Additional Guidance from DOL on FFCRA – including rules for small employer exemption and definitions of “health care provider” and “emergency responder”

Over the weekend, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued its latest round of guidance on the FFCRA’s Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) and Expanded FMLA (E-FMLA) requirements. The additional guidance is found in Questions #38-59 of DOL’s running Q&A document. Below are the highlights. You can find our initial write-up of the FFCRA, and our summaries of the DOL’s first and second guidances, here.

The FFCRA referred to a small business exemption for employers with fewer than 50 employees. Do we have any more information?

Finally we do! The DOL has confirmed that employers with fewer than 50 employees may be exempt from having to provide E-FMLA and EPSL Category #5 (leave to care for a child due to the school or childcare provider being closed/unavailable due to COVID-19). Note that this exemption only applies to E-FMLA and EPSL due to school/childcare closure – not to other types of EPSL.

In order to claim exemption from providing E-FMLA or EPSL Category #5, an authorized officer of a business with fewer than 50 employees must have determined that one of the following is true:

    1. Providing EPSL or E-FMLA would result in expenses and financial obligations exceeding available business revenues and cause the business to cease operating at a minimal capacity;
    2. The absence of the employee(s) requesting EPSL or E-FMLA would entail a substantial risk to the financial health or operational capabilities of the business because of their specialized skills, knowledge of the business, or responsibilities; or
    3. There are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services provided by the employee(s) requesting EPSL or E-FMLA, and these labor or services are needed for the small business to operate at a minimal capacity.

We strongly recommend that the company maintain both the records and information on which the officer’s determination is based and a written record of the officer’s determination.

 

Can an employee take EPSL or E-FMLA to care for any child whose school or childcare is closed?

The FFCRA only provides leave to care for a “son or daughter” whose school or child care is closed or unavailable – not any child. The DOL has now clarified that “son or daughter” includes any “biological, adopted, or foster child, your stepchild, a legal ward, or a child for whom you are standing in loco parentis—someone with day-to-day responsibilities to care for or financially support a child.” So the key is that the child is that employee’s responsibility – EPSL is not available where the employee wants to care for someone else’s child.

 

If an employee used FMLA earlier in the year, does that impact EPSL and E-FMLA?

The DOL has clarified that E-FMLA counts toward the total 12 weeks contemplated under the FMLA. So, if an employee has taken FMLA within the last 12-months, their total regular FMLA and E-FMLA can’t exceed 12 weeks. Similarly, an employee who takes E-FMLA, will have that time counted against their annual FMLA entitlement.

 

What is a full-time employee for purposes of EPSL? What is a part-time employee?

For purposes of EPSL, a full-time employee is one who is normally scheduled to work 40 hours or more per week. A part-time employee is one normally scheduled to work fewer than 40 hours. This matters for EPSL, because it determines how many hours of EPSL the employee is eligible to receive.

 

Who is a “health care provider” for purposes of determining which employees can be denied EPSL/E-FMLA?

The FFCRA provides that employers can refuse EPSL and E-FMLA for “health care providers.” The DOL has now clarified that a health care provider is very broad. It includes 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, pharmacy, or any similar institution, employer, or entity.

“Health care provider” also includes anyone employed by an entity that contracts with any of these health care institutions to provide service or to maintain the operation of the facility. The DOL states that this includes anyone employed by an entity that “provides medical services, produces medical products, or is otherwise involved in the making of COVID-19 related medical equipment, tests, drugs, vaccines, diagnostic vehicles, or treatments” and anyone that the highest official of a state or territory (generally, a governor) determines is a health care provider necessary for that state or territory’s response to COVID-19.

However, the DOL encourages employers to be judicious with their reliance on the “health care provider” exemption in order to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

 

Who is an “emergency responder” for purposes of determining which employees can be denied EPSL/E-FMLA?

The DOL has also defined “emergency responders” very broadly, stating that it is an employee who is necessary for the provision of transport, care, health care, comfort and nutrition, or whose services are otherwise needed to limit the spread of COVID-19. The DOL states that this includes, but is not limited to, “military or national guard, law enforcement officers, correctional institution personnel, fire fighters, emergency medical services personnel, physicians, nurses, public health personnel, emergency medical technicians, paramedics, emergency management personnel, 911 operators, public works personnel, and persons with skills or training in operating specialized equipment or other skills needed to provide aid in a declared emergency as well as individuals who work for such facilities employing these individuals and whose work is necessary to maintain the operation of the facility.” In addition, anyone that the highest official of a state or territory (generally, a governor) determines is an emergency responder necessary for that state or territory’s response to COVID-19 is deemed to be an emergency responder.

However, the DOL encourages employers to be judicious with their reliance on the “emergency responder” exemption in order to minimize the spread of COVID-19.

 

Is my company required to return an employee to the same position after his or her leave?

The DOL says yes – in most circumstances. Employers can’t take an adverse employment action (firing, disciplining, etc.) against an employee for taking EPSL or E-FMLA. However, employees aren’t protected from employment action that would have impacted them regardless of their being on leave – such as layoffs or furloughs.

Employers with fewer than 25 employees also have some specific provisions that apply to an employee returning from E-FMLA. If your company is in that position, refer to Question #43 in the Q&A or contact your employment lawyer to discuss.

DOL Releases COVID-19 Mandatory Notice to Employees: What Do I Need to Do?

Yesterday, the Department of Labor (DOL) released the poster that all employers with fewer than 500 employees are required to display in the workplace that outlines employee leave rights under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). A link to the poster can be found here.

This poster is required to be posted in a conspicuous place on the premises where employees can see it. However, given that many workplaces are now remote, the DOL has indicated that employers may meet their notice requirement by emailing the notice to employees or posting it on an employee information internal or external website.

For more resources and LP’s response to COVID-19, visit this webpage.

DOL Ditches Prior Intern Test in Favor of More Company-Friendly Test

600px-US-DeptOfLabor-Seal_svgLast week, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued a news release stating that going forward, it will use the seven-factor “primary beneficiary” test — set forth by the 2nd Circuit and applied by other Circuits — to determine whether interns working at for-profit employers are employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), expressly rejecting its previous test from 2010.

The “primary beneficiary” test that will now be applied by the DOL analyses the following seven, non-exhaustive factors:

  1. The extent to which the intern and the employer clearly understand that there is no expectation of compensation. Any promise of compensation, express or implied, suggests that the intern is an employee—and vice versa.
  2. The extent to which the internship provides training that would be similar to that which would be given in an educational environment, including the clinical and other hands‐on training provided by educational institutions.
  3. The extent to which the internship is tied to the intern’s formal education program by integrated coursework or the receipt of academic credit.
  4. The extent to which the internship accommodates the intern’s academic commitments by corresponding to the academic calendar.
  5. The extent to which the internship’s duration is limited to the period in which the internship provides the intern with beneficial learning.
  6. The extent to which the intern’s work complements, rather than displaces, the work of paid employees while providing significant educational benefits to the intern.
  7. The extent to which the intern and the employer understand that the internship is conducted without entitlement to a paid job at the conclusion of the internship.

The DOL noted that this new test will be applied in a “flexible” manner, and that whether an intern qualifies as an employee under the FLSA depends on the unique circumstances of each case.

It is widely agreed that the primary beneficiary test is easier for companies to satisfy than the DOL’s prior test, but it’s too early to tell how much of an impact this change will be. If you do have an internship program, it’s a great time to review intern classifications and make sure that they are being treated properly under employment laws.

 

 

DOL Releases Final Rule On Paid Sick Leave For Employees Of Federal Contractors

600px-US-DeptOfLabor-Seal_svgOn September 29th, the Department of Labor released its final rule requiring federal contractors to provide their employees with at least 1 hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours of work, up to a maximum of 56 hours (7 days) per year.

The rule officially implements President Obama’s 2015 executive order. Once formally published in the Federal Register (which is expected to happen in the next few days), the rule will go into effect 60 days after publication. Federal contractors should take note and ensure compliance with this rule.

 

 

Challenges to DOL’s New Overtime Pay Rules Continue

houseLogoPrintCongress has joined the fight in trying to stop or delay the Department of Labor’s new overtime regulations. This week, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 246 to 177 to delay the effective date of the DOL’s overtime rule by six months until June 1, 2017. This bill faces an uphill battle — first having to pass the Senate and then a very likely Presidential veto.

Given that the bill is unlikely to become law, and given the questionable future of pending court challenges, employers should continue to prepare for the new regulations to be effective on December 1st.  We will continue to monitor these challenges and keep you apprised.

States and Business Groups File Suit Challenging DOL’s New Overtime Regulations

pillars
This week, 21 states and over 50 business groups filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas challenging the Department of Labor’s new overtime regulations, arguing that the DOL overstepped its authority in establishing the new minimum salary level and the automatic increases to the minimum salary every 3 years.
The new regulations (which,as we have previously discussed, more than double the minimum salary requirement for employees to be eligible for the administrative, professional and executive overtime exemptions) have been hotly contested — in Congress and now in the courts.  But it is far from clear that any of the efforts to delay or stop the new standards will be effective.
We will continue to monitor these challenges and keep you apprised. However, unless and until a challenge is successful, employers should plan to be ready for the new regulations on December 1st.