Federal Court Strikes Down Portions of FFCRA Regulations
On April 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued regulations on the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”). Later that month, the New York Attorney General sued the DOL in federal court over several aspects of the regulations, claiming that they unlawfully restricted employee eligibility for the leave guaranteed by the FFCRA. Earlier this month, the court issued an opinion that ruled in favor of the Attorney General on most challenges. In particular, the court found that:
The regulations’ documentation requirements are inconsistent with the FFCRA. The regulations, as written, require employees to submit documentation to their employer before taking leave under the FFCRA. This documentation must address: (a) the reason for leave; (b) the duration of the requested leave; and (c) the authority for the isolation or quarantine order necessitating leave (if applicable). Under the court’s interpretation, employees would not need to provide this documentation before taking leave under the FFCRA, but can be required to submit such paperwork after giving notice of the need for leave.
The regulations’ work-availability requirement is inconsistent with the FFCRA. The regulations, as written, state that employees are ineligible for paid leave under the FFCRA if their employers do not have work for them. Under the court’s interpretation, furloughed employees would be eligible for paid leave under the FFCRA for a qualifying reason.
The regulations’ definition of “health care provider” is overly broad. The FFCRA allowed employees of certain “health care providers” to be exempted from the Act’s coverage. The FFCRA used the fairly narrow definition of “health care provider” set forth in the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). The regulations, as written, used a significantly broader definition of “health care provider” that included “anyone employed at any doctor’s office, hospital, health care center, clinic, post-secondary educational institution offering health care instruction, medical school, local health care department or agency, nursing facility, retirement facility, nursing home, home health care provider, any facility that performs laboratory or medical testing, pharmacy, or any similar institution, employer, or entity.” Under the court’s interpretation, more employees would be covered by Act.
Pennsylvania employers may be wondering why the decision of a federal court sitting in New York, which has no jurisdiction over Pennsylvania, would be of note. There are several reasons why. First, other states may be more inclined to challenge the DOL’s regulations in court given the success that the New York Attorney General has achieved. Second, and perhaps most importantly, the DOL may be inclined to rewrite some or all of the regulations in light of the court’s ruling.
Whatever happens, we will be sure to keep you updated on the latest developments on this front. For questions about this or any other labor and employment issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at Hoffman & Hlavac. To stay updated on this and the other key labor and employment law developments that affect your workplace, subscribe to our blog and follow us on social media.