On June 24, 2020, in response to the ongoing risk posed by a resurgence of COVID-19 infections in some states, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order (EO) 205 directing the New York State Department of Health (NYSDOH) to issue a travel advisory for all persons entering New York from states with significant rates of transmission of COVID-19. The travel advisory became effective at 12:01 a.m. on June 25, 2020.
On 26 June 2020, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC) updated its Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Treasury Direction to take account of the flexible furlough scheme.
On May 19, 2020, the Long Beach City Council unanimously approved a COVID-19 Paid Supplemental Sick Leave Ordinance. This ordinance, which goes into effect immediately, follows similar measures enacted by Los Angeles County, the City of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose.
The Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance and the Cook County Earned Sick Leave Ordinance took effect in July 2017. The language of each ordinance largely mirrors the other, and where an employer falls under the jurisdiction of both, the Cook County Interpretative and Procedural Rules provide that the Cook County Commission on Human Rights (the enforcement arm of Cook County) will defer to the jurisdiction of the City of Chicago’s Department of Business Affairs and Consumer Protection (the enforcement arm of the City of Chicago). Effective July 1, 2020, the Chicago Paid Sick Leave Ordinance is amended in a significant way.
The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) continues to cause widespread challenges for employers and their employees. Accordingly, employers have implemented a number of policies and programs to assist employees and others impacted by COVID-19.
In 2015, long before COVID-19 emerged, a hospital disciplined and discharged a recruiter in its HR department who refused to obtain a hospital-required influenza vaccination or to don a mask at work as an alternative. In a case we started to track three years ago, a federal judge entered summary judgment for the employer this week.
On June 18, 2020, the California Department of Public Health issued a statewide “Guidance for the Use of Face Coverings.” Although the guidance is not an executive order and does not refer to any authorizing legal authority, Governor Gavin Newsom tweeted, “NEW: Californians are now REQUIRED to wear face coverings in public spaces” (Emphasis in the original.)
On May 14, 2020, the Massachusetts Department of Family and Medical Leave (DFML) issued revised draft regulations to accompany the Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML) law. The draft regulations come approximately one year after the DFML published “final” regulations and contain many substantive revisions, likely in response to the numerous public sessions held over the past year.
10 June 2020 marks the final date by which employers may furlough employees for the first time within the timeframe of the current minimum three-week furlough period that ensures eligibility for the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS).
On May 12, 2020, the City of Oakland, California, unanimously passed an emergency paid sick leave ordinance requiring employers to provide up to 80 hours of additional paid sick leave for COVID-19 related issues.
This is the second in a series of articles written from my perspective as a labor and employment lawyer and mother addressing issues raised by the pandemic on multiple levels. My hope is that this series will provide practical guidance on how to deal with COVID-19 concerns based on current federal and state COVID-19–related laws.
Childcare is an essential component of any return-to-work plan. Without it, employees may assert that they are unable to return to work or may seek to continue to work remotely.
Addressing performance issues of employees who are on leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) can present challenges for employers. An employer may discover, for instance, that prior to going out on FMLA leave, an employee engaged in misconduct or performed his or her job in an unsatisfactory manner. A Texas federal court’s recent decision in Kibbie v. Hays Consolidated Independent School District, No. A-19-CV-(April 7, 2020), highlights the difficulty of confronting performance issues discovered while an employee is out on FMLA leave.
A new bill has been introduced in the California Assembly that could affect most employers and employees in the state. If passed in its current form, Assembly Bill (AB) 1844 would expand paid sick leave coverage to employees and their family members for behavioral health conditions.
Since the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued instructions, statements, and guidance to help employers navigate COVID-19’s workplace impact. On May 5, 2020, the EEOC issued an update to its Technical Assistance Guidance on Disability Accommodation to address questions regarding employees at higher risk for severe illness from COVID-19.
On May 12, 2020, Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives unveiled the Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act, the latest effort to respond to the ongoing coronavirus health care crisis. Among other provisions, the $3 trillion relief package would provide $1 trillion in aid to states, $75 billion for coronavirus testing and related healthcare measures, and another round of direct stimulus payments to individuals.
For the last several months, employers have been forced to learn how COVID-19 spreads, how to maintain or resume safe work environments, and how to navigate a complex web of new and existing laws and regulations implicated by the pandemic. Employers have also had to contend with a growing wave of COVID-19–related employment litigation.
On May 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) posted additional updates to its Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Questions and Answers (Q&As). Among other topics, the DOL Q&As address temporary placement agencies, school closures, and documentation of paid sick leave requests.
As Texas begins to reopen, some employers are recalling employees placed on temporary leaves of absence or furloughs due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Invariably, a number of employees will ignore recall attempts or refuse offers to return to work. Depending upon the reason for refusal, these employees may remain eligible for the receipt of unemployment benefits, according to guidance issued by the Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) on April 30, 2020.
Although California law does not require that employers provide bereavement leave for employees, most employers provide the benefit as a form of unpaid leave, typically for up to five working days. Recently, Assembly Bill (AB) 2999 was introduced to mandate bereavement leave as a new form of protective leave in California.
On April 28, 2020, the County of Los Angeles Board of Supervisors unanimously passed an interim urgency ordinance requiring employers with 500 or more employees to provide supplemental paid leave for COVID-19-related reasons. This follows similar measures taken over recent weeks in other local jurisdictions, such as San Francisco.
On April 17, 2020, Mayor London Breed signed the San Francisco Public Health Emergency Leave Ordinance (PHELO). The San Francisco Board of Supervisors had passed the ordinance earlier in the week. Like similar ordinances adopted in Los Angeles and San José, San Francisco’s ordinance supplements the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and requires employers with 500 or more employees to provide up to 80 hours of paid leave to employees in both the city and county of San Francisco.
On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order (EO) N-51-20, which imposes new obligations on employers to provide up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave to certain food sector workers. The following overview provides answers to common questions, including: (1) which food service workers are covered by EO N-51-20; (2) what an employer’s obligations are to those covered workers; and (3) how EO N-51-20 interacts with other laws.
Unemployment insurance laws rarely change. For years, Missouri’s unemployment insurance program has remained steady. So stable, in fact, that it flew under the radar. Most Missouri employers thought about it only when deciding whether to spend the time and money to protest a claim. This was how it was envisioned to work, until the COVID-19 pandemic forced Missouri employers to revisit the unemployment benefits system.
In response to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, on April 14, 2020, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law Senate Bill 2374 (S2374), which amends the New Jersey Family Leave Act (NJFLA) and the New Jersey Family Leave Insurance law (NJFLI) to provide job-protected, paid leave to care for family members quarantined due to COVID-19, and amends the NJFLA to provide for job-protected unpaid leave to care for children due to COVID-19 school closures. The legislation also allows employers to seek certification relating to these expanded categories of leave, allows highly paid employees to take leave if the leave is COVID-19 related, and provides that COVID-19-related leave may be taken on an intermittent basis.
Recently, some employers in California have turned to flexible work arrangements and unlimited paid vacation policies as a tool for recruiting and retaining employees. Before April 2020, however, no California court had addressed whether a nonaccrual, unlimited paid time-off policy was subject to Labor Code Section 227.3, thereby requiring an employer to pay out vested vacation time at the time of an employee’s discharge. Although the California Court of Appeal somewhat sidestepped the issue, its recent decision in McPherson v. EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc., No. B290868 (April 1, 2020), highlighted the potential exposure California employers may face when offering “unlimited” vacation policies that are not clearly communicated to employees. This decision is of particular interest to employers with “unlimited” vacation policies that may be facing substantial vacation payouts in light of terminations, layoffs, and furloughs caused by the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Coronavirus Act (CA) 2020 was enacted on March 25, 2020, and introduces a new statutory emergency volunteering leave (EVL) to support the National Health Service (NHS) and social care authorities.
On April 3, 2020, the State of New York enacted a long-expected statewide paid sick leave law that will impact all private employers in New York. The law’s leave accrual provisions take effect September 30, 2020; however, employers are not required to provide sick leave to any employee until January 1, 2021.
The Los Angeles City Council recently passed an ordinance providing supplemental paid sick leave to employees affected by COVID-19 who were employed “with the same Employer from February 3, 2020 through March 4, 2020.” Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti had until April 7, 2020, to sign the ordinance adding Article 5-72HH to Chapter XX of the Los Angeles Municipal Code. Instead, on April 7, Mayor Garcetti signed an emergency COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave order with significant modifications to the council’s version of the sick leave ordinance in order to balance the potential burdens on businesses.