Hunton Employment & Labor Perspectives

On February 9, 2023, the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division issued a Field Assistance Bulletin concerning the application of certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to teleworking employees.  The bulletin provides guidance on compensable time, breaks for nursing employees who are teleworking, and FMLA eligibility rules for remote employees. 

On April 9, 2022, Maryland became just the tenth state (in addition to the District of Columbia) to enact a paid family and medical leave law that covers private-sector workers, after overriding Governor Larry Hogan’s (R) veto.

California has enacted a number of new laws (some of these have been covered in more detail on this blog and are linked below). The following are the most significant changes that California employers can expect as we move into the new year:

Beginning in January, an expanded California leave law will require employers with as few as five employees to provide up to 12 weeks of unpaid medical and family leave each year.  For larger employers also covered by the FMLA, the California leave may be in addition to the 12 weeks of leave that employers already must provide under federal law, for a potential total of up to six-months of leave.

On April 10, the Department of Labor published corrections to its regulation on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and fixed an internal inconsistency regarding concurrent use of employer-provided paid time off and paid expanded family medical leave under the Act.

We previously covered the initial DOL rule on Families First here.  The Families First Act provides up to 12 weeks of paid leave for employees of small to mid-sized businesses for certain coronavirus-related reasons.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (the “Act”) is set to take effect on April 1, 2020.  As we previously reported, the Act requires that employers with fewer than 500 employees provide two new forms of paid leave.  First, covered employers must provide up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave to employees who are unable to work because of certain COVID-19 related reasons.  Second, covered employers must provide up to 10 weeks of paid FMLA leave (in addition to the 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave) to eligible employees who are unable to work or telework because they need to care for a child whose school or daycare is closed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Department of Labor released posters that employers with fewer than 500 employees must use to meet the notice posting requirements of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

The DOL issued two posters, one for federal employers, available here and one for all other covered employers, available here.  The DOL also provided a questions and answers page regarding the notice posting requirement here.

The Department of Labor (“DOL”) released guidance Tuesday regarding the implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, including details on how employers can determine whether they are covered by the Act.

500 Employee Threshold

One of the most common questions among employers regarding the Families First Act, which Congress passed last week to provide up to 12 weeks of paid leave for coronavirus-related reasons, involved how to count employees towards the 500 employee threshold for coverage under the law.  If an employer has 500 or more employees, then it is not covered by the law.  The DOL provided three key pieces of guidance to help employers determine whether they are covered.

The House amended its Coronavirus Response Bill late on March 16, 2020 and sent it on to the Senate.

Paid Sick Leave Changes

 The sick leave provisions of the bill remained largely intact, and would entitle employees of employers with fewer than 500 employees to take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave for coronavirus-related reasons, including required quarantining, caring for family members with the illness, or for emergency school closings.  To review our initial summary of the bill, which includes discussion of portions of the bill that were unaffected by the technical amendments, click here.  The amendments include a $511 daily cap for leave benefits for employees with their own personal coronavirus-related medical conditions, and a $200 cap for employees caring for others with such symptoms or for school closings.

Importantly, the sick leave amendments also allow the Secretary of Labor to grant exemptions to employers where the secretary determines that imposition of the paid sick leave requirements would “jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.”  It also allows healthcare and emergency response employers to apply for exemptions from the Secretary of Labor so that the law would not apply to their employees.

As the national response to COVID-19 intensifies, states and localities across the country have announced school closures.  Employers should review their state and local laws to determine whether such closings may trigger an employee’s right to take job-protected, or paid leave.

State and Local Leave Allowances for School Closings

Many states have laws that require employers to offer employees paid sick leave. In each state, there are different qualifying reasons that entitle employees to take this leave.  What employers may not realize, is that some states require that employees be allowed to use paid sick leave during certain school closing scenarios.  In at least seven states, school closings caused by a public health emergency are a qualifying reason to take paid sick leave.  Those states are Arizona, Michigan, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington.

Effective January 1, 2020, organ donors in California are entitled to an additional 30 business days of unpaid leave.  AB 1223 extends the maximum leave time available to employees who participate in an organ donation program.  This law applies to private employers with 15 or more employees.

In an April 24, 2017 decision, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia denied a motion to dismiss filed by Bravo! Facility Services, Inc. (“Bravo!”) against a former employee who brought claims under the ADA, District of Columbia Human Rights Act, and the FMLA.  Bravo! asserted that the plaintiff should be barred under the doctrine of judicial estoppel from asserting her claims because she initially failed to disclose her employment discrimination claims in her chapter 7 bankruptcy case filed after her employment terminated.  The plaintiff had moved to reopen her bankruptcy case and amended her asset schedules to disclose the claims before filing suit against Bravo!  In denying Bravo!’s motion, the court distinguished these facts from other situations where a plaintiff fails to disclose a claim prior to filing suit or only after challenged by an adversary.

With more and more employees working off-site or from home, employers must be aware of the impact on courts’ interpretation of the FMLA’s eligibility requirements.

In June, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana held in Donahoe-Bohne that the FMLA’s 50-employee threshold was met since the office to which a remote or telecommuting employee reported had at least 50 employees, even though the employee worked from home several states away.

On March 17, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Graziadio v. Culinary Institute of America, holding that sufficient evidence existed to find that the Culinary Institute of America’s (“CIA”) human resources director was an “employer” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) and could therefore be held individually liable for violations of the FMLA. In reaching this decision, the court found that the economic-realities test used to analyze whether an individual is an “employer” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) should also be used to determine whether an individual is an “employer” under the FMLA. The Second Circuit vacated and remanded the Southern District of New York’s summary judgment decision on the question of individual liability for further consideration under the economic-realities standard. The application of this test likely means an increased risk of individual liability for human resources directors, supervisors, and other members of management charged with violating an employee’s rights under the FMLA.

This week, the EEOC announced that an Illinois-based packing company, Pactiv LLC, agreed to pay $1.7 million to resolve a charge alleging that the company discriminated against employees who needed time off from work for medical reasons.

According to the EEOC, the company maintained a nationwide policy that assessed “attendance points” to employees who needed time off for medical reasons. The company also allegedly failed to provide employees with intermittent and extended leave as a “reasonable accommodation” under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

As the national debate regarding rights for same sex couples continues, more and more states are granting marital rights to members of the same sex.  Although we are only in the second quarter of 2015, five states have either passed legislation or have high court rulings that expand the rights of same sex couples.  And, in the coming weeks, the U.S. Supreme Court will rule upon issues of marriage equality in Obergefell v. Hodges, eventually rendering a decision that may have significant impact on both federal and individual state laws.

On August 9, Secretary of Labor Thomas Perez issued an internal memo calling for the implementation of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in United States v. Windsor.  In that case, the Court held that section three of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which limited the definition of marriage to “a legal union between one man and one woman,” violated due process and equal protection principles embodied in the Fifth Amendment.  The internal memo stated that the Department of Labor (“DOL”) will be removing references to DOMA from its correspondence, and will be working to ensure the availability of spousal leave based on same-sex marriages under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).

A surgeon recently brought suit against his employer, in Staveley-O’Carroll v. Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, alleging that he was fired in violation of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  No. 1:13-cv-01555-YK (M.D. Pa. filed June 18, 2013). Interestingly, the surgeon is not claiming that he was entitled to, requested, or took FMLA leave.  Rather, he claims that he was retaliated against for defending his secretary’s FMLA rights.

In a landmark ruling, United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down a major provision of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”).  Since its enactment in 1996, DOMA defined “marriage” to mean “only a union between one man and one woman as a husband and wife” and “spouse” to refer “only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife,” which, by their terms, excluded marriages of same-sex couples.  These definitions were applicable to all federal statutes, regulations, rulings and orders, including the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”) and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”).

For 60 years psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have been using the American Psychiatric Association’s “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” (DSM) as the “bible” for diagnosing mental diseases and disorders.  Health and disability insurance providers  use the DSM in deciding what conditions and treatments to cover, as do government agencies in determining eligibility for benefits and services.  These and other factors make the DSM an unusually powerful document.

The latest DSM revision (the DSM-5) is set for release later this month.   It creates several new mental disorders and broadens the definition of a number of existing ones.  These changes will affect employers in a variety of ways, from expanded protection under the ADA and FMLA to increased benefit costs.  

On January 14, 2013, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued guidance further defining the meaning of “son or daughter” within the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  The FMLA provides qualified employees up to 12 weeks of leave within a 12 month period to care for a son or daughter with a serious health condition.  Under certain circumstances, a son or daughter may include an individual over the age of 18, if that individual has a disability.  The DOL now clarifies, that a child over the age of 18 with a disability may qualify as a son or daughter within the FMLA, regardless of the individual’s age when the disability occurred.

Many large employers no doubt thought they could ignore the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for any employee who had yet to reach his anniversary date.  The Eleventh Circuit torpedoed those assumptions earlier this month.

Despite its enactment nearly two decades ago, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) continues to evolve through judicial interpretation.  The following five cases from 2011 present lessons of which all employers should be mindful heading into 2012.

The U.S. Department of Labor provides general information and compliance guidance regarding numerous wage, hour, employment, and labor laws via “fact sheets” which are available to employees, employers, and the general public. Fact sheets can serve as helpful reference and compliance material for employers. On December 23, 2011, the DOL issued three new fact sheets on the issue of unlawful retaliation.  These newly released fact sheets address retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Workers Protection Act (“MSPA”).

On August 8, 2011, the Second Circuit issued a decision in Millea v. Metro-North Railroad Co., taking an expansive view of the Family and Medical Leave Act’s (“FMLA”) anti-retaliation provision.  Turning to Title VII for guidance, the Court held that the jury should have received an instruction that broadly defined the term “materially adverse action.”

The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits discrimination in hiring and employment decisions based on an individual’s genetic information.  So, for example, a company cannot refuse to hire a woman because her mother had breast cancer.  The law also prohibits requesting, requiring and/or purchasing genetic information, with limited exceptions, and prohibits disclosure of genetic information.  There are many open questions about the law, such as whether companies can have wellness programs anymore (restricted genetic information is routinely gathered as part of such programs) or whether it is a violation of the law for a supervisor to learn about genetic information by accessing an employee’s page on a social networking site, or by asking innocent questions about the employee’s health, such as “How are you?.”  The EEOC issued final regulations last week in an attempt to answer these and other questions under the law.  A short discussion follows.

Under the Family and Medical Leave Act ("FMLA"), not only is an "employer" responsible for compliance with the FMLA, but any "successor in interest of an employer" is responsible as well. However, the FMLA does not define the term "successor in interest." The meaning of this term is crucial because an employee who has worked for an employer for less than 12 months might still be eligible for FMLA protection if that employer is considered a successor in interest to the employee’s former employer and the employee’s combined length of service for both employers is 12 months or more.

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 further expands the recent amendments to the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which provides leave to qualified employees to care for family members with needs relating to military service.   However, for those employers who rely exclusively on the Department of Labor website for their required postings and certification forms, beware - portions of the Department of Labor’s website have not yet been updated to reflect these changes and reliance upon these outdated materials may cause an employer to inadvertently, yet unlawfully, deny an employee his or her rights under the FMLA.

In what has been deemed a victory for many non-traditional families, on June 22, 2010, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued an opinion clarifying the definition of “son or daughter” under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  Now, according to the Administrator’s Interpretation Letter No. 2010-3, any employee who “intends to assume the responsibilities of a parent with regard to a child” and has either “day-to-day” responsibilities for, or “financially supports” that child, is entitled to leave under the Act -- even if that employee does not have a traditional biological or legal relationship with the child.

In a matter of first impression, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently held that whether a plaintiff with a claim under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) can recover front pay (and how much) is a question for a judge to decide, not a jury.  Under some statutes, such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, courts have express discretion to “order such affirmative action as may be appropriate, which may include, but is not limited to, reinstatement … or any other equitable relief as the court deems appropriate.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(g).  It is well established under Title VII that a court can decide to substitute front pay for reinstatement in some instances, such as when there is a significant degree of animosity between the parties or when reinstatement could displace other employees.

Employees who have family members serving in the armed forces will have new expanded rights under Section 565 of the recently-enacted National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010.  This provision further amends the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), which was amended only a year ago to allow leave to care for family members with needs relating to military service.