Category: Labor & Employment

What is the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act and What Happens if it Becomes Law?

The House of Representatives passed the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA) (H.R. 2694), which could have major implications for companies around the country. If enacted, the PWFA would require most employers to provide reasonable accommodations for pregnant employees along the lines of what is required for disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the House Committee on Education and Labor’s research, 62% of workers have witnessed pregnancy discrimination on the job, which can take the form of “losing a job, being denied reasonable accommodation, or not being hired in the first place.” This discrimination can be particularly damaging to Black and Latina employees, “who are overrepresented in low-wage, physically demanding jobs,” a harsh reality that is intensified during the COVID-19 pandemic given that pregnant women “who contract the virus are more likely than non-pregnant women to be hospitalized.”

While federal laws, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act and the American with Disabilities Act, protect pregnant employees against certain forms of discrimination, the House passed the PWFA because “there is currently no federal law that explicitly and affirmatively guarantees all pregnant workers the right to a reasonable accommodation so they can continue working without jeopardizing their pregnancy.”

If it becomes law, the PWFA will provide that:

  • Private sector employers with more than 15 employees, as well as public sector employers, must make reasonable accommodations for pregnant workers and job applicants so long as the accommodation does not impose an undue hardship on the employer;
  • Pregnant employees cannot be retaliated against for requesting a reasonable accommodation and cannot be denied employment opportunities, or be required to take leave if another reasonable accommodation is available; and
  • the remedies available would include lost pay, compensatory damages, and attorneys’ fees

Hundreds of organizations, including the business community, civil rights groups, and employment/labor advocacy organizations have endorsed the PWFA. Next stop is the Senate, where the bill has been referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. The intersection between pregnancy and disability discrimination, including the reasonable accommodations for employees that may be available, will continue to be a key employment law area to watch.

© 2020 Zuckerman Law
ARTICLE BY Eric Bachman of Zuckerman Law
For more articles on labor law, visit the National Law Review Labor & Employment section.

When Increasing Productivity Can Backfire

Time theft, especially in an age of booming remote work, is a serious concern for employers.

Time theft’s cost on productivity motivates many companies to explore ways to reduce it.  In a recent case, time theft motivated a company to implement a timekeeping system that clocked employees through their fingerprints instead of the usual badges or employee numbers.  As this case illustrates, however, an attempt to increase productivity by decreasing time theft can quickly lead to bleeding resources into litigation.  Further, in some circumstances, the bleeding can turn into hemorrhaging, such as when a defendant finds itself simultaneously litigating in state and federal court.

In Burlinski v. Top Golf USA, Inc., No. 19-cv-06700, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 161371 (N.D. Ill. Sep. 3, 2020), the defendant faced a class action lawsuit by former employees over alleged timekeeping practices.  It allegedly required its employees to record their time by scanning their fingerprints.  The defendant’s purpose for using fingerprints in lieu of timecards or unique employee numbers was to prevent time theft by precluding employees from recording time for anyone but themselves.

The plaintiffs were employed in Illinois, which implicated state privacy laws.  Illinois is one of a few states with laws regulating the collection of fingerprints and other biometric data.  A company may be liable under the Illinois Biometric Privacy Act (“BIPA”) if it does not:  (1) maintain a public retention and destruction schedule before collecting biometric data; or (2) acquire written consent prior to collecting biometric data or disclosing such data to third parties.

Procedural trouble began when the defendant removed the suit.  While the district court was evaluating the defendant’s motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion to remand, the Seventh Circuit issued an opinion that changed everything.  In Bryant v. Compass Grp. USA, Inc., 958 F.3d 617, 624-26 (7th Cir. 2020), the Seventh Circuit ruled on whether district courts had Article III jurisdiction over BIPA claims.  The court found there was jurisdiction over claims alleging that a company failed to obtain written consent prior to collecting biometric data.  The court, however, found there was no jurisdiction over claims alleging a failure to maintain a public retention and destruction schedule prior to collecting biometric data.  In other words, federal courts have jurisdiction over some BIPA claims, but not others.  Burlinski contained both types of claims.

Bryant had an immediate effect in Burlinski.  The court remanded one claim to state court and kept the remaining claims.  The court then rejected the defendant’s arguments to dismiss the removed claims, and the defendant found itself simultaneously litigating in state and federal courts.

To sum it up, Burlinski serves as a reminder for companies to vigorously ensure their own compliance with any applicable privacy statutes.  With many services now turning remote, time theft will likely become only a larger problem.  Before implementing a new timekeeping system, however, companies should recall the tale of Burlinski and its double litigation.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
For more articles on employment, visit the National Law Review Labor & Employment section.

Leave for Oregon’s Volunteer Emergency Responders During Unprecedented Wildfires

On September 9, 2020, Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued Executive Order No. 20-41 invoking the Emergency Conflagration Act Statewide in light of extreme fire danger. Governor Brown’s invocation of the Emergency Conflagration Act remains in effect until at least November 1, 2020, as wildfires continue to rage. More than 1 million acres of land have burned across Oregon since September 7, 2020. To put things in perspective the area burned is nearly five times the size of New York City.  According to Governor Brown, Oregon is facing an unprecedented level of uncontained fire. To put the flames out, Oregon will need all the help that it can get from its courageous firefighters and first responders.

Employers may want to be aware of their ability under Oregon law to grant unpaid leave requests for volunteer firefighters and other first responders who need to perform services to battle the wildfires and perform search and rescue efforts.

Pursuant to ORS 476.574, Oregon private and public employers may provide unpaid leave to employees who are volunteer firefighters, members of rural fire protection districts, or firefighters employed by a city or private firefighting service to perform service in accordance with Oregon’s Emergency Conflagration Act. Pursuant to ORS 404.250, Oregon private and public employers may also “[u]pon request of an employee who is a search and rescue volunteer accepted to participate in search and rescue activities by the sheriff … grant a leave of absence to the employee.”

If an employer provides unpaid leave to an employee who is a volunteer firefighter or search and rescue volunteer, the leave must extend “until release from such service permits the employee to resume the duties of employment.” Once granted leave, the employee has a right to reinstatement to his or her previous position or an equivalent position without loss of seniority, accrued leave, or other benefits. Employers may require employees taking leave for purposes under the act to use all of their available accrued vacation or other paid time off before extending unpaid leave.

Employers that permit employees to take unpaid leave for emergency response activities must follow the prescriptions of ORS 476.574 and ORS 404.250, as a failure to do so may be considered an unlawful employment practice under Oregon law. An aggrieved employee who claims an unlawful employment practice may file a complaint with the commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries or may bring a civil action in circuit court. Aggrieved employees may be entitled to recover compensatory damages, back pay, costs, and attorney’s fees. Aggrieved employees may also be entitled to equitable relief, such as a reinstatement of employment.

In sum, employers of these covered individuals may want to be aware that Oregon law permits optional leave during this critical time. Employers that decide to provide leave may want to consider carefully their statutory obligations in order to avoid a violation resulting in an unlawful employment practice during the protected leave.

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

For more on emergency unpaid leave, see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

5 Ways to Successfully Manage Remote Staff

Managing your law firm staff in the office or remotely can and should look remarkably similar; however, there are unique challenges to working virtual. Understanding this and adjusting your management approach will be the difference between a productive, seamless transition, and one that potentially costs your business. We’ve rounded up 5 ways you can navigate successfully managing remote staff during a pandemic.

Ensure a proper workspace setup

You want your employees to have a comfortable setup that allows them to be productive in the office and working from home should be no different. While some of the usual office luxuries may not be possible (e.g. two computer monitors), ask your staff about what they need at home to create a similar environment. Do they have a desk and proper chair to work from? What type of lighting is available? If they’re relying on their personal computer, is it functional for work purposes? What about a printer? Is there access to high-speed internet? Some employees may not feel comfortable asking for at-home office supplies, and these are just a few of the questions that need to be addressed to allow your employees to work happily and efficiently.

Minimize loneliness and isolation

One of the downsides to working remotely is a sense of isolation, which can lead to anxiety and depression. Consider that employees may live alone, further exacerbating the possibility of loneliness. Identify ways for your team to interact throughout the day, ideally via video and phone versus email or text messaging. Don’t make conversations all about business; make time for small talk. Maintain office structure with designated times for breaks and lunch and consider holding virtual lunches together. Encourage employees to go for brief walks throughout the day to stay energized. Host team building activities such as workouts in the evening or happy hours via Zoom or similar platforms.

Overcome communication challenges

When working virtually, you automatically lose the opportunity to quickly pop into someone’s office and bounce an idea off them, but communication challenges go beyond that. Despite everyone’s best efforts, there will likely be more emails and texts, which, if not carefully crafted, can result in an unintended tone. Combat this by picking up the phone or getting on FaceTime, Skype or another video-oriented platform. It may take more effort and organization but will avoid employees questioning what you meant and an endless back and forth over email. Schedule time to brainstorm and strategize versus just talking about to-dos. While not as natural as having a quick chat in the office, it ensures continued creativity and interaction.

Don’t forget about encouragement and celebrations

It’s important that your staff stays motivated and focused on personal growth. In addition to team meetings, carve out time for one-on-one conversations, too. This will allow you to address any questions or concerns employees have that they aren’t comfortable bringing up in a group setting. It’s also an opportunity to discuss their goals and how those can be achieved. Don’t let evaluations go by the wayside simply because you’re not meeting in person.

Promote camaraderie by acknowledging milestones as you would in the office – five-year anniversary with the firm, birthdays, etc. This maintains positive employee morale and helps to minimize the isolation factor addressed earlier.

Establish a culture of ownership and accountability

Your team’s organization and productivity is only as good as yours. Implement systems to keep staff accountable. For example, schedule regular check-ins at the same time each day/week and use project management software such as Asana to keep everyone on top of projects and tasks. If you need to cancel a team call, reschedule immediately rather than telling employees you’ll get back to them. This allows them to plan their day and prevents wondering when they’ll be able to talk to you about a particular client or issue. Your team will take clues from you on how to best navigate working remotely so be an example they should emulate.

Remember that not every employee is suited to work from home, and you need to do what you can as a manager to set them up for success. This will benefit everyone in the long run.

© 2020 Berbay Marketing & Public Relations
For more articles on the legal industry visit the  National Law Review Law Office Management section.

The Bad Old Days: Why Nostalgia for In-Office Work Is Misguided

Nearly seven months into the pandemic, with “regular life” a distant memory, it’s understandable that some law leaders are grasping for the Before Times, casting familiar habits and routines in sepia and longing for the time when we can get back to the “good old days.”

This nostalgia seems to be driving a recent flurry of articles by senior law partners about how the loss of in-office work will hobble the next generation of attorneys. Without face-to-face interactions, the argument goes, associates will miss out on vital mentoring from senior partners, as well as the camaraderie and casual elevator banter that builds bonds and a sense of shared mission.

While no one can quibble with the latter (working from home can be lonely and boring — nobody ever asks “so how was your weekend?” when you are standing at the coffee pot in your own kitchen), admitting defeat on mentoring should raise a big red flag for anyone following current challenges in retention and advancement at law firms.

If this framing — a white man who holds institutional power saying “I wish I could mentor, but…” — sounds familiar, that’s because we also heard it at the height of the #metoo scandal. As accusations of abuses of power were coming to light and the perpetrators were, in some cases, being held accountable, other male leaders expressed concern, privately or in public, about mentoring women lawyers. In such a “sensitive environment,” what if something they said or did was misconstrued, and their well-intentioned efforts backfired? Best not to risk it. Best to continue mentoring lawyers who remind them of themselves.

Or maybe you have heard it in the context of racial inclusion, when white male senior partners (we hate to pick on them again, but minority women make up only 3.2% of law firm partners, according to the Institute for Inclusion in the Legal Profession’s 2019-2020 review) profess a sincere desire to mentor lawyers of color, except no lawyer of color has ever asked them for their help.

Now we find ourselves in new circumstances, with physical proximity slotting in as the barrier to mentoring the next generation of attorneys. And while it might seem different on its face, claiming that you can’t mentor someone unless you can interact with them in person during business hours is no less problematic than blaming potential accidental sexual harassment or lack of initiative by lawyers of color. That’s because when offices do begin to re-open, the first associates and junior partners to return will be white men. (Surveys and statistics show that lawyers in other demographic groups will be contending with remote learning, lack of childcare and care for other family members for far longer.) And under a mentoring rubric that views traditional work schedules and practices as essential, white men will continue to reap the benefits of the access to power and client contacts and high-profile assignments that they have always enjoyed.

Wash, rinse; repeat.

This problem with equity in training and development is completely predictable. (We are predicting it right now, and so are lots of other people.) Law firms have proved themselves to be extremely adept at solving all kinds of complex predictable problems, so this one should be no different. Of course law leaders acting in good faith can create new systems to sustain mentoring in this extraordinary time, and ensure that mentoring includes all attorneys, regardless of gender and race. (Whether they actually want to is a different question, but also an irrelevant one, since unprecedented focus and pressure on firms to become more inclusive workplaces means it’s not up to them anymore.) Here are some first steps to making it happen:

Get over your nostalgia. We all miss social interaction with colleagues, and lawyers maybe most of all, given that their jobs play such a large role in their identities. But be careful not to conflate conventions with business imperatives. The legal industry has experienced many other big changes that at the time seemed to threaten core aspects of the work process. (“How will we function without fax machines?!”) But then attorneys who were flexible and creative adapted, and law firms survived and found new ways to thrive. When client service is your core value, you find all kinds of novel ways to accomplish it, including by ensuring the critical development of powerhouse diverse teams who can meet client needs.

Acknowledge that the old mentoring system was already broken. It worked for some lawyers, but not for everyone, and in 2020 it is unacceptable to pretend like that’s not true. Mentorship and, even more important, active sponsorship, doesn’t happen “naturally” — it results from systems designed to yield those outcomes. Brokering a client relationship with a junior partner on the golf course at your all-white country club is the result of a system too, even if it simply feels to the participants like the way things have “always worked.” What would a mentoring system that includes women and lawyers of color look like? How would it be built? How could it be conducted remotely, and does remote work actually present some opportunities for equity that are not present in person at the office? When we stop revering the old ways of doing things, we open up space to think big and create something new. That should feel exciting, not limiting.

Get worried about the right things. All snark aside, law leaders should be concerned about how the pandemic will impact the careers of the next generation of lawyers. It is definitely harder to mentor from a distance, but an insistence on in-person connections will only (and very predictably) lead to inequality. Without thoughtful interventions, lawyers who return to the office first will get first dibs on high-value work and have greater visibility with leadership, leading to more positive performance reviews, increased compensation and promotions. But you can intervene to create a different outcome. Leaders who care about equitable training and development need to call on the expertise of diversity and inclusion experts for support in designing an approach to remote mentoring. It is possible, and they know how to do it. One thing is for sure: you won’t get there by applying yesterday’s solutions to today’s problems.

No question, law leaders are facing some of the hardest challenges they’ve ever seen. Let’s not make matters even worse by clinging to outdated thinking that will hobble our progress on equity and inclusion.

© 2020 Page2 Communications. All rights reserved.
For more articles on the legal industry, visit the National Law Review Law Office Management section.

IRS Issues Guidance on Deferral of Certain Employee Payroll Taxes

On Friday, August 28, the IRS issued Notice 2020-65, providing guidance about the deferral of certain employee payroll taxes under the President’s Executive Memorandum issued earlier in August. As has become the norm in these uncertain times, the guidance must be considered fluid and subject to change without notice. The existing guidance leaves many questions unanswered so we will continue to monitor this issue.

What Is the Employee’s Portion of the Payroll Taxes Subject to Deferral Under Executive Memorandum and Notice 2020-65?

In addition to income tax withholding, payroll taxes include Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes. FICA taxes include old-age, survivor and disability insurance (OASDI) (Social Security) and hospital insurance (Medicare). These payroll taxes apply at a rate of 15.3 percent for wages up to $137,700 for the 2020 calendar year. The obligation for the FICA taxes are equally divided between employers and employees at 7.65 percent, broken down as follows: 6.2 percent for Social Security and 1.45 percent for Medicare. Accordingly, for purposes of the Executive Memorandum and Notice 2020-65 the amount subject to deferral is 6.2 percent of the Social Security taxes as the employee’s share.

What Is Known

  • Deferral of the employee’s share of Social Security taxes appears to be voluntary by the employer based on the language in this notice, Code Section 7508A, and prior statements made by Secretary Mnuchin. Since the deferral is voluntary, the employer may forgo the deferral and timely withhold and pay over the required taxes.
  • The employer is the “Affected Taxpayer” under Notice 2020-65. Thus, an employee cannot require its employer to defer the taxes.
  • The option to defer applies to wages paid to an employee on a pay date during the period beginning September 1, 2020 and ending on December 31, 2020.
  • The option to defer only applies to employees earning less than $4,000 paid for a bi-weekly pay period.
  • The determination of whether the employee earns less than $4,000 per bi-weekly pay period is made on a pay period-by-pay period basis. Notice 2020-65
  • The employer must withhold and pay the deferred taxes under this notice ratably between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021 or interest, penalties, and additions to the tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021, with respect to any unpaid applicable taxes. Notice 2020-65
  • “If necessary, the Affected Taxpayer [Employer] may make arrangement to otherwise collect the total Applicable Taxes from the employee.” Notice 2020-65. Implies the penalties will be assessed against Employer as the Affected Taxpayer as defined by the guidance.

What Is Not Known

  • What if the employee leaves the company?
  • What if employee doesn’t make enough money to pay the tax back?
  • It appears that the obligation to pay the deferred taxes remains with the employer in either situation above.

Absent further guidance or congressional action, the deferred taxes must be withheld from the employee’s wages and paid over to the government between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021. Employers who are considering allowing employees to defer payment of taxes should consult counsel and develop a plan to implement before ceasing to make deductions. Considerations for the plan should include an employee communication plan developed to address employee payment obligations after the deferral period expires or if the employee becomes no longer employed by the employer. In addition, the plan should take into account whether employees are covered by a collective bargaining agreement that triggers notice and bargaining obligations. Also, keep in mind that Michigan employers must have signed authorization from the employee to make deductions from wages. Employers should consider obtaining written authorization from qualifying employees who elect to defer that includes the plan to repay the deferred taxes and a backup in case the employee ceases to be employed before the taxes are paid.

© 2020 Varnum LLP
For more articles on the IRS, visit the National Law Review Tax, Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Legal News section.

District Court Strikes Down DOL Regulation Exempting Non-Healthcare Workers from Paid Leave

On August 3, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down part of a Department of Labor (“DOL”) regulation that would have prevented huge swaths of employees from taking paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). The court’s holding has important consequences for employees who may need to take leave from work to care for themselves or others during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

Congress passed the FFCRA on March 18, 2020, to provide paid leave for employees who are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19, are quarantined and cannot work because of COVID-19, or are caring for someone who is quarantined, or a child whose school or care provider is closed, because of COVID-19. In recognition of the essential role of frontline health care workers during the pandemic, however, the FFCRA permits an employer to deny an employee’s request for qualifying leave if the employee is a “health care provider or emergency responder.” The Act defines “health care provider” as “a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery (as appropriate)” or “any other person determined by the Secretary [of Labor] to be capable of providing health care services.” The Act also expressly authorizes DOL to “issue regulations to exclude certain health care providers and emergency responders from” from eligibility for paid leave.

DOL Expands Definition of ‘Health Care Provider’

On April 1, 2020, DOL issued a regulation implementing the FFCRA that significantly expanded the definition of “health care provider,” thereby excluding additional employees from eligibility for paid leave under the Act. The definition covered, among other employees, “anyone employed at any doctor’s office, hospital, health care center, clinic, post-secondary educational institution offering health care instruction, medical school, local health department or agency, nursing facility, retirement facility, nursing home, home health care provider, any facility that performs laboratory or medical testing, [or] pharmacy[.]” In its motion to dismiss, DOL conceded that its definition would encompass many employees who are not traditionally considered healthcare workers, such as professors, librarians, and cafeteria managers at a university with a medical school. In this sense, DOL’s new definition of “health care provider” created an exception that threatened to swallow the rule.

District Court Rejects DOL Definition

In its opinion invalidating the DOL definition, the court held that the FFCRA requires DOL to determine that a particular employee is “capable of furnishing healthcare services . . . not that [the employee’s] work is remotely related to someone else’s provision of healthcare services.” DOL’s definition, the court found, “hinges entirely on the identity of the employer, in that it applies to anyone employed at or by certain classes of employers,” as opposed to the identity of the employee, in violation of the statutory text. Administrative procedure law therefore “unambiguously foreclose[d] the [DOL’s] definition” of “health care provider.”  Finding further that DOL’s definition of “health care provider” was severable from the remainder of the regulation, the court simply invalidated that provision, restoring the definition of “health care provider” to the more limited one in the text of the statute.

The court also rejected DOL’s argument that its definition “operationalizes” the goal of “maintaining a functioning healthcare system during the pandemic.” Acknowledging that employees who “do not directly provide healthcare services to patients – for example, lab technicians or hospital administrators – may . . . be essential to the functioning of the healthcare system,” the court nevertheless held that this rationale could not supersede the “unambiguous terms” of the FFCRA, which require DOL to determine whether a particular employee can provide healthcare services.

Keeping Employees Safe 

More broadly, by enabling more employees to stay at home without sacrificing a paycheck, the court’s holding bolsters the FFCRA’s dual purpose of limiting the spread of COVID-19 while at the same time providing financial relief to American workers. The DOL regulation, on the other hand, would have forced employees to report to work despite symptoms of or exposure to COVID-19, increasing the risk of spreading the virus to others, or take leave without pay.

If you need to take leave from work because you are experiencing symptoms of or were exposed to COVID-19, or to take care of a loved one who is at home because of COVID-19, consider consulting with an employment attorney to determine whether you may be eligible for paid leave under the FFCRA.

© Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
ARTICLE BY Jessica L. Westerman of  Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
For more articles on healthcare, visit the National Law Review Health Care, Medicare, Affordable Care Act, HIPAA Legal News section.

DOL Issues Additional FFCRA Guidance as Schools Reopen

On Aug. 27, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued three new Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) related to the reopening of schools in various formats and employee paid leave eligibility under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).

The FFCRA requires employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide up to 80 hours of paid leave to employees for certain reasons related to the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (PSLA) and expands the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to provide employees up to 12 weeks of emergency job-protected leave to care for a child as a result of school or child care closings due to a public health emergency. The recent FAQ address caregiver leave associated with the closure of schools, which, if eligible, entitles employees to two-thirds’ pay up to $200 per day ($10,000 in aggregate).

NEW FAQ ADDRESSING SCHOOL CLOSURES

The following is an overview of DOL’s three newly issued FAQ regarding school closures:

A child attends a school operating on an alternate day basis

The DOL confirmed in FAQ #98 that an employee will be eligible for paid leave on an intermittent basis to accommodate a hybrid school schedule whereby children attend school both in-person and remotely. For purposes of the FFCRA and its implementing regulations, the school is effectively closed on days that a child cannot attend in person and leave is available on remote-learning days. The DOL cautions in its guidance that even under these circumstances, leave is only available if no other suitable person is available to care for the child.

A parent chooses remote learning when in-person instruction is available

FAQ #99 makes clear that FFCRA leave is not available to take care of a child whose school is otherwise open for in-person attendance. As a result, if a child needs care because the employee chose a virtual or remote school option, the employee is ineligible for leave. The DOL notes, however, that if the child is home due to a quarantine order or has been advised by a health care provider to self-isolate or self-quarantine, an employee may be eligible to take paid leave to care for the child.

School begins with remote learning, but shifts to in-person instruction if conditions change

FAQ #100 clarifies that leave eligibility will change as schools adopt different teaching models. Using the example of a school that starts virtually with the hope of returning to in-person teaching in the future, the DOL explains that an employee will be eligible for leave during the remote learning period for so long as the school remains closed, but eligibility will end when the school converts to in-person instruction.

ADDITIONAL FFCRA RESOURCES

Consider reviewing the following resources to learn more about the FFCRA:

Copyright © 2020 Godfrey & Kahn S.C.

ARTICLE BY Margaret R. Kurlinski and Christine McLaughlin of Godfrey & Kahn S.C. 

For more on DOL guidance, see the National Law Review Labor and Employment Legal and Regulatory Law News section.

Federal Court Strikes Down Portions of Department of Labor’s Final Rule on COVID-19 Leave, Expands Coverage

On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down portions of the DOL’s Final Rule regarding who qualifies for COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), collectively referred to as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).

Of particular importance to retail employers, the Court invalidated two provisions of the DOL’s Final Rule pertaining to: (1) conditioning leave on the availability of work and (2) the need to obtain employer consent prior to taking leave on an intermittent basis.

Neither the EPSLA nor the EFMLEA contains an express “work availability” requirement. The EPSLA grants paid leave to employees who are “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave because” of any of six COVID-19-related criteria. FFCRA § 5102(a). The EFMLEA similarly applies to employees “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for . . . [a child] due to a public health emergency.” FFCRA § 101(a)(2)(A).  In its Final Rule, the DOL concluded that these provisions do not reach employees whose employers “do not have work” for them, reasoning a work-availability requirement is justified “because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she” did not have a qualifying condition set forth in the statute.

In rejecting the DOL’s interpretation, the Court stated that “the agency’s barebones explanation for the work-availability requirement is patently deficient,” given that the DOL’s interpretation “considerably narrow[s] the statute’s potential scope.”  Under the Court’s interpretation, employees are entitled to protected leave under either the EPSLA or EFMLEA if they satisfy the express statutory conditions, regardless of whether they are scheduled to work during the requested leave period.

The Court also rejected part of the DOL’s interpretation that employees are not permitted to take the protected leave on an intermittent basis unless they obtain their employer’s consent.  As an initial matter, the Court upheld the DOL’s interpretation that employees cannot take intermittent leave in certain situations in which there is a higher risk that the employee will spread COVID-19 to other employees (i.e., when the employees: are subject to government quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are taking leave to obtain a medical diagnosis; are taking care of an individual who either is subject to a quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19).

In those circumstances, the Court agreed that a restriction on intermittent leave “advances Congress’s public-health objectives by preventing employees who may be infected or contagious from returning intermittently to a worksite where they could transmit the virus.”  Therefore, in those situations, employees are only permitted to take the protected leave in a block of time (i.e., a certain number of days/weeks), not on an intermittent basis.  As a result, the Court upheld the DOL’s restriction on intermittent leave “insofar as it bans intermittent leave based on qualifying conditions that implicate an employee’s risk of viral transmission.”

The Court, however, rejected the requirement that employees obtain their employer’s consent before taking intermittent leave in other circumstances (i.e., when an employee takes leave solely to care for the employee’s son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed).  In doing so, the Court ruled that the DOL failed to provide a coherent justification for requiring the employer’s consent, particularly in situations in which the risk of viral transmission is low.  The Court’s opinion brings the EPSLA and EFMLEA in line with the existing FMLA, which does not require employer consent.

It is unclear if the DOL will challenge the Court’s decision or revise its Final Rule to bring it in compliance with the Court’s opinion.  Regardless, the Court’s decision takes effect immediately and retail employers should be mindful of this ruling and revisit their COVID-19 leave policies.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

Return to Work COVID-19 Testing Considerations

As employees increasingly transition back into the physical workplace, employers have begun to grapple with whether and how to deploy COVID-19 diagnostic testing as a return-to-work solution.  Many employers want to avoid extended employee quarantine or isolation requirements that prevent their employees from returning to the office for weeks and disrupt their operations.  But is this potential solution legal?  And is it effective?  Below we discuss practical considerations for employers considering a return to work COVID-19 testing strategy.

Is it Legal?

For the most part, yes.  While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has approved of COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the workplace generally, it has, as explained further below, recently modified its guidance to discourage its use as a return to work strategy.  Further, approaches vary widely across the states and localities that have taken a position on return to work testing.  For example, while Illinois permits its use, an ordinance in Dallas, Texas prohibits return to work testing.

Is it Effective?  

It depends.  Before mandatory vaccination becomes an option (which we wrote about here), requiring employees to test negative for COVID-19 before returning to work may at first glance seem like a reasonable way to ensure employee attendance while keeping the workplace safe.  For some employers, particularly those that are able to test frequently, quickly and accurately, this may be a sound approach.  But for other employers, they will have to weigh their options carefully.  Recent updated guidance from the CDC, employee complaints about the invasiveness of testing, and very real ongoing concerns about testing availability and accuracy may militate against pursuing a testing strategy at this time.

More specifically, recent guidance from the CDC discourages a test-based strategy as a primary solution finding that a symptom-based screening strategy is sufficient to identify when an individual with symptoms may return to work.  However, if an employer nevertheless decides to proceed with diagnostic testing as part of their COVID-19 mitigation strategy, the CDC recommends having employees test negatively twice with the two consecutive tests coming at least 24 hours, before returning to work.

State and local guidance does not necessarily provide additional clarity on how best to proceed.  For example New York State’s guidance only addresses situations where an employee experiences symptoms upon arrival at work or while at the office, advising that in those instances an employee may return to work with a single negative COVID-19 test (in contrast to the CDC’s recommended two consecutive negative tests).  But New York’s guidance does not currently address whether testing is a solution to a host of other scenarios – for instance, where an employee’s remote screening indicates recent symptoms, known exposure, or where an employee traveled to a place with significant community spread.  In those instances, the New York guidance does not incorporate testing as a return to work solution, instead asserting that individuals who have had known close contact with someone who has COVID-19 (i.e. within 6 feet of someone for ten or more minutes) should (1) isolate for 10 days from the onset of symptoms (if the individual has symptoms); or (2) isolate for 14 days from the date of exposure (if the individual does not have symptoms).  New York’s guidance also states that employees who test positive for COVID-19 must complete at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic.

Putting all the guidance aside for the moment, testing may prove futile in many cases regardless.  First, COVID-19 reportedly can take 2-14 days after exposure to become identifiable in a diagnostic test, and thus, employees who test negative may return to work and later discover they have indeed been infected.  And in other cases, testing may prove futile if an employee cannot access a test readily, and thereafter receive their results in a timely manner, which effectively sidelines them from returning to the office anyway.  Further, there is also the possibility of a false negative, particularly when an employee takes a rapid test.  Other employer considerations include how COVID-19 testing, and the resulting disciplining of employees if they refuse to be tested, might affect overall employee morale.

Employers should consider these issues and weigh them against the vitality of other preventative measures such as whether an employee can telework or take a paid or unpaid leave in lieu of returning to work.  If the employee must return to work, employers should consider using other safety measures (whether in lieu of or in addition to testing), such as symptom/exposure questionnaires, temperature checks and workplace social distancing requirements.

What if an Employee Refuses to Take a Diagnostic Test? 

In selecting any of these options, employers should consider creating a policy or procedure that, among other things, discloses the circumstances under which an employee must take a test, the specific test or tests that the employer will accept, and the consequences of an employee’s refusal to be tested prior to returning to work.  Employers should also consider whether they will afford an employee the opportunity to take an unpaid leave of absence where they refuse to take a test in lieu of a disciplinary action.

Further, before resorting to disciplinary measures, employers should first consider the nature of the employee’s objection.  If the employee is simply annoyed or frustrated about the testing policy, disciplinary measures may be appropriate as the employees is failing to adhere to a company safety policy.  However, employers should evaluate whether the employee is asking for a disability accommodation, and if so, should consider alternative options to testing.

A Note about Isolation Practices and Employee Abuses.

In jurisdictions that do not require employees to isolate after potential symptoms or exposure, employers that need employees to work in the office may be turning to COVID-19 diagnostic testing as an alternative or supplement to isolation practices they consider impractical or prone to abuse.  Indeed, some employers are facing scenarios in which employees attempt to take advantage of company isolation policies in an effort to take extended time away from the workplace.

Employers facing this situation may consider implementing a diagnostic testing strategy (where permitted and feasible), but should also consider addressing the various employee abuse scenarios that might unfold and provide cautionary warnings to employees.  For example, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and some other jurisdictions are requiring individuals who travel to certain states with troublesome COVID-19 metrics to quarantine for 14 days upon their reentry.  If an employee is planning travel to a “hot spot” on vacation to avoid returning to work, the employer should consider warning the employee that if they are unable to telework upon their return, they may be required to take additional paid time off or even unpaid leave.  Alternatively, employers facing operational difficulties if employers are away for multiple weeks may wish to revisit paid time off approval processes or condition approval of company-provided vacation time on an employee’s ability to return to work promptly after traveling.  In short, employers may have several options to address employees’ abuse of isolation rules that do not necessarily have to involve the implementation of diagnostic testing.

Final Considerations.

If an employer does decide to implement a testing strategy, it should ensure that its COVID-19 testing and screening protocols and policies adhere to relevant state and local guidelines, which vary greatly by jurisdiction.  Employers should further ensure they are tracking other practical aspects of testing.  For example, employers must safeguard employee medical records in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements and the privacy requirements of various states and localities, which we discussed here.  When choosing a diagnostic test, employers must also ensure that the test is reliable and accurate – for instance, some rapid testing kits now entering the market may not meet the EEOC’s reliability and accuracy standards.  Similarly, any testing strategies must be uniformly applied so as not to cause disparate treatment amongst employees.  Employers should refer to the EEOC’s ADA guidance, which we discussed here, to ensure non-discriminatory application of testing policies.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

For more on COVID-19 Testing see the National Law Review Coronavirs News section.