On November 2, 2017, three Republican Representatives, Mimi Walters (R-CA), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), and Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), introduced a federal paid leave bill that would give employers the option of providing their employees a minimum number of paid leave hours per year and instituting a flexible workplace arrangement. The bill would amend the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) and use the statute’s existing pre-emption mechanism to offer employers a safe harbor from the hodgepodge of state and local paid sick leave laws. Currently eight states and more than 30 local jurisdictions have passed paid sick leave laws.

The minimum amount of paid leave employers would be required to provide depends on the employer’s size and employee’s tenure. The bill does not address whether an employer’s size is determined by its entire workforce or the number of employees in a given location.

Number of Employees Amount Of Sick Leave For Employees With Five Or More Years Of Service Amount Of Sick Leave For Employees With Fewer Than Five Years Of Service
1,000 or more

 

20 days 16 days
250 to 999

 

18 days 14 days
50 to 249

 

15 days 13 days
Fewer than 50

 

14 days 12 days

In addition to paid leave hours, employers would be required to offer at least one of the following flexible workplace arrangements: (1) a compressed work schedule that allows employees to increase their daily hours so as to qualify for a four-day workweek, (2) a biweekly work program that permits employees to work a total of 80 hours over a two-week period, (3) a telecommuting program, (4) a job-sharing program, (5) flexible scheduling, or (6) a predictable schedule. Employees would become eligible to participate in a flexible workplace arrangement once they have worked for the employer for 12 months and at least 1,000 hours.

The bill would not affect state paid family leave insurance programs, such as one about to take effect in New York, nor would it affect job-protection coverage afforded by the Family and Medical Leave Act. If signed into law, the bill would become the first ever federal paid leave law.

The New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (“DCA”) has issued proposed rules  for the implementation of the Fair Workweek Law. The law establishes scheduling practices for fast food and retail workers in New York City and is set to go into effect on November 26, 2017.

With regard to retail employers, the proposed rules include:

  • Workplace notice positing requirements, § 14-02.   The DCA’s notice template is not yet available.
  • Workplace schedule posting requirements, § 14-04.   Retail employers must conspicuously post schedules three days before work begins.   The proposed rule expressly provides that employers may not post or otherwise disclose to other employees the work schedule of an employee who has been granted an accommodation based on the employee’s status as a survivor of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault, where disclosure would conflict with the accommodation.
  • Recordkeeping requirements to document compliance, § 14-08(a).   The proposed rule states these records must be maintained “in an electronically accessible format” and show:
    • Actual hours worked by each employee each week;
    • An employee’s written consent to any schedule changes, where required; and
    • Each written schedule provided to an employee.
  • Employee work schedule request requirements, § 14-08(b) and (c).   Within two weeks’ of an employee’s request, retail employers must provide employees with their work schedules for any previous week worked for the past three years. Within one week of an employee’s request, retail employers must provide the most current version of the complete work schedule for all employees who work at the same location, with the exception of those employees with accommodations based on the employee’s status as a survivor of domestic violence, stalking, or sexual assault.
  • Procedural guidance for employees who wish to proceed with a private right action against their employers for violations of the law.

A public hearing on the proposed rules is scheduled for Friday November 17, 2017. The deadline for written comments is 5:00 p.m. on November 17, 2017.

In a potentially significant decision following the New Jersey Supreme Court’s ruling in Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, LLC, 220 N.J. 289 (2015), a New Jersey appellate panel held, in Garden State Fireworks, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (“Sleepy’s”), Docket No. A-1581-15T2, 2017 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2468 (App. Div. Sept. 29, 2017), that part C of the “ABC” test does not require an individual to operate an independent business engaged in the same services as that provided to the putative employer to be considered an independent contractor.  Rather, the key inquiry for part C of the “ABC” test is whether the worker will “join the ranks of the unemployed” when the business relationship ends.

In Garden State Fireworks, the panel analyzed whether pyrotechnicians hired by a fireworks company to conduct fireworks displays were properly classified as independent contractors rather than employees under New Jersey’s Unemployment Compensation Law (UCL).  The panel’s analysis was guided by the “ABC” test, which presumes that a worker is an employee, unless the employer can demonstrate three factors.  As stated in Sleepy’s, these factors are drawn from N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6), which asks whether:

(A) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; and

(B) Such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and

(C) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

During a routine audit by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (the “Department”), the fireworks company was found to have misclassified certain pyrotechnicians as independent contractors. The company appealed the Department’s order, and it was reversed by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ).  In a final administrative action, however, the Commissioner of the Department rejected the ALJ’s findings and agreed with the auditor’s initial assessment.  The company appealed from the Commissioner’s decision.  After reviewing the hearing record from the ALJ, the panel reversed the Commissioner’s decision and concluded that all of the factors of the “ABC” test had been satisfied.

As to part A, the panel found that there was no evidence to support the conclusion that the company controlled the technicians’ performances. On the contrary, the facts suggested that the technicians were given “virtually complete control” over the fireworks displays.  As to part B, the panel stated that the fireworks displays were performed offsite and outside of all of the company’s places of business. The panel concluded that part C was satisfied because the hearing testimony revealed that the technicians only performed shows during one or two weeks in a year, and none of the technicians relied on the shows as their primary source of income.  The technicians were either retirees or full-time employees in other endeavors when not performing fireworks displays, and were not employed independently to provide the same service.

In applying the “ABC” test, the panel rejected the Commissioner’s interpretation of part C to require an “independently established enterprise or business,” even though this interpretation appears to be consistent with other unpublished appellate division decisions applying the “ABC” test in different factual contexts post-Sleepy’s.  For example, in N.E.I. Jewelmasters of New Jersey, Inc. v. Board of Review, Docket No. A-2333-14T3, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1456 (App. Div. June 24, 2016), a panel held that “[s]atisfaction of [part] C requires a clear showing that a viable independent business exists apart from the particular contractual relationship at issue.”  The panel found that part C was not satisfied in that case because: the sales/marketing employee lacked “an independently established business”; she worked solely for one employer; and “her termination rendered her unemployed.”  Moreover, in ABS Group Services v. Board of Review, Docket No. A-1847-12T3, 2016 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 989 (App. Div. Apr. 27, 2016), a panel required evidence that the employee, a certified boiler and pressure vessel inspector, was engaged in an independent business to satisfy part C.  Because the employee was dependent upon the employer for his livelihood and did not have a business of his own, the panel concluded that part C was not satisfied.

In Garden State Fireworks, the panel construed “independent business” in part C to include separate employment that continues despite the termination of the challenged relationship.  In so finding, the panel relied on Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Board of Review, 397 N.J. Super. 309, 323 (App. Div. 2007), for the assertion that part C is satisfied “when a person has a business, trade, occupation, or profession that will clearly continue despite termination of the challenged relationship.” Philadelphia Newspapers, in turn, relies on Carpet Remnant Warehouse, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor, 125 N.J. 567 (1991). Carpet Remnant cites to Trauma Nurses, Inc. v. Board of Review, 242 N.J. Super. 135, 148 (App. Div. 1990), noting parenthetically that nurses are engaged in an independently established profession that can satisfy part C where it can be shown that they work for brokers and/or hospitals performing varying types of work, such as part-time, full-time, and shift work.

Sleepy’s recites a similar interpretation of part C, although Sleepy’s is not cited in Garden State Fireworks.  The court in Sleepy’s indicated that part C “calls for an enterprise that exists and can continue to exist independently of and apart from the particular service relationship,” quoting Gilchrist v. Division of Employment Security, 48 N.J. Super. 147 (App. Div. 1957).  Notably, the Sleepy’s court recited language from case law that uses the broader term “enterprise” instead of “independently established business,” which is a phrase that implies that the worker in question must be a business owner.  Further, like Garden State Fireworks, Sleepy’s notes that part C requires “a profession that will plainly persist despite the termination of the challenged relationship,” citing to Trauma Nurses.  Moreover, the Sleepy’s court stated that if the individual joins “the ranks of the unemployed,” part C is not satisfied.  Thus, the panel’s interpretation of part C’s “independent-business test” in Garden State Fireworks appears to be consistent with court’s interpretation of part C in Sleepy’s.

In addition, the panel did not interpret part C to require that the independently established profession be of the same nature as the service provided to the putative employer. This requirement exists in the “ABC” test of some states, such as Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts, although no such requirement has been found under New Jersey law pursuant to N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6)(C) or case law.  While Trauma Nurses is an example of a case where an appellate panel found that part C was satisfied where the putative employees were able to provide the same service in the same industry following the conclusion of the relationship with the putative employer, the panel in Trauma Nurses did not hold that providing the same service in the same industry is a necessary component of part C.  The panel in Garden State Fireworks also did not find service in the same industry to be necessary to satisfy part C, implicitly stating that an employee who only works for a company one to three times a year while working full time elsewhere is not an employee of that company under part C even if the full-time employment is in a different industry.  Likewise, the ALJ discerned that part C does not require that the “independently established trade, occupation, profession or business . . . be part of the same industry.”

Another noteworthy observation from Garden State Fireworks is that the panel found, without directly addressing the issue, that pyrotechnicians who were retirees could satisfy part C.  Plainly, a retiree, by definition, is not engaged in an “an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.”  Nevertheless, if the panel would have addressed the issue, it may have concluded, based on Carpet Remnant, that the retirees were not employees because, being retired from employment, they were not economically dependent on the fireworks company and, thus, would not join the ranks of the unemployed upon termination of the challenged relationship.

In sum, the panel’s analysis highlights that the application of the “ABC” test is a fact-sensitive inquiry. Employers who fail the “ABC” test of the UCL may be liable for unemployment compensation and disability benefits.  Significantly, the “ABC” test, as held in Sleepy’s, is also used to determine independent contractor status under New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and New Jersey Wage Payment Law.  Thus, an employer’s failure to satisfy the “ABC” test with respect to its independent contractors can further result in liability for unpaid wages, overtime, and employee benefits.  A principal who engages the services of an independent contractor should periodically review such engagement to ensure compliance with New Jersey law.

On October 23, 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed legislation that amends the Clean Indoor Air Act to ban the use of electronic cigarettes (“e-cigarettes”) everywhere that smoking traditional tobacco products is prohibited.  With this amendment, the Clean Indoor Air Act will prohibit both smoking and vaping in certain indoor areas, including places of employment, as well as certain outdoor areas accessible to the public. This legislation will become effective on November 22, 2017.  Prior to this date,  any required posters and signs will need to be updated to include reference to “No Vaping” or “Vaping” along with the “No Smoking” or “Smoking” signs, or international “No Smoking” symbol.

For the second time in as many years, California Governor Jerry Brown has vetoed “wage shaming” legislation that would have required employers with 500 or more employees to report gender-related pay gap statistics to the California Secretary of State on an annual basis beginning in 2019 for publication on a public website. Assembly Bill 1209 (“AB 1209”), which we discussed at length in last month’s Act Now advisory, passed the Legislature despite widespread criticism from employers and commerce groups.  This criticism included concerns that publication of statistical differences in the mean and median salaries of male and female employees without accounting for legitimate factors such as seniority, education, experience, and productivity could give a misleading impression that an employer had violated the law.  Opponents also decried the burden the bill would place on employers to do data collection and warned that it would lead to additional litigation.  In vetoing the measure, Governor Brown noted the “ambiguous wording” of the bill and stated he was “worried that this ambiguity could be exploited to encourage more litigation than pay equity.”

However, the same pen that vetoed AB 1209 signed another pay-equity law last week: Assembly Bill 168 (“AB 168”).  AB 168 precludes California employers from asking prospective employees about their salary history information.  “Salary history information” includes both compensation and benefits.  Like similar laws passed recently in several other states and cities, the policy underlying the inquiry ban is that reliance upon prior compensation perpetuates historic pay differentials.  Opponents have argued that such a ban will make it more difficult for employers to match job offers to market rates.  Go to our Act Now Advisory on AB 168 for a comprehensive review of this new law.

Our colleague Sharon L. Lippett, at Epstein Becker Green, has a post on the Financial Services Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our retail industry employers and plan sponsors: “Plan Sponsors: Potential Targets for IRS Compliance Examinations.”

Following is an excerpt:

The IRS recently released the Tax Exempt and Government Entities FY 2018 Work Plan (the “2018 Work Plan”) which provides helpful information for sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans about the focus of the IRS’ 2018 compliance efforts for employee benefit plan.  While the 2018 Work Plan is a high-level summary, it does address IRS compliance strategies for 2018 and should assist plan sponsors in administering their retirement plans.…

Read the full post here.

In a decision that will be celebrated by employers in the Seventh Circuit struggling with employee requests for post-Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave as an accommodation under the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Seventh Circuit in Severson v. Heartland Woodcraft, Inc., 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 18197 (7th Cir. Sept. 20, 2017), recently held that an employer did not violate the ADA by firing an employee instead of extending his leave after he exhausted all leave under the FMLA.  This holding – finding that extended long-term leave is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA – is not only contrary to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)’s position regarding extended leave as a reasonable accommodation, but also conflicts with several other federal Circuit courts that had previously ruled on the same issue (holding that extended/post-FMLA leave can be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA).

In Severson, the plaintiff was diagnosed with back myelopathy, which negatively affected his back, neck, and spinal cord.  While plaintiff generally could perform his duties without incident, he did experience several “flare ups” which made it difficult for him to walk, bend, lift, stand, and work.  As a result of his disability, plaintiff injured his back and went on FMLA leave, with several continuations of leave, totaling 12 weeks, approved by defendant.  After exhausting all FMLA leave, plaintiff informed defendant that he would undergo disc compression surgery and would require at least an additional two months of leave for recovery time.  Instead of extending plaintiff’s leave, defendant informed plaintiff that his employment would terminate on the date that his FMLA leave expired.

In reaching its holding that leave for an extended period of time is not a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its analysis in an earlier case – Byrne v. Avon Prods., Inc. 328 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2003) – that a long-term leave of absence could not be a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.  Although EEOC guidance “Employer-Provided Leave and the Americans with Disabilities Act” states that employers should consider long-term leaves of absence as reasonable accommodations, the Seventh Circuit disagreed, stating that such an interpretation was untenable and would transform the ADA into “a medical-leave statute – in effect, an open-ended extension of the FMLA.”  (A previous article on the guidance can be found here.)  Moreover, the Court in Severson stated that long-term medical leave does not enable an individual to perform the essential functions of the job and, therefore, cannot be considered a reasonable accommodation because at the time it is required the employee is not a qualified individual with a disability.  Finally, the Court noted that the ADA only requires “reasonable accommodations” and not “effective accommodations”, finding the a request for extended leave is only the latter.  Thus, the Seventh Circuit rejected plaintiff’s argument (which had been joined by the EEOC) that defendant should have granted him a reasonable accommodation of additional leave.

This case represents a stark deviation from both the EEOC’s guidance and the rulings of multiple other Circuit courts throughout the country setting forth that employers must evaluate requests for leave (including those extending beyond FMLA leave) under the ADA on a case-by-case basis to analyze whether granting the leave would be an undue hardship, so long as the request is not for indefinite leave. While this may change the way employers in the Seventh Circuit approach their analysis of leave as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, employers should be careful not to over-extend this ruling:

  • First, the Severson holding itself does not totally preclude any post-FMLA as an accommodation under the ADA. Indeed, the holding leaves open the possibility that leave spanning a few days or even a couple of weeks could be a reasonable accommodation.
  • Second, some state and local laws governing disability discrimination and accommodation may have different language and standards that could result in a contrary decision. (And now, more than ever, state and local laws that are more restrictive than federal law are being passed on a regular basis.)
  • Third, employers outside the Seventh Circuit should remain diligent in individually analyzing requests for extended leave as an ADA accommodation, particularly in jurisdictions that follow the EEOC’s guidance or where Circuits have expressly ruled contrary to Severson.

No matter what jurisdiction an employer operates in, it is always important for employers to communicate with employees regarding expiration of leave and expected return dates while the employee remains out on leave.

On September 13, 2017, California legislators passed California Bill AB 450, also known as the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (“the Act”).  The Act is one of three immigration bills currently awaiting Governor Jerry Brown’s approval or veto.[1]

The Act imposes specific restrictions on employers in instances where U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agents seek access to their workplaces for immigration enforcement. Specifically, the Act prohibits employers from (1) voluntarily consenting to allow an ICE agent to enter nonpublic areas of the workplace absent a judicial warrant; and (2) voluntarily consenting to allow an ICE agent to access, review, or obtain employee records, absent a subpoena or a court order.

Additionally, the Act requires employers to (1) post written notice[2] of an immigration agency’s intent to audit employee records, including I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification forms, within 72 hours of the employer receiving notice of such an inspection; and (2) following an immigration agency’s audit, provide each employee who was found to lack work authorization with a copy of the written results of the inspection within 72 hours of the employer’s receipt.

Violations of the Act may result in a civil penalty of between two thousand dollars ($2,000) and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and between five thousand dollars ($5,000) and ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation, to be enforced by the Labor Commissioner or the Attorney General. All penalties recovered under the Act shall be deposited in the Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund.

At this time, the ultimate constitutionality of the Act is uncertain under Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011), in view of the steep monetary penalties it threatens to impose.

___________

[1] California legislators also recently passed the California Values Act (which is intended to prevent law enforcement officials from questioning and detaining individuals based on immigration violations alone) and the Immigrant Tenant Protection Act  (which prohibits landlords from reporting or threatening to report the immigration status of their tenants as a form of retaliation or to prompt an eviction.)

[2] No later than July 1, 2018, the Labor Commissioner will release a template to assist employers in complying with the notice posting requirements imposed by the Act.

On July 19, 2017, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB” or the “Board”) issued its final regulations (“Final Regulations”) for the New York State Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (“PFLBL” or the “Law”). The WCB first published regulations to the PFLBL in February 2017, and then updated those regulations in May (collectively, the “Prior Regulations”).

While the Final Regulations did clarify some outstanding questions, many questions remain, particularly pertaining to the practical logistics of implementing the Law, such as the tax treatment of deductions and benefits, paystub requirements, certain differences between requirements that pertain to self-funding employers and those employers intending to obtain an insurance policy, and what forms and procedures will apply.

As we previously reported, when the PFLBL becomes effective on January 1, 2018, most employees working in New York State will be eligible for paid family leave (“PFL”) benefits. Employers are not responsible for actually providing pay to employees during a period of PFL; rather, employee payroll deductions will fund an insurance policy, which will either be managed by a third party or self-funded by the employer, from which employees will receive PFLBL benefits.

On the same day the Final Regulations were published, the WCB also issued an Assessment of Public Comment (the “Assessment”), which addresses certain public comments to the Prior Regulations. The State has also published two fact sheets – one for employees and one for employers – outlining the basic elements of the PFLBL.

The following summary addresses the updates in the Final Regulations, as compared to the Prior Regulations, as well as some additional insight from the Assessment.

Collective Bargaining Agreements. The Final Regulations clarified that employers that have employees or classes of employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) are not required to supply such employees with PFL coverage in accordance with the terms of the Law, but only so long as the CBA:

  1. provides paid family leave benefits at least as favorable as those provided in the Law; and
  2. does not include a provision whereby otherwise-eligible employees may waive their rights to paid family leave or otherwise opt-out of the law (except in accordance with the opt-out provisions in the Law for employees who will not become eligible for PFL).

The Final Regulations specify that, except as noted above, a CBA may, indeed, contain paid family leave provisions that differ from the requirements in the Final Regulations. Where a CBA does not provide a different rule, however, the Final Regulations and the Law will govern.

Employee Contributions. The WCB declined to amend the Final Regulations with respect to whether employers must begin employee payroll deductions prior to January 1, 2018. In the Assessment, the Board confirmed that deductions under the Law were permitted to begin on July 1, 2017, but there is no requirement to make deductions prior to January 1, 2018; thus, in 2017, payroll deductions for employee contributions is a permissive choice that employers may make.

Further, the Assessment noted that the Law does not require notification that deductions will begin; however, it is generally best practice to notify employees prior to deducting from employees’ wages. Neither the Assessment nor the Final Regulations address whether as of January 1, 2018, an employer may opt to pay the contributions on its employees’ behalf, or whether alternatively, employers must deduct from employee’s paychecks for this contribution.

Interaction Between Qualifying Leave and Benefits in 2017 and 2018. The Board received a comment asking whether an employee who took leave to bond with his or her child in 2017 will still be eligible for up to the full 8 weeks of PFL in 2018, notwithstanding the leave already taken. The Board stated in the Assessment that employees will, indeed, be eligible for up to 8 additional weeks of leave in 2018 under NYPFLBL, even if the employee exhausted all applicable leave under federal law and the employer’s policies in 2017.

The Law limits the use of PFL and New York State short-term disability benefits (“STD”) in a 52-week period to a total of 26 weeks, which essentially reduces an employee’s eligible for STD based on the amount of PFL used. On the positive side, the Assessment noted that in 2018, the 52-week lookback period includes leave taken in 2017. Thus, an employee who has utilized STD in 2017 will have his or her 26-week allocation during the applicable 52-week period reduced by any STD utilized during 2017 (so long as it was used within the applicable 52-week look-back period).

Waivers of PFL. The Final Regulations revised employers’ requirements to offer a waiver from PFL deductions from permissive to mandatory. The language previously stated that employees who do not meet the PFLBL eligibility requirements “may” be provided the option for a waiver – the “may” has been changed to “shall.” The Assessment clarified that it is the employee’s choice of whether to complete a waiver, not the employer’s.

Coverage Outside New York. The Assessment confirmed that the PFLBL applies to employees who work in New York State. If an employee works outside of New York State, and only “incidentally” works in New York, those employees are not covered by the Law.[1]

Calculation of Daily Benefits. The Final Regulations amended the calculation of benefits when an employee is taking PFL in daily increments (rather than weekly increments). Under the Prior Regulations, if an employee worked a partial week prior to beginning PFL, then, in calculating the level of benefits to which the employee would be eligible for the day(s) off based on the eight weeks prior to taking leave, the employee’s weekly rate could be reduced by the day(s) the employee did not work in that final week. For example, the 8 week period could include a partial week of work, thus reducing the employee’s average wages. The Final Regulations use the same 8-week period as calculating an average weekly wage, which will exclude the final partial week of leave.

Positions with Breaks in Service – Impact on Eligibility. The Final Regulations added a paragraph to the “Eligibility” section, so as to clarify how to calculate consecutive weeks of service for positions that inherently contemplate breaks in service, such as professors who have semester breaks. For such positions, the 26-consecutive week period requirement may be tolled during periods of absence that are due to the nature of that employment. In other words, with respect to such individuals’ employment, the breaks in service would not be considered weeks worked when considering whether the individual had worked at least 26 weeks in the prior 52-week period (for eligibility purposes), but also would not re-start the period of employment to determine eligibility under the Law.

Returning Surplus Contributions. The Board received two comments seeking clarification regarding the requirement to return surplus contributions. The Final Regulations provide that employers shall use the employee contributions to provide PFL benefits, which “means to pay for a policy or self-insure.” The Assessment states that employers are required to return to employees any “surplus amount withheld that exceeds the actual cost” of the annual premium of the PFL policy. No changes were made to the Final Regulations.

Interaction with New York City Earned Sick Time Act (“ESTA”). The Assessment confirms the language in the Prior Regulations that employees may elect to use paid time off (such as vacation, personal days, or sick time) to receive full salary during PFL, but that it is not mandatory. As the PFLBL does not cover an employee’s own illness, PFL would only run concurrently with sick leave under ESTA for purposes of caring for an employee’s family member.

For a summary of the PFLBL, the Final Regulations, and the Assessment, please see this Act Now Advisory.

___________

ENDNOTE

[1] While the Law, Final Regulations, and Assessment do not define “incidentally,” the New York State PFLBL website indicates that employees must work 30 or more days in a calendar year New York to be covered.

When: Thursday, September 14, 2017 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Where: New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:

  • Immigration
  • Global Executive Compensation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internal Cyber Threats
  • Pay Equity
  • People Analytics in Hiring
  • Gig Economy
  • Wage and Hour
  • Paid and Unpaid Leave
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Ethics

We will start the day with two morning Plenary Sessions. The first session is kicked off with Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

We are thrilled to welcome back speakers from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Marc Freedman and Katie Mahoney will speak on the latest policy developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide during the second plenary session.

Morning and afternoon breakout workshop sessions are being led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, will be making remarks in the afternoon before attendees break into their afternoon workshops. We are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Bret Baier, Chief Political Anchor of FOX News Channel and Anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier.

View the full briefing agenda and workshop descriptions here.

Visit the briefing website for more information and to register, and contact Sylwia Faszczewska or Elizabeth Gannon with questions. Seating is limited.