Reduce the cost of doing business.
As you are all aware, we are facing a constantly changing landscape as we move forward with measures to address the outbreak of COVID-19. Every day, there appear to be new, significant state, federal, and local developments related to addressing the negative impacts of the coronavirus, many of which directly pertain to employers. Below is a summary of some of these developments that have occurred to date—please feel free to reach out if you have any question related to these changes, or any other employment law need. And please remember, this is just a general overview. As things continue to develop and change, so will our strategies for implementation. You should not solely rely on the information here to make employment decisions, as this landscape is constantly changing. Instead, it is our hope this will serve to help you spot potential issues as they arise.
Governor Bullock enacted emergency rules regarding unemployment insurance (UI) benefits, which significantly expand benefits to those impacted by the coronavirus. Some of the notable changes include:
The UI Division has stated that to ensure that claimants receive benefits as soon as possible, employers should sign up for the UI e-service system at https://uieservices.mt.gov/_/, and that all employees should file claims online at www.montanaworks.gov.
On a federal level, the Senate passed a comprehensive relief package aimed at easing the negative impacts of the coronavirus, which the President signed into law. The bill addresses a wide range of topics, but the two areas that are most important for employers are provisions related to an expanded emergency provision of FMLA and paid sick leave. Here are some key points that the majority of employers need to know:
Emergency FMLA Expansion Act
Employer coverage and employee eligibility: This applies to all employers with fewer than 500 employees. There is the possibility that the Secretary of Labor will make an exception to this for businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the required leave would jeopardize the viability of their business. There is also the possibility that the Secretary of Labor will exclude certain health care providers and emergency responders. However, the regulations and rules for such exceptions have not yet been promulgated. Employees may be eligible if they have worked at least 30 days prior to the designated leave. Employers of health care providers or emergency responders may elect to exclude such employees from this Act.
Reason for emergency leave: Any eligible employee may take up to 12 weeks of leave but only to allow an employee, who is unable to work or telework, to care for the employee’s child (under 18 years of age), if the child’s school or childcare is unavailable due to a public health emergency. Unlike regular FMLA, a portion of this leave will be paid leave. The first 10 days of emergency FMLA may be unpaid. During this 10-day period, an employee may choose to use any accrued leave (including the Paid Sick Leave discussed below). After that, the employer must generally pay full-time employees at 2/3 their regular rate of pay for the number of hours that they regularly would have been scheduled. There are further instructions for calculating the regular rate of pay for part-time employees, that we can help you with. The act has caps of $200 a day and $10,000 total per employee.
Job protected leave: employers with 25 or more, but less than 500 employees, will have the same obligations under regular FMLA, to give employees their same job back, or an equivalent position, upon return to work. Employers with less than 25 employees are generally excluded from this requirement if the position no longer exists after the leave expires because of circumstances related to a public health emergency. However, employers invoking this exclusion have to make reasonable attempts to return the employee to an equivalent position and the employer also has to make reasonable efforts to return the employee to work for up to one year following the employee’s leave.
We are still unpacking all of the implications with this FMLA Emergency Expansion and recommend that you contact us with questions as you begin to attempt to implement this.
Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act
Covered reason for leave: Employees who are unable to work or telework may take paid sick leave because the employee is unable to work because he/she is:
There is an optional exception for employers who are healthcare providers or emergency responders.
Coverage: All employers with fewer than 500 employees are required to provide full-time employees (regardless of how long they have worked there) with 80 hours of paid sick leave at the employee’s regular rate of pay (or 2/3 pay if the leave is for reasons 4, 5, or 6 above). This pay is capped at $511 a day and up to $5,110 total per employee for their own use, and at $200 per day and up to $2,000 total to care for others and any other substantially similar condition. This sick leave will not carry over the following year, and may be in addition to any paid sick leave currently provided by employers. A business employing fewer than 500 employees is required, at the request of the employee, to pay a full-time employee for 80 hours of mandated emergency paid sick leave instead of the initial 10 days of unpaid leave permitted by Emergency FMLA. Employers can’t require an employee to use other paid leave provided by the employer before using paid sick time under this act. Employers of health care providers and emergency responders may elect to exclude such employees from this Act.
Health care provider: The Act does not define emergency responders. However, health care providers are defined as: a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery by the State in which the doctor practices, or any other person determined by the Secretary of Labor to be capable of providing health care services.
Posting requirement: this act requires employers to post a notice of this Act (click here for a link to the poster).
Prohibited Acts: Employers cannot discharge, discipline or discriminate against an employee who (1) takes this leave; and (2) has filed any complaint or participates in any proceeding related to this Act.
Violations: Violations will be treated similarly to wage and hour violations.
Unfortunately, employers are going to have to foot the up-front and immediate costs of these two type of paid leave, but the bill does provide for a series of refundable tax credits. You should consult with an attorney or accountant regarding the applicability and type of these tax credits.
We are staying on top of developments as they happen.
Changes are happening at lightning speed and you can count on us to help you through these uncertain times.
We look forward to hearing from you.
Proactive Legal Guidance
Prevention is the best medicine. To help companies avoid employment related legal battles, we advise human resource and business professionals on everyday employment law issues, conduct workplace training sessions, workplace investigations for employers and host free employment law seminars.
Employment litigation defense
We have extensive experience defending employers who have been accused of wrongfully terminating or discriminating against an employee. Employment claims often stem from allegations of failure to have good cause for terminations, discrimination, or harassment. These claims can also include constructive discharge, which involves an employee being forced to quit due to unbearable working conditions. We can help in all of these areas, as well as with alternative dispute resolution methods such as arbitration or mediation.
We often serve as mediators in employment disputes hosting mediations and settlement conferences. Video conferencing is also available for those who are not able to come to our offices.
Plaintiff’s employment with our client ended sometime after being required and refusing to utilize a GPS device in personal vehicle to account for work reimbursable mileage. Plaintiff sued our client for wrongful discharge.
VERDICT: Defense prevails in wrongful discharge claim. Jury found that plaintiff was not discharged by our client without good cause. Plaintiff requested $241,000, Jury awards Plaintiff $0.
FINDING: No cause finding and dismissal of disability discrimination and retaliation claims. The former employee alleged he was disabled and that our client improperly failed to adjust his schedule pursuant to his health care provider’s recommendation. The Human Rights Bureau found no reasonable cause to believe our client discriminated against its former employee and that our client had reasonably accommodated the employee and had appropriately engaged in the interactive process. The EEOC adopted these findings and the charge of discrimination against our client was dismissed.
FINDING: No cause finding and dismissal of sexual harassment and retaliation claims. The former employee alleged she had been sexually harassed and subject to a hostile work environment throughout her employment with our client. The Human Rights Bureau found that our client did not sexually harass or retaliate against the former employee and dismissed the charge of discrimination. The EEOC adopted these findings and the federal claim was dismissed, as well.
JUDGEMENT: Federal court dismissed employee’s wrongful discharge suit against our client on summary judgment. The former employee alleged our client had terminated him without good cause, violated it’s own personnel policies, and tortiously interfered with his new business opportunities. We moved for dismissal that our client had good cause to terminate a managerial employee it could no longer trust, complied with all of its discretionary personnel policies, and did not interfere with the former employee’s new business opportunities, as the former employee had instructed a subordinate to forge documents. The federal court granted our motion and dismissed all of the former employee’s claims.
FINDING: No reasonable cause to believe discrimination occurred and dismissal of claims. Former employee alleged she was constructively discharged because our client had discriminated against her on the basis of age, color, national origin, and race in holding her accountable for performance issues. The Human Rights Bureau found in favor of our client, that it had a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for holding her accountable and dismissed her charge of discrimination. The EEOC adopted those findings.
Use only what you need, when you need it. As your needs change, you’ve got a team of attorneys—in almost every area of law—ready to jump in as needed.