Wednesday, April 29, 2020

EEOC Permits COVID Testing for Employees

On Thursday, the EEOC updated its FAQ Guidance for employers and employees in light of the gradual re-opening of the U.S. economy and the legal issues presented by the pandemic.  In Ohio, many workplaces will resume limited operations on Monday and even more the following week.  Most employees will be required by Governor DeWine to wear face masks (hopefully with the employer's logo on it because this is a branding opportunity) in order to avoid potentially spreading the virus to their co-workers and customers.  Employers are permitted to exclude customers who refuse to wear a mask (unless, of course, you are VP Pence, who has been roasted in the media this morning for not wearing a mask at the Mayo Clinic this week).  The EEOC has made clear that employers may also exclude employees until they -- like VP Pence --pass a COVID test.  That being said, most tests only reflects a brief moment in time and an employee can test negative on Monday and then positive on Tuesday.

May an employer administer a COVID-19 test (a test to detect the presence of the COVID-19 virus) before permitting employees to enter the workplace? 4/23/20

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be "job related and consistent with business necessity."  Applying this standard to the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before they enter the workplace to determine if they have the virus.


Consistent with the ADA standard, employers should ensure that the tests are accurate and reliable.  For example, employers may review guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about what may or may not be considered safe and accurate testing, as well as guidance from CDC or other public health authorities, and check for updates.  Employers may wish to consider the incidence of false-positives or false-negatives associated with a particular test.  Finally, note that accurate testing only reveals if the virus is currently present; a negative test does not mean the employee will not acquire the virus later.


Based on guidance from medical and public health authorities, employers should still require - to the greatest extent possible - that employees observe infection control practices (such as social distancing, regular handwashing, and other measures) in the workplace to prevent transmission of COVID-19. 
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Monday, April 20, 2020

EEOC Updates Pandemic Guidance on Potential ADA Accommodation Issues


On Friday, the EEOC updated its guidance on complying with the ADA during the pandemic and has even included FAQ about issues employers will encounter when re-opening next month.   Here are the new FAQ added on Friday:


D.5.  During the pandemic, if an employee requests an accommodation for a medical condition either at home or in the workplace, may an employer still request information to determine if the condition is a disability? (4/17/20)


Yes, if it is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask questions or request medical documentation to determine whether the employee has a "disability" as defined by the ADA (a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity, or a history of a substantially limiting impairment).

D.6.  During the pandemic, may an employer still engage in the interactive process and request information from an employee about why an accommodation is needed? (4/17/20)


Yes, if it is not obvious or already known, an employer may ask questions or request medical documentation to determine whether the employee's disability necessitates an accommodation, either the one he requested or any other. Possible questions for the employee may include: (1) how the disability creates a  limitation, (2) how the requested accommodation will effectively address the limitation, (3) whether another form of accommodation could effectively address the issue, and (4) how a proposed accommodation will enable the employee to continue performing the "essential functions" of his position (that is, the fundamental job duties). 

D.7.  If there is some urgency to providing an accommodation, or the employer has limited time available to discuss the request during the pandemic, may an employer provide a temporary accommodation? (4/17/20)


Yes.  Given the pandemic, some employers may choose to forgo or shorten the exchange of information between an employer and employee known as the "interactive process" (discussed in D.5 and D.6., above) and grant the request.  In addition, when government restrictions change, or are partially or fully lifted, the need for accommodations may also change.  This may result in more requests for short-term accommodations. Employers may wish to adapt the interactive process - and devise end dates for the accommodation - to suit changing circumstances based on public health directives.


Whatever the reason for shortening or adapting the interactive process, an employer may also choose to place an end date on the accommodation (for example, either a specific date such as May 30, or when the employee returns to the workplace part- or full-time due to changes in government restrictions limiting the number of people who may congregate). Employers may also opt to provide a requested accommodation on an interim or trial basis, with an end date, while awaiting receipt of medical documentation. Choosing one of these alternatives may be particularly helpful where the requested accommodation would provide protection that an employee may need because of a pre-existing disability that puts her at greater risk during this pandemic. This could also apply to employees who have disabilities exacerbated by the pandemic.


Employees may request an extension that an employer must consider, particularly if current government restrictions are extended or new ones adopted. 

D.8.  May an employer ask employees now if they will need reasonable accommodations in the future when they are permitted to return to the workplace? (4/17/20)


Yes.  Employers may ask employees with disabilities to request accommodations that they believe they may need when the workplace re-opens.  Employers may begin the "interactive process" - the discussion between the employer and employee focused on whether the impairment is a disability and the reasons that an accommodation is needed.

D.9.  Are the circumstances of the pandemic relevant to whether a requested accommodation can be denied because it poses an undue hardship? (4/17/20)


Yes.  An employer does not have to provide a particular reasonable accommodation if it poses an "undue hardship," which means "significant difficulty or expense." In some instances, an accommodation that would not have posed an undue hardship prior to the pandemic may pose one now.

D.10.  What types of undue hardship considerations may be relevant to determine if a requested accommodation poses "significant difficulty" during the COVID-19 pandemic? (4/17/20)


An employer may consider whether current circumstances create "significant difficulty" in acquiring or providing certain accommodations, considering the facts of the particular job and workplace.  For example, it may be significantly more difficult in this pandemic to conduct a needs assessment or to acquire certain items, and delivery may be impacted, particularly for employees who may be teleworking.  Or, it may be significantly more difficult to provide employees with temporary assignments, to remove marginal functions, or to readily hire temporary workers for specialized positions.  If a particular accommodation poses an undue hardship, employers and employees should work together to determine if there may be an alternative that could be provided that does not pose such problems. 

D.11.  What types of undue hardship considerations may be relevant to determine if a requested accommodation poses "significant expense" during the COVID-19 pandemic? (4/17/20)


Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, most accommodations did not pose a significant expense when considered against an employer's overall budget and resources (always considering the budget/resources of the entire entity and not just its components).  But, the sudden loss of some or all of an employer's income stream because of this pandemic is a relevant consideration.  Also relevant is the amount of discretionary funds available at this time - when considering other expenses - and whether there is an expected date that current restrictions on an employer's operations will be lifted (or new restrictions will be added or substituted).  These considerations do not mean that an employer can reject any accommodation that costs money; an employer must weigh the cost of an accommodation against its current budget while taking into account constraints created by this pandemic.  For example, even under current circumstances, there may be many no-cost or very low-cost accommodations.

G.1.  As government stay-at-home orders and other restrictions are modified or lifted in your area, how will employers know what steps they can take consistent with the ADA to screen employees for COVID-19 when entering the workplace? (4/17/20)


The ADA permits employers to make disability-related inquiries and conduct medical exams if job-related and consistent with business necessity.  Inquiries and reliable medical exams meet this standard if it is necessary to exclude employees with a medical condition that would pose a direct threat to health or safety.


Direct threat is to be determined based on the best available objective medical evidence.  The guidance from CDC or other public health authorities is such evidence.  Therefore, employers will be acting consistent with the ADA as long as any screening implemented is consistent with advice from the CDC and public health authorities for that type of workplace at that time. 


For example, this may include continuing to take temperatures and asking questions about symptoms (or require self-reporting) of all those entering the workplace.  Similarly, the CDC recently posted information on return by certain types of critical workers.  


Employers should make sure not to engage in unlawful disparate treatment based on protected characteristics in decisions related to screening and exclusion.

G.2.  An employer requires returning workers to wear personal protective gear and engage in infection control practices.  Some employees ask for accommodations due to a need for modified protective gear.  Must an employer grant these requests? (4/17/20)


An employer may require employees to wear protective gear (for example, masks and gloves) and observe infection control practices (for example, regular hand washing and social distancing protocols). 


However, where an employee with a disability needs a related reasonable accommodation under the ADA (e.g., non-latex gloves, modified face masks for interpreters or others who communicate with an employee who uses lip reading, or gowns designed for individuals who use wheelchairs), or a religious accommodation under Title VII (such as modified equipment due to religious garb), the employer should discuss the request and provide the modification or an alternative if feasible and not an undue hardship on the operation of the employer's business under the ADA or Title VII. 


NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Friday, April 10, 2020

EEOC Updates Pandemic Guidance


Yesterday, the EEOC updated its March pandemic guidance for employers responding to a myriad of issues.  It added more questions to its Q&A section confirming that employers may ask COVID-related questions, but you must remember to keep records confidential as medical records.  Here are some of the most salient issues:



A. Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Exams



During a pandemic, ADA-covered employers may ask such employees if they are experiencing symptoms of the pandemic virus. For COVID-19, these include symptoms such as fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, or sore throat. Employers must maintain all information about employee illness as a confidential medical record in compliance with the ADA.

A.2.  When screening employees entering the workplace during this time, may an employer only ask employees about the COVID-19 symptoms EEOC has identified as examples, or may it ask about any symptoms identified by public health authorities as associated with COVID-19? (4/9/20)

As public health authorities and doctors learn more about COVID-19, they may expand the list of associated symptoms.  Employers should rely on the CDC, other public health authorities, and reputable medical sources for guidance on emerging symptoms associated with the disease. These sources may guide employers when choosing questions to ask employees to determine whether they would pose a direct threat to health in the workplace. For example, additional symptoms beyond fever or cough may include new loss of smell or taste as well as gastrointestinal problems, such as nausea, diarrhea, and vomiting.


Generally, measuring an employee's body temperature is a medical examination. Because the CDC and state/local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19 and issued attendant precautions, employers may measure employees' body temperature. However, employers should be aware that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever.


Yes. The CDC states that employees who become ill with symptoms of COVID-19 should leave the workplace. The ADA does not interfere with employers following this advice.


Yes. Such inquiries are permitted under the ADA either because they would not be disability-related or, if the pandemic influenza were truly severe, they would be justified under the ADA standards for disability-related inquiries of employees. As a practical matter, however, doctors and other health care professionals may be too busy during and immediately after a pandemic outbreak to provide fitness-for-duty documentation. Therefore, new approaches may be necessary, such as reliance on local clinics to provide a form, a stamp, or an e-mail to certify that an individual does not have the pandemic virus.

B. Confidentiality of Medical Information


B.1.  May an employer store in existing medical files information it obtains related to COVID-19, including the results of taking an employee's temperature or the employee's self-identification as having this disease, or must the employer create a new medical file system solely for this information? (4/9/20)

The ADA requires that all medical information about a particular employee be stored separately from the employee's personnel file, thus limiting access to this confidential information.  An employer may store all medical information related to COVID-19 in existing medical files.  This includes an employee's statement that he has the disease or suspects he has the disease, or the employer's notes or other documentation from questioning an employee about symptoms. 

B.2.  If an employer requires all employees to have a daily temperature check before entering the workplace, may the employer maintain a log of the results? (4/9/20)

 Yes.  The employer needs to maintain the confidentiality of this information.

B.3.  May an employer disclose the name of an employee to a public health agency when it learns that the employee has COVID-19? (4/9/20)

Yes. 

B.4.  May a temporary staffing agency or a contractor that places an employee in an employer's workplace notify the employer if it learns the employee has COVID-19? (4/9/20)

Yes.  The staffing agency or contractor may notify the employer and disclose the name of the employee, because the employer may need to determine if this employee had contact with anyone in the workplace.

C. Hiring and Onboarding



Yes. An employer may screen job applicants for symptoms of COVID-19 after making a conditional job offer, as long as it does so for all entering employees in the same type of job.  This ADA rule applies whether or not the applicant has a disability.  


Yes.  Any medical exams are permitted after an employer has made a conditional offer of employment.  However, employers should be aware that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever.


Yes.  According to current CDC guidance, an individual who has COVID-19 or symptoms associated with it should not be in the workplace. 


Based on current CDC guidance, this individual cannot safely enter the workplace, and therefore the employer may withdraw the job offer.

C.5.  May an employer postpone the start date or withdraw a job offer because the individual is 65 years old or pregnant, both of which place them at higher risk from COVID-19? (4/9/20)

No.  The fact that the CDC has identified those who are 65 or older, or pregnant women, as being at greater risk does not justify unilaterally postponing the start date or withdrawing a job offer.  However, an employer may choose to allow telework or to discuss with these individuals if they would like to postpone the start date.

D. Reasonable Accommodation


In discussing accommodation requests, employers and employees may find it helpful to consult the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) website for types of accommodations, www.askjan.org.  JAN's materials specific to COVID-19 are at https://askjan.org/topics/COVID-19.cfm.

D.1.  If a job may only be performed at the workplace, are there reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities absent undue hardship that could offer protection to an employee who, due to a preexisting disability, is at higher risk from COVID-19?  (4/9/20)

There may be reasonable accommodations that could offer protection to an individual whose disability puts him at greater risk from COVID-19 and who therefore requests such actions to eliminate possible exposure.  Even with the constraints imposed by a pandemic, some accommodations may meet an employee's needs on a temporary basis without causing undue hardship on the employer. 

Low-cost solutions achieved with materials already on hand or easily obtained may be effective.  If not already implemented for all employees, accommodations for those who request reduced contact with others due to a disability may include changes to the work environment such as designating one-way aisles; using plexiglass, tables, or other barriers to ensure minimum distances between customers and coworkers whenever feasible per CDC guidance or other accommodations that reduce chances of exposure.

Flexibility by employers and employees is important in determining if some accommodation is possible in the circumstances. Temporary job restructuring of marginal job duties, temporary transfers to a different position, or modifying a work schedule or shift assignment may also permit an individual with a disability to perform safely the essential functions of the job while reducing exposure to others in the workplace or while commuting. 

D.2.  If an employee has a preexisting mental illness or disorder that has been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, may he now be entitled to a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship)? (4/9/20)

Although many people feel significant stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic, employees with certain preexisting mental health conditions, for example, anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, or post-traumatic stress disorder, may have more difficulty handling the disruption to daily life that has accompanied the COVID-19 pandemic. 

As with any accommodation request, employers may: ask questions to determine whether the condition is a disability; discuss with the employee how the requested accommodation would assist him and enable him to keep working; explore alternative accommodations that may effectively meet his needs; and request medical documentation if needed. 

D.3.  In a workplace where all employees are required to telework during this time, should an employer postpone discussing a request from an employee with a disability for an accommodation that will not be needed until he returns to the workplace when mandatory telework ends? (4/9/20)

Not necessarily.  An employer may give higher priority to discussing requests for reasonable accommodations that are needed while teleworking, but the employer may begin discussing this request now.  The employer may be able to acquire all the information it needs to make a decision.  If a reasonable accommodation is granted, the employer also may be able to make some arrangements for the accommodation in advance.

D.4. What if an employee was already receiving a reasonable accommodation prior to the COVID-19 pandemic and now requests an additional or altered accommodation? (4/9/20)

An employee who was already receiving a reasonable accommodation prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may be entitled to an additional or altered accommodation, absent undue hardship.  For example, an employee who is teleworking because of the pandemic may need a different type of accommodation than what he uses in the workplace.  The employer may discuss with the employee whether the same or a different disability is the basis for this new request and why an additional or altered accommodation is needed.

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Wednesday, April 8, 2020

Supreme Court Refuses to Lower Burden of Proof in Section 1981 Claims


Last month, a relatively united  Supreme Court confirmed that the evidentiary standard for §1981 race discrimination claims is subject to the but-for or because-of standard which applies to most tort claims.  Comcast v. National Ass’n of African American-Owned Media, Inc., No. 18-1171 (U.S. March 23, 2020).   In doing so, the Court affirmed the trial court dismissal of a claim brought by an African-American-owned television network which had alleged that the refusal of COMCAST to carry its station was illegal race discrimination, instead of lack of programming demand, bandwidth constraints and preference for sports and news programming.  This is of interest to employers because §1981 claims can be brought by independent contractors, including physicians and other professionals who commonly provide services to a wide-variety of businesses and who otherwise are not covered by Title VII.


According to the Court’s decision, §1981 – which was enacted shortly after the Civil War --  guarantees ““[a]ll persons . . . the same right . . . to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens.”   The Plaintiff filed suit after negotiations failed and alleged that Comcast’s explanation for refusing to carry its network was pretextual for race discrimination.  Comcast moved to dismiss on the grounds that the allegations failed to satisfy the but-for standard and, after giving the plaintiffs two opportunities to amend their complaint to address this deficiency, the trial court eventually dismissed the complaint for failing to state a claim upon which legal relief could be granted.   The Ninth Circuit reversed on the grounds that §1981 only required the plaintiff to allege that race played “some role” in the defendant’s decision.


The Supreme Court reversed.  The Court rejected arguments that §1981 only required that race be a motivating factor and that a complaint’s allegations need not be as strong as the evidentiary burden at trial.   “[W]hile the materials the plaintiff can rely on to show causation may change as a lawsuit progresses from filing to judgment, the burden itself remains constant.”


It is “textbook tort law” that a plaintiff seeking redress for a defendant’s legal wrong typically must prove but-for causation. University of Tex. Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar, 570 U. S. 338, 347 (2013) (citing W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts 265 (5th ed. 1984)). Under this standard, a plaintiff must demonstrate that, but for the defendant’s unlawful conduct, its alleged injury would not have occurred.  This ancient and simple “but for” common law causation test, we have held, supplies the “default” or “background” rule against which Congress is normally presumed to have legislated when creating its own new causes of action.=
               . . . .

The guarantee that each person is entitled to the “same right . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens” directs our attention to the counterfactual—what would have happened if the plaintiff had been white?  This focus fits naturally with the ordinary rule that a plaintiff must prove but-for causation.  If the defendant would have responded the same way to the plaintiff even if he had been white, an ordinary speaker of English would say that the plaintiff received the “same” legally protected right as a white person. Conversely, if the defendant would have responded differently but for the plaintiff ’s race, it follows that the plaintiff has not received the same right as a white person. Nor does anything in the statute signal that this test should change its stripes (only) in the face of a motion to dismiss.


The Court also noted that the “motivating factor” test in Title VII was not created by Congress until 1991 and only applied to injunctive and declaratory relief; employers could still avoid damages and reinstatement by invoking a but-for affirmative defense (which had been created in 1989 by a plurality of the Court in Price Waterhouse).   Further, although Congress also amended §1981 in 1991, it did not change its long-standing burden of proof as it did with Title VII.


Earlier this week, the Court also held that the standard for federal employees to prove discrimination is less than the standard which applies in the private sector.  Federal employees alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act need only to prove that age was a factor in the decision or process when seeking injunctive relief instead of but-for causation, which is still necessary for federal employees to recover compensatory damages.  Babb v. Wilkie, No. 18-882 (U.S. April 6, 2020).

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.

Monday, April 6, 2020

FFCRA Regulations Published


Last Thursday, the Department of Labor published temporary regulations for the Families First Cornavirus Relief Act, which governs the requirements for emergency sick leave and emergency Family Leave during 2020.  The regulations fill many of the gaps left by the statutory language governing how telework working hours will be calculated, whether the Governor’s Stay at Home Order entitles them to emergency sick pay, what must be obtained and documented in order to self-quarantine, when child care responsibilities prevent an employee from teleworking, what health care providers are exempt from the FFCRA, small-employer exemption, intermittent family leave, etc.  They are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Friday and could conceptually be modified before then. 


1.     Quarantine and Isolation Orders.  The Governor’s Stay at Home Order would qualify as an isolation or quarantine order, BUT it only entitles the employee to emergency sick leave IF the ONLY reason the employee is not working is because of that Order.  Because the Order also closes many businesses, prevents customers from purchasing and causes rampant unemployment, the Order may justify an unemployment claim but it cannot be the cause of the employee not being able to work and entitled to full pay from the employer under the FFCRA.  “The question is whether the employee would be able to work or telework “but for” being required to comply with a quarantine or isolation order.”

An employee subject to one of these orders may not take paid sick leave where the employer does not have work for the employee. This is because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she were not required to comply with the quarantine or isolation order. For example, if a coffee shop closes temporarily or indefinitely due to a downturn in business related to COVID-19, it would no longer have any work for its employees. A cashier previously employed at the coffee shop who is subject to a stay-at-home order would not be able to work even if he were not required to stay at home. As such, he may not take paid sick leave because his inability to work is not due to his need to comply with the stay-at-home order, but rather due to the closure of his place of employment.

[Note: This analysis holds even if the closure of the coffee shop was substantially caused by a stay-at home order. If the coffee shop closed due to its customers being required to stay at home, the reason for the cashier being unable to work would be because those customers were subject to the stay-at-home order, not because the cashier himself was subject to the order. Similarly, if the order forced the coffee shop to close, the reason for the cashier being unable to work would be because the coffee shop was subject to the order, not because the cashier himself was subject to the order.]



2.     Telework.  The Rule relaxes the concept of working hours so that it only covers the hours that the employee actually works, instead of compensating the employee for all hours between the starting and stopping time. “However, an employer is not required to compensate employees for unreported hours worked while teleworking for COVID-19 related reasons, unless the employer knew or should have known about such telework.”  As discussed in more detail below, while the Rule recognizes that an employee may not be able to work at all or most of the day from home because of childcare responsibilities caused by the pandemic, it places limits on an employee’s ability to claim an inability to telework when the employer has been flexible, the children are above a certain age and another parent is available in the home to assist.



3.     Medical Provider Recommendation to Self-Quarantine.  I have been getting questions about this because when a non-healthcare employee is exposed at work, they are being sent home and told to self-quarantine (whether firefighters, retail, warehouse, prison, etc.) and this would obviously affect family/household members and co-workers. The regulations require this recommendation to come from a healthcare provider and, as reflected in the IRS regulations, should be documented by name of physician and date before an employee will be entitled to emergency sick leave.   If the quarantined employee is still able to telework, s/he will not be entitled to paid sick leave, unless there are extenuating circumstances that prevent the employee from teleworking (such as a power outage): 

An employee who is self-quarantining is able to telework, and therefore may not take paid sick leave for this reason, if (a) his or her employer has work for the employee to perform; (b) the employer permits the employee to perform that work from the location where the employee is self-quarantining; and (c) there are no extenuating circumstances, such as serious COVID-19 symptoms, that prevent the employee from performing that work.

4.     Exhibiting Symptoms and Seeking Diagnosis.  This is one of the most challenging issues at present because tests are not readily available except to the very sick, the test results can take more than a week, most people are anxious about common symptoms and relatively few people are testing positive. 

an employee experiencing COVID-19 symptoms may take paid sick leave, for instance, for time spent making, waiting for, or attending an appointment for a test for COVID-19. But, the employee may not take paid sick leave to self-quarantine without seeking a medical diagnosis. An employee who is waiting for the results of a test is able to telework, and therefore may not take paid sick leave, if: (a) his or her employer has work for the employee to perform; (b) the employer permits the employee to perform that work from the location where the employee is waiting; and (c) there are no extenuating circumstances, such as serious COVID-19 symptoms, that may prevent the employee from performing that work. An employee may continue to take leave while experiencing any of the symptoms specified at § 826.20(a)(4), however; or may continue to take leave after testing positive for COVID-19, regardless of symptoms experienced, provided that the health care provider advises the employee to self-quarantine. In addition, an employee who is unable to telework may continue to take paid sick leave under this reason while awaiting a test result, regardless of the severity of the COVID-19 symptoms that he or she might be experiencing. In the case of an employee who exhibits COVID-19 symptoms and seeks medical advice but is told that he or she does not meet the criteria for testing and is advised to self quarantine, he or she is eligible for leave under the second reason, provided he or she meets all the requirements spelled out above.

5.     
      Caring for Ill Family. Again, this provision does not apply if the employee has been furloughed or laid off because the Stay-at-Home Order closed/restricted the employer’s business or if the employee is able to telework.  It also only applies if the quarantined person is family or housemate who has been advised by a medical provider to self-quarantine.

The fourth reason for paid sick leave applies where an employee is unable to work because he or she needs to care for an individual who is either: (a) subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order; or (b) has been advised by a health care provider to self quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19. This qualifying reason applies only if but for a need to care for an individual, the employee would be able to perform work for his or her employer.  Accordingly, an employee caring for an individual may not take paid sick leave if the employer does not have work for him or her. Furthermore, if the employee must have a genuine need to care for the individual. Accordingly, § 826.20(a)(5) explains that paid sick leave may not be taken to care for someone with whom the employee has no personal relationship. Rather, the individual being cared for must be an immediate family member, roommate, or a similar person with whom the employee has a relationship that creates an expectation that the employee would care for the person if he or she self-quarantined or was quarantined. Additionally, the individual being cared for must: (a) be subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order as described above; or (b) have been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine based on a belief that he or she has COVID-19, may have COVID-19, or is particularly vulnerable to COVID-19.


6.     Caring for Children.   While the regulation recognizes that employees may not be able to telework because of child care responsibilities, it places limits on the ability to make that argument.  Thus, “an employee may take paid sick leave to care for his or her child only when the employee needs to, and actually is, caring for his or her child. Generally, an employee does not need to take such leave if another suitable individual—such as a co-parent, co-guardian, or the usual child care provider—is available to provide the care the employee’s child needs.



7.     Exempted Healthcare Providers.  The FFCRA exempts from the leave rights healthcare providers excluded by the employer, but does not affect the employees’ rights under the employer’s pre-existing paid and unpaid leave policies.  The regulation gives an extremely broad reading to the phrase “healthcare provider” and does not limit the definition to how “healthcare provider” is defined in the FMLA for purposes of obtaining a medical diagnosis.  Under the regulation, healthcare provider employees will

include any individual who is capable of providing health care services necessary to combat the COVID-19 public health emergency. Such individuals include not only medical professionals, but also other workers who are needed to keep hospitals and similar health care facilities well supplied and operational. They further include, for example, workers who are involved in research, development, and production of equipment, drugs, vaccines, and other items needed to combat the COVID-19 public health emergency. Accordingly, the Department is adopting a definition of “health care provider” that is broader than the diagnosing medical professionals under § 825.102 for the limited purpose of identifying employees whom an employer may exclude under sections 3105 and 5102(a) of the FFCRA.


8.     500 Employee Threshold. Whether an employer is subject to the FFCRA is made as of the date the leave is requested and can change over time.  Full-time, part-time and temporary employees in the U.S. count, but independent contractors and employees outside the U.S. do not.  The headcount will be aggregated for joint and integrated employers.

This determination is dependent on the number of employees at the time an employee  would take leave. For example, if an employer has 450 employees on April 20, 2020, and an employee is unable to work starting on that date because a health care provider has advised that employee to self-quarantine because of concerns related to COVID-19, the employer must provide paid sick leave to that employee. If, however, the employer hires 75 new employees between April 21, 2020, and August 3, 2020, such that the employer employs 525 employees as of August 3, 2020, the employer would not be required to provide paid sick leave to a different employee who is unable to work for the same reason beginning on August 3, 2020.


9.     Small Employer Exception.  The FFCRA exempts a small employer with fewer than 50 employees when providing the paid leave would jeopardize the entity’s viability as an ongoing concern.  To create an objective standard, the DOL will evaluate such claim based on the employer’s documentation of whether:

(1) such leave would cause the small employer’s expenses and financial obligations to exceed available business revenue and cause the small employer to cease operating at a minimal capacity; (2) the absence of the employee or employees requesting such leave would pose a substantial risk to the financial health or operational capacity of the small employer because of their specialized skills, knowledge of the business, or responsibilities; or (3) the small employer cannot find enough other workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services the employee or employees requesting leave provide, and these labor or services are needed for the small employer to operate at a minimal capacity. For reasons (1), (2), and (3), the employer may deny paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave only to those otherwise eligible employees whose absence would cause the small employer’s expenses and financial obligations to exceed available business revenue, pose a substantial risk, or prevent the small employer from operating at minimum capacity, respectively.  


1     Public Employers are covered by the FFCRA regardless of size, but may exempt the broadly-defined emergency responders.

       Intermittent Leave.  “One basic condition applies to all employees who seek to take their paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave intermittently—they and their employer must agree. Absent agreement, no leave under the FFCRA may be taken intermittently.”  The agreement should encompass both the fact of intermittent leave and the increments in which such leave may be taken.  Teleworking employees and employees with childcare responsibilities may agree to take intermittent leave as agreed, but employees who report to the workplace may only do so when they are not contagious.

Subsection (b)(2) prohibits employees who report to an employer’s worksite from taking paid sick leave intermittently, notwithstanding any agreement between the employer and employee to the contrary, if the leave is taken because the employee: (1) is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; (2) has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; (3) is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is taking leave to obtain a medical diagnosis; (4) is caring for an individual who either is subject to a quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; or (5) is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As the Department explains in subsection (b)(2), where paid leave is taken for these reasons, “the employee is, may be, or is reasonably likely to become, sick with COVID-19, or is exposed to someone who is, may be, or is reasonably likely to become, sick with COVID-19.” In these situations, the employee may not take intermittent leave due to the unacceptably high risk that the employee might spread COVID-19 to other employees when reporting to the employer’s worksite. Once such an employee begins taking paid sick leave for one or more of these qualifying reasons, the employee must continue to take paid sick leave each day until the employee either uses the full amount of paid sick leave or no longer has a qualifying reason for taking paid sick leave.


1     Intersection and Sequencing of Leave.   The employer may not designate paid leave under its own policies to supplement or replace emergency sick leave under the FFCRA.  However, once the employee has exhausted their two weeks of paid sick leave under the FFCRA, any further leave is unpaid unless covered by the employer’s own policies or the emergency family leave for childcare.   If the employee has already taken FMLA leave in 2020, that amount of FMLA leave will be deducted from the employee’s remaining eFMLA leave under the FFCRA. If the employer and employee mutually agree, the employer may supplement the employee’s paid childcare leave under the FFCRA with accrued paid leave (but the caps remain for tax credits).  The DOL is not requiring employers to follow the FMLA regulations for Eligibility and Designation notices for emergency leave.  



Section 826.160(c) explains the sequencing of expanded family and medical leave with other types of leave. No employer shall require, coerce, or unduly influence an employee to use another source of paid leave before taking expanded family and medical leave. However, an eligible employee may elect to use, or an employer may require that an employee use, leave the employee has available under the employer’s policies to care for a child, such as vacation or personal leave or paid time off, concurrently. If expanded family and medical leave is used concurrently with another source of paid leave, then the employer has to pay the employee the full amount to which the employee is entitled under the employer’s preexisting paid leave policy for the period of leave taken, even if that amount is greater than $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate. But the employer’s eligibility for tax credits is still limited to the cap of $200 per day or $10,000 in the aggregate.



        Employee Notice of Need for Leave.  The employee is required to give oral notice of the need for leave as soon as practical.

an employer may require employees to follow reasonable notice procedures as soon as practicable after the first workday or portion of a workday for which an employee receives paid sick leave in order to continue to receive such leave. Sections 826.90(b) and (c) explain that it will be reasonable for an employer to require notice as soon as practicable after the first workday is missed, and to require that employees provide oral notice and sufficient information for an employer to determine whether the requested leave is covered by the FFCRA. The employer may not require the notice to include documentation beyond what is allowed by § 826.100.  [That regulation requires documentation which includes a signed statement containing the following information: (1) the employee’s name; (2) the date(s) for which leave is requested; (3) the COVID-19 qualifying reason for leave; and (4) a statement representing that the employee is unable to work or telework because of the COVID-19 qualifying reason.]

Section 826.90(d) states that it is reasonable for the employer to require the employee to comply with the employer’s usual notice procedures and requirements, absent unusual circumstances. If an employee fails to give proper notice, the employer should give him or her notice of the failure and an opportunity to provide the required documentation prior to denying the request for leave.


  Additional Employee documentation.  To the extent that the employee’s request is already covered by the FMLA, the normal documentation requirements still apply for an employee’s own illness or need to care for immediate family.  Depending on the basis of the FFCRA leave request, the employee must also provide the following: 1) the government entity that issued the quarantine or isolation order to which the employee is subject; 2) the name of the health care provider who advised him or her to self-quarantine for COVID-19 related reasons; 3) the name of the child being care for,  the name of the school, place of care, or child care provider that closed or became unavailable due to COVID-19 reasons, and a statement representing that no other suitable person is available to care for the child during the period of requested leave.



  Layoffs. “[T]he new statute does not protect an employee from employment actions, such as layoffs, that would have affected the employee regardless of whether the leave was taken. The employer must be able to demonstrate that the employee would have been laid off even if he or she had not taken leave. This provision tracks the existing provision under the FMLA in 29 CFR 825.216. The employer has the same burden of proof to show that an employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested in order to deny restoration to employment.”

NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.