Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Revised Department of Labor FFCRA Guidance, Effective September 16, 2020

Client Alert

In response to attacks on the legality of the Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule regarding the Families First Coronavirus Act (“FFCRA” or the “Act”), which took effect in April 2020, the Department of Labor issued new guidance on Friday, September 11th to formally address ongoing questions and concerns related to the COVID-19 legislation.

To recap, on August 3, 2020, a judge out of the Southern District of New York (“SDNY”) issued a decision in State of New York v. U.S. Department of Labor, challenging certain provisions of the DOL’s regulations, including the definition of “health care provider,” certain considerations regarding FFCRA leave eligibility, and employee notice requirements. A more comprehensive overview of the SDNY’s holding can be found here.

Although the SDNY’s decision was not the first legal attack on the FFCRA nor the DOL’s related regulatory provisions, the scrutiny arising from the Federal District Court was enough to prompt the DOL to reevaluate the challenged provisions.

The new DOL Final Rule, which is scheduled to take effect on Wednesday, September 16th, does the following:

  1. Addresses “Healthcare Provider” Definition and Exemption | In its new Final Rule, the DOL redefines who is encompassed within the meaning of “healthcare provider” under the FFCRA to include: (1) traditional healthcare providers under the FMLA, and (2) “other employees who are employed to provide diagnostic services, preventative services, treatment services, and other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care.”

    In effect, the DOL Final Rule narrows the original FFCRA definition of “healthcare provider” as well as provides explicit examples of included professions and healthcare entities.

    As a practical matter, this modification will require all healthcare providers who previously invoked the “healthcare provider exemption” to revisit their parameters of use, as some employees may no longer be included within the new definition and exemption. 

  2. Doubles Down on the “Work Availability” Requirement | The DOL rejected the SDNY’s holding that an employer’s ability to provide an employee with work to complete may not be considered relevant in assessing eligibility for FFCRA leave. In other words, the DOL’s original position on this issue remains unchanged — an employee is only entitled to FFCRA leave if the employer has work available for the employee, but the employee cannot perform the work due to one of the six qualifying reasons under the FFCRA.

    As it relates to this requirement, employers should remember that they may not make work unavailable in an effort to deny an FFCRA leave request — this action would constitute impermissible retaliation.

  3. Doubles Down on Intermittent Leave Approval | In response to the SDNY’s challenge asserting that an employee may take intermittent leave without first receiving employer approval, the DOL affirmed its original position which provides that employer approval is required in order to take certain FFCRA leave intermittently. In support of this holding, the DOL reasoned that the FFCRA pre-approval requirement is consistent with longstanding FMLA principles on leave issues as it protects against disruptions in an employer’s business operations.

  4. Modifies Notice and Documentation Requirements | In its holding, the SDNY challenged certain FFCRA leave notice requirements as impracticable for requiring employees to submit notice prior to taking any leave. In its new Final Rule, the DOL agreed. Accordingly, employees are now required to submit notice of FFCRA leave “as soon as practicable.” For employees taking leave as a result of a school or childcare facility closure, this means providing notice in advance. However, for circumstances involving illness, notice and supporting documentation may be provided after leave begins. 

The new DOL Final Rule provides much needed clarification to questions lingering from the April FFCRA enactment and subsequent DOL guidance. With that said, COVID-19 legislation — including the forthcoming updates — are complex in nature and require careful adherence in order to mitigate future liability.

As questions, concerns, and legal guidance continue to evolve with the changing times, it is essential for employers to stay informed. If you need assistance with any issues arising from the COVID-19 pandemic, please contact Bryan Meek at 330.253.5586 or bmeek@bmdllc.com, or feel free to contact any member of BMD's Employment & Labor practice group. 


You can now enter into a Postnuptial Agreement in Ohio!

Ohio's 2024-2025 Fiscal Budget - Behavioral Health Updates

Ohio’s 2024-2025 State Budget was signed into law by Governor Mike DeWine on July 3, 2023. Behavioral health is an area that Governor DeWine expressed great interest in supporting and the final version of the Budget does reflect some of those initiatives. The Budget prioritizes growing the behavioral health workforce and increasing research and innovation by building community capacity for care that offers better crisis response services and treatment, increased prevention efforts, and increased provision of residential and outpatient services. Outlined below are notable Budget items geared toward achieving growth and improvement in the behavioral health field as well as some key items that were rejected by Governor DeWine’s veto.

ChatGPT for Legal Research

How trustworthy and beneficial is ChatGPT for legal research? What are the benefits and drawbacks of using this tool in the legal system.

Supreme Court Rules that Employers Must Show Substantial Increased Costs to Legally Decline Employees’ Religious Accommodation Requests

On June 29, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in Groff v. DeJoy that under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) employers must show, in order to decline religious accommodations, that the burden of granting religious accommodations to employees will result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of an employer’s particular business, thus amending the prior, simple standard of a “de minimis” undue hardship.

Recent HIPAA Breach Settlements - Lessons Learned

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights (OCR), the consequences for providers may include settlements of $30,000 to $240,000. OCR recently released two settlements for improper breaches of protected health information (PHI) that are good examples of the major monetary penalties that can result from common HIPAA mistakes.