The advent of summer has brought the reality of “child care” leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to the forefront of employers’ minds:  Are employees really entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave to care for their children during “summer vacation” from school?  And, if yes, how do we manage this leave?

The answer to the first question is, “possibly.”  Eligible employees of employers covered by the FFCRA are entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave to care for a child whose school or child care provider is closed or unavailable for reasons related to COVID-19: (a) two weeks of Paid Sick Leave; and (b) up to ten additional weeks of Emergency FMLA Leave.

While this entitlement creates the potential for employees to be on leave all summer (and mostly paid leave, at that:  employers must play employees 2/3rds pay at employee’s normal rate, subject to caps) there are a number of steps employers can take to effectively manage this leave.

Step 1:  Ensure the Employee has a Qualifying Reason for Leave, and Document the Reason

The Department of Labor has made it clear that “summer vacation” does not, in itself, create a qualifying reason for FFCRA leave, because school being closed for the summer is not a “reason related to COVID-19.”  See DOL FFCRA Q&A #93.  It is only when the employee’s plans for summer care for the child have fallen through because of a COVID-19 related reason that FFCRA leave could be

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

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor finally announced its long-awaited changes to the regulations regarding overtime compensation. Effective January 1, 2020, the minimum salary required for most exemptions under the Fair Labor Standards Act will rise from $455 per week to $684 per week (or from $23,660 to $35,568 annualized). The minimum salary for the “highly compensated employee” exemption will rise from $100,000 to $107,432 per year.

Additionally, employers will be permitted to use nondiscretionary bonuses and other incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to ten percent (10%) of the required minimum salary, as long as that compensation is paid at least annually. And if an employee fails to earn sufficient incentive compensation in a 52-week period to maintain “exempt” status, the employer may make up the shortfall (up to 10% of the minimum required salary) in a one-time payment in the first pay period after the end of the 52-week period.

The “final rule” announced today is more employer-friendly than the Department’s last attempt to update the overtime regulations, which was enjoined by a federal court in 2016 before the changes could take effect. The final rule issued in 2016 would have raised the minimum salaries for exemption considerably higher, making an estimated 4 million workers eligible for overtime pay, and it would have provided for automatic increases in the salary thresholds going forward. The final rule announced today is predicted to make 1.3 million workers overtime-eligible and does not provide for any automatic adjustments in the future.

On March 7, 2019, the United States Department of Labor issued a notice of proposed rulemaking that would change the minimum salary levels necessary for an employee to be properly classified as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Under the proposed rule, the minimum salary for most exemptions would rise from $455 per week ($23,660 annualized) to $679 per week ($35,308 annualized).  The minimum annual compensation for the “highly compensated employee” exemption would rise from $100,000 to $147,414.

For employees in the executive, administrative and professional exemptions, the proposed rule would permit nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to ten percent (10%) of the required minimum salary.  In addition, provided that the employee has received at least ninety percent (90%) of the required minimum compensation in each payroll week for 52 weeks, the employer would be permitted to make a single “catch-up” payment within one pay period after the end of the 52-week period, in order to bring the employee’s compensation to the required level.

For “highly compensated employees,” the proposed rule would require that ten percent (10%) of the minimum annual compensation be paid in the form of a weekly salary, but the remainder could be paid in the form of nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments.  In addition, the rule would also permit a “catch-up” payment as described above.

The proposed rule would formally rescind the Obama-era rule proposed in 2016, which was blocked by permanent injunction before it