Healthy Families Act (the “Act”)), one of  the questions that we get most frequently is, “If we have a Paid Time Off policy, do we need to have a separate policy for paid sick time?”

Read our recent Client Alert here: Arizona Mandatory Paid Sick Leave Update

Bryan Cave LLP has a team of knowledgeable lawyers and other professionals prepared to help employers assess their sick time obligations. If you or your organization would like more information on compliance with sick time laws, please contact an attorney in the Labor and Employment practice group.

Paid Sick Leave Laws – City of Chicago and Cook County, Illinois

The City of Chicago and Cook County have each passed “Paid Sick Leave” ordinances that go into effect July 1, 2017.  See https://www.bryancave.com/en/thought-leadership/new-leave-laws-in-illinois.html

Employers with employees in Chicago (but not other parts of Cook County) need only comply with the City of Chicago ordinance.  Employers with employees in Cook County municipalities other than Chicago need only comply with the Cook County ordinance, although certain Cook County municipalities have opted out of the Cook County ordinance (see list below of municipalities that have NOT opted out).  Employers with locations and employees in both Chicago and other Cook County municipalities would need to comply with both ordinances as applicable to specific employees.

We have been monitoring the ordinances for some time, but there has been a delay in the finalization of the interpretative rules by Cook County and the City of Chicago.  Cook County recently finalized its regulations (which are 46 pages long and more complex than anticipated), but the City of Chicago has not. We expect the City of Chicago to issue final rules within the next week.

Cook County Municipalities That Have NOT Opted Out Barrington Hills (partly in Kane, Lake, and McHenry Counties) Bensenville (partly in DuPage County) Berwyn Blue Island Broadview Brookfield Burnham Calumet City Calumet Park Chicago Heights Chicago Ridge Cicero Country Club Hills Countryside Deer Park (partly in Lake County) Deerfield (partly in Lake County) Des Plaines Dixmoor Dolton East Dundee (partly in Kane County) Elmhurst (partly in DuPage County) Evanston Flossmoor Ford Heights Forest

Georgia Enacts New Family Care Act That Broadens Permissible Uses Of Paid Sick Leave

Although Georgia still lags behind states that mandate paid sick leave, certain Georgia employees will now be able to use some of some of their paid sick leave to care for a qualifying family member without fear of reprisal.   Under Georgia’s new Family Care Act, which was signed into law on May 8, 2017 and goes into effect on July 1, 2017, employers with 25 or more employees that provide paid sick leave must allow employees who work at least 30 hours per week to use up to five days of their paid sick leave per calendar year to care for an immediate family member.  The Act defines immediate family members as an employee’s child, spouse, grandchild, grandparent, parent, or any dependent shown on the employee’s most recent tax return.

The Family Care Act does not mandate that employers provide paid sick leave nor does it require employers to allow employees to use sick leave until it has actually been earned.  In addition, an employer may still require employees to comply with the terms of its sick leave policy.  Although the State of Georgia and its political subdivisions are covered by this Act, employers that offer an employee stock ownership plan are excluded from coverage.  Only time will tell how effective the Family Care Act will be since it does not provide employees with a cause of action against employers, does not provide any enforcement provisions, and will be automatically repealed on July 1, 2020, unless the General Assembly chooses

Mandatory Paid Sick Leave for Arizona Employees: How Proposition 206 Impacts Your Business

After surviving a legal challenge rejected by the Arizona Supreme Court, Arizona’s $10 minimum wage enacted under Proposition 206 is already in effect, and the sick leave portion of the law takes effect in July. For many companies, this will require new paid time off and sick leave policies, or at least revisions to their existing policies.

With enactment of Proposition 206, Arizona joins other states with sick leave laws, including Illinois, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Vermont, and Washington, D.C. As previously reported by the Bryan Cave Retail Law blog, the Illinois law took effect in January 2017.

The Arizona law generally applies to all Arizona employees; it makes no distinction between salaried, hourly, full-time, part-time, temporary or seasonal employees. All employees must accrue one hour of paid sick time for every 30 hours worked.

Paid sick leave can be used for medical care of a mental or physical illness, injury or health condition of the employee or their children, spouse or registered domestic partner, parents, grandparents, grandchildren, siblings, or any other individual related by blood or affinity whose close association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. Paid sick leave cannot be used, however, to bond with a new child or for grief and recovery following a family member’s death.

Employers cannot ask the reason for taking paid sick leave unless three consecutive days off are requested, in which case they can request documentation that the leave was requested for permitted reasons.

Bryan Cave attorneys

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.