Paid Leave for Employees if School/Daycare/Summer Camps are Closed

With the new school year fast approaching and some schools electing to delay the start date, we want to make sure employers are plugged into the requirements of FFCRA. Small businesses are required by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to give employees paid leave from wok in certain circumstances relating to COVID-19. One requirement is that the child’s school/daycare/summer camp must be unavailable because of COVID-19.

The below article from FUBA helps breakdown the requirements of FFCRA.

Small businesses are required by the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) to give employees paid leave from work in certain circumstances relating to COVID-19. Employees who cannot work due to very specific reasons related to COVID-19 are entitled to two weeks of paid leave, with an additional 10 weeks of paid leave if they have to stay home to care for a son or daughter whose school, daycare, or summer camp is closed due to COVID-19.

If you have an employee who cannot come to work because they have to take care of a child because the child’s summer daycare – a school, camp or other program in which the employee’s child is enrolled – is closed or unavailable for a COVID-19 related reason, the employee may be entitled to paid leave.

Keep in mind that the child’s school/daycare/summer camp must be unavailable because of COVID-19. School being closed for summer vacation does not qualify an employee for paid leave because school is always closed during the summer and that closure is not related to COVID-19. If school does not reopen in the fall due to COVID-19, that may qualify employees for paid leave. However, if schools reopen but the employee’s children are attending online or digitally, the employee may not qualify for paid leave.

If an employee requests paid leave, you should get the following:

  1. The employee’s name and the dates the leave is requested
  2. A statement of the COVID-19 related reason the employee is requesting leave
  3. A statement that the employee is unable to work or telework for this reason
  4. Documentation supporting the reason for leave

The employee also needs to give you the name and age of the child they will be taking care of, the name of the daycare/summer camp that has closed, and they must provide a statement that no one else will be caring for the child while the employee is on paid leave. If the child is older than 14, the employee must show that special circumstances require them to stay home with the child during daylight hours.

Employees taking paid leave because their child’s daycare/summer camp is closed due to COVID-19 must be paid two-thirds their regular rate of pay, up to $200 per day. Learn more about calculating pay here.

You can offset the cost of their leave by keeping a portion of the quarterly federal employment taxes you would otherwise deposit with the IRS. If the cost of the leave is more than your federal employment tax bill, you can request an advance refund from the IRS using form 7200. To claim a payroll tax credit, you must retain the documentation described above and comply with any IRS procedures for claiming the tax credit. For more information about how to claim these payroll tax credits and what documentation is required, click here. For more information about form 7200, click here.

Click here to learn about other reasons that entitle employees to paid leave.

______________________________________________________________________

This article was written by FUBA Workers’ Comp

Paid Leave Concerns When Employees Get COVID-19 Twice – Law360.com

https://www.law360.com/articles/1291176

Law360 (July 15, 2020, 4:21 PM EDT) —

Mark Konkel
Mark Konkel
Maria Biaggi
Maria Biaggi
Nicholas Kromka
Nicholas Kromka

The coronavirus has been novel in more ways than one. On one end of the spectrum, employers confront new questions of almost philosophical dimensions.

How much risk is too much risk? What risks should we ask our employees to accept? Where is the line between ordinary risk — the kind that employees undertake when they walk out the door every day to go to work — and the extraordinary risks posed by a pandemic from which, in the end, employers cannot entirely shield their workforces?

A seemingly more mundane novelty is the plethora of new COVID-19 laws and regulations. Compliance should just be a matter of reading a statute and, well, complying. But even there, an evolving real-world pandemic potentially makes compliance just as complicated.

One example we have helped our clients wrestle with involves exactly this kind of straightforward-on-paper, tricky-in-practice complexity.

One requirement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act appears to be simple: When an employee working for an employer with under 500 employees gets sick with COVID-19, is seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis, or is subject to a quarantine order of a doctor or a government, they are entitled to up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave.

And that made perfect sense when the law was hurriedly drafted: You get sick once, and you do not get sick again, right?

Wrong. Mounting evidence now shows that contracting COVID-19 does not confer absolute immunity and that many individuals have now contracted the novel coronavirus more than once. So what happens when an employee exhausts his or her 80-hour emergency paid sick leave entitlement, recovers from COVID-19, and then contracts it again?

What are the basic requirements of the FFCRA?

Under the FFCRA, full-time and part-time employees who are unable to work or telework due to one of the qualifying reasons below may take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave.

  • The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID–19.
  • The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID–19.
  • The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
  • The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to the first or second reason above.
  • The employee is caring for his or her child if the school or place of care of the child has been closed, or the child care provider of such child is unavailable, due to COVID–19 precautions.
  • The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

An employee who contracts COVID-19 may be eligible to take 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave for one or more of the above-qualifying reasons. However, they may only take 80 hours of paid sick leave once.

That is, the language of the FFCRA is arguably quite clear that two weeks of emergency paid sick leave is all an employee is entitled to within one Family and Medical Leave Act period, i.e., 12 months, whether a calendar year, another fixed 12-month leave year, etc.

The new legislation, effective April 1 to Dec. 31, was quickly drafted in March when the coronavirus was still novel. But while there is still so much that is unknown about COVID-19, we can no longer assume that an individual who has been infected with COVID-19 and recovers, will not be able to get the virus again.

In the U.S., people are reporting testing positive for the virus after having recovered from an initial infection.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

When a positive test occurs less than about 6 weeks after the person met criteria for discontinuation of isolation, it can be difficult to determine if the positive test represents a new infection or a persistently positive test associated with the previous infection. If the positive test occurs more than 6-8 weeks after the person has completed their most recent isolation, clinicians and public health authorities should consider the possibility of reinfection.[2]

And, of course, persons who are determined to be potentially infectious should undergo evaluation and remain isolated.

In April, the DOL issued guidance which also confirms the plain language of the FFCRA’s FMLA Expansion Act. That is, employees are not entitled to any more than 12 weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period, regardless of whether an employee takes paid leave under the FMLA Expansion Act or regular unpaid FMLA leave for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.

The FMLA Expansion Act does not add additional job-protected leave time. Rather, it adds additional qualifying reasons to take leave. Thus, an employee who takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, does not have an additional 12 weeks of leave under the act because he or she is, for example, experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 for a second time and seeking another medical diagnosis.

Moreover, employees who may have taken FMLA leave for reasons other than the public health emergency in the preceding leave year may have reduced leave time under the FMLA for purposes of the public health emergency. This may have the unfortunate effect of potentially leaving those who are most vulnerable with less leave time than employees who have not needed to use regular unpaid FMLA leave for their own serious health condition. Also, the FFCRA only applies to employers with 500 or fewer employees.

New York employers are required to comply with both the FFCRA and the New York Emergency Paid Sick Leave Law, or EPSL. The benefits available under the EPSL vary based on the size and net income of the employer.

Under the EPSL, private employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide their employees with at least 14 days of paid sick leave. Employees in New York are eligible for benefits under the EPSL when the benefits provided by that law are in excess of those provided under the FFCRA.

In this situation, employees would be entitled to federal benefits, plus the difference in benefits provided under the FFCRA and the EPSL. In other words, no double dipping. And, unless the employee has to care for a family member with a serious health condition, he or she would not be entitled to New York paid family leave.

Given all this, there is no statutory obligation under the FFCRA to provide employees with additional paid leave in the unfortunate circumstance that an employee contracts the virus twice. However, this may not always be the answer under state law.

For example, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Labor recently issued guidance providing that health care employees who test positive after a quarantine or isolation may receive paid sick leave for up to two additional periods of quarantine or isolation.

Employers could certainly opt to pay employees during a second quarantine, but they are not required to under the current federal law. Alternatively, employers could provide unpaid time off, if the employee has exhausted his or her paid time off.

An employer may also be obligated to consider leave as a reasonable accommodation for individuals whose disabilities put them at greater risk from COVID-19, unless such an accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the employer.

So that ends the inquiry, right? Again: wrong.

What’s an employer to do?

We are always wary of simple answers to tricky questions. One answer to the questions posed above is deceptively simple: If an employee has exhausted her 80 hours of FFCRA leave, it is exhausted, and she is not entitled to a second round of leave.

While that position is straightforward and legally defensible, it misses a bigger context. If an employee is not entitled to additional leave but has contracted COVID-19 twice (or more), a sensible employer, or at least, one that is interested in avoiding getting sued by other employees, will not allow the sick employee to return to work. But if an employer takes the position that an employee ordered to stay home is not entitled to pay, it opens up a whole other can of worms.

One policy arguably underlying the pay protection provisions of the FFCRA is to encourage candor: Employees will be less likely to ignore or minimize their own symptoms, and to tell their employers about what is going on, if they are not concerned about losing compensation as a reward for their honesty.

And with federal unemployment benefits of $600 per week in addition to the normal level of benefits still in place, an employee may well consider continuing to stay home or eventually finding another job.

These concerns underscore why many larger employers who are not subject to the FFCRA’s coverage because of their size have gratuitously offered pay protection to sick employees: You want to know that employees are sick, tell them to stay home to avoid community spread in the workplace, and — perhaps most importantly to your longer-term business goals — actually retain a workforce you hope can return soon enough in full force.

Obviously, employers must first and foremost ensure compliance with applicable law, including the FFCRA. But navigating the pandemic is not just a question of strict compliance. Arguably, protecting continuity of operations, the health of the workforce and an employer’s long-term investment in its workforce is at least as important as ensuring any shorter-term compliance.

While this article cannot address how a specific employer will weigh those potentially competing concerns, smart employers consider all of those impacts in deciding whether or not to maintain a leave policy that may exceed, not just meet, the requirements of the FFCRA.

Regardless of whether the U.S. is in the first or second wave, the possibility is now evident that employees may get the coronavirus for a second time, while having already exhausted the leave entitlements under the FFCRA, state leave laws and the employer’s PTO policy. Employers should be prepared to face this new obstacle, particularly as cases in the U.S. are not abating.


Mark A. Konkel is a partner and co-chair of the labor and employment practice group at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Maria B. Biaggi is an associate at the firm.

Nicholas J. Kromka is an associate at the firm.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

Legislative Activity Update – FL Senate Bill 292

The state of Florida has passed Senate Bill 292.  This bill is responsible for defining the terms “loss run statement” and “provide”; requiring surplus lines and authorized insurers, respectively, to provide insureds either a loss run statement or certain information within a certain time frame after receipt of the insured’s written request.  This also requires insurers to provide notice to the agent of record after providing a loss run statement and prohibits insurers from charging a fee to prepare and provide one loss run statement annually.

Effective Date: 1/1/2021
Last Action: 6/22/2020 – Chapter No. 2020-51
Bill Text: Web Page | PDF

See the source image

Florida – Effective January 1, 2021, FL law changes for providing Loss Runs to the insured as well as notification to the Agent of Record.

  • An insurer shall provide loss runs to an insured within 15 calendar days after receipt of the insured’s written request.
  • Loss runs provided must contain the claims history with the insurer for the preceding 5 years or if history is less than 5 years then all years must be provided to the insured.
  • They can be electronically provided, allowing access through a secure website login or generate documents and mail.
  • The insurer must notify the Agent of Record that loss runs were provided to the insured at the time they are provided.
  • An insurer is not required to provide loss reserve information.

 

Businesses Can Defer Part of Their Payroll Tax Until Next Year

Employers are responsible for withholding Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes from their employees’ paychecks and paying these taxes along with the employer’s share to the IRS each month.  The Social Security tax is 12.4% total, with 6.2% withheld from the employee’s wages and the employer paying 6.2%.  The Medicare tax is 2.9%, with 1.45% withheld from the employee’s wages and the employer paying 1.45%.

As part of aid to businesses provided in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), employers can defer depositing the employer’s share of Social Security taxes until December 2021. For payroll periods starting March 27th through the end of this year, employers may defer their share of the Social Security tax (6.2%) and not deposit it with the IRS. Instead of depositing the usual amount of payroll tax, employers can simply hold back their portion of the Social Security tax each month and use it for other operating expenses.  *Please note this only applies to the employer’s portion of the Social Security tax.  Employers may not defer the employee’s part of the Social Security tax, and employers must still deposit both the employee’s and the employer’s portion of the Medicare tax each month.

Employers who decide to defer their part of the Social Security tax have until the end of next year to start depositing the amount they deferred. Half of the deferred payroll tax amount must be deposited with the IRS on December 31, 2021, with the other half due by December 31, 2022.

All employers may take advantage of this payroll tax deferral, including employers who have received a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan.

For more information from the IRS about payroll tax deferral, please click here.

This payroll tax deferral is not the same as the payroll tax credits that employers may take for providing paid leave to employees or the employee retention credit. The IRS has detailed information about these credits here.

Article originally posted on FUBA.org.

 

New Law Provides Flexibility on PPP Loan Forgiveness

Under a new federal law effective June 5, 2020, the requirements for PPP loan forgiveness have been relaxed in favor of small businesses.

What is included in the bill?

The bill, which passed with a bipartisan vote, makes the following amendments to the PPP to provide relief to borrowers:

  • Loan repayment terms—The bill extends the minimum loan term for unforgiven PPP loans from two years to five years.
  • Payroll costs vs. nonpayroll costs— For forgiveness eligibility, the bill reduces the portion of PPP funds that must be spent on payroll costs from 75% to 60%, and raises the nonpayroll cost limitation from 25% to 40%.
  • Covered period extension—The bill extends the covered period during which borrowers must spend the PPP funds to be eligible for forgiveness from eight weeks to 24 weeks from the date of origination of the loan.
  • Payroll tax deferment—The bill permits borrowers to defer payroll taxes without being penalized while still remaining eligible for loan forgiveness.
  • Extension of rehiring safe harbor—The bill extends the rehiring safe harbor by six months to provide borrowers with additional time to restore payroll levels or rehire employees without facing a reduction in the amount of forgiveness for which they are eligible. The original date was June 30, 2020, and the new date is Dec. 31, 2020.

In addition to the provisions above, the bill provides loan forgiveness eligibility exemptions for borrowers that are not able to rehire an employee or a replacement. There are also exemptions for loan forgiveness eligibility for borrowers that are not able to return to the same level of business due to complying with COVID-19-related orders or circumstances.

What’s next?

Borrowers should review the bill carefully and speak to their lender should they have any questions. In addition, borrowers should direct any questions regarding their PPP loan to their lender.

We will continue to monitor any additional developments regarding the PPP and deliver updates as necessary.

 

NCCI Presumptions Tracker

Below are the latest updates from NCCI regarding state presumptions:

Illinois: (Past by Both Chambers on 5.22.20) HB 2455 In Part, Provides That There is a Rebuttable Presumption That an Employee’s Contraction of COVID-19 Arises Out of and in the Course of the Employee’s First Responder or Frontline Worker Employment and That the Injury or Occupational Disease Shall Be Rebuttably Presumed to Be Causally Connected to the Hazards or Exposures of the Employee’s First Responder or Frontline Worker Employment

Massachusetts: (In Joint Committee) HB 4739 Creates a Presumption of Relatedness for Essential Workers Suffering From COVID-19

Michigan: (In Senate Committee) SB 928 Relates to Infectious Disease Presumption for Essential Employees During a Declared Emergency

Ohio: (Introduced the Below)

HB 667 Makes COVID-19 Contracted by a Corrections Officer an Occupational Disease   Under the Workers Compensation Law

HB 668 Makes Coronavirus Contracted by a Peace Officer, Firefighter, or     Emergency Medical Worker an Occupational Disease Under the Workers Compensation Law

As a reminder, NCCI provides regular updates regarding presumption activity.  To access the tracker, click here.

Stay Safe,

Team Libertate

 

WCIRB Releases Cost Evaluation of Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption

See below from the WCIRB regarding the projected cost of COVID-19 claims to be filed by ‘Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers’….At the low end, if only 4.8% of California ECI workers file claims related to COVID-19, the cost to the system will be an astounding $2.2B!

—————-

WCIRB Releases Cost Evaluation of Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption

Oakland CA, April 20, 2020 – The Workers’ Compensation Insurance Rating Bureau of California (WCIRB) released its Cost Evaluation of Potential Conclusive COVID-19 Presumption in California Workers’ Compensation. The evaluation was completed in response to an April 8, 2020 request from the California State Assembly Insurance Committee to assess the impact of a conclusive presumption that COVID-19 claims arising from certain front line workers are presumed to be work-related. Specifically, the WCIRB was requested to provide the cost impact of a conclusive COVID-19 presumption for health care workers, firefighters, EMS and rescue employees, front line law enforcement officers and other essential critical infrastructure (ECI) employees.

The WCIRB estimates that the annual cost of COVID-19 claims on ECI workers under a conclusive presumption ranges from $2.2 billion to $33.6 billion with an approximate mid-range estimate of $11.2 billion, or 61 percent of the annual estimated cost of the total workers’ compensation system prior to the impact of the pandemic. The WCIRB noted that in developing this estimate it did not include a provision for non-ECI workers who may file a compensable workers’ compensation COVID-19 claim, nor did it adjust for the COVID-19 claims of ECI workers that may be compensable in the absence of a conclusive presumption.

————

This and other important workers’ compensation topics will be discussed tomorrow during part 2 of NAPEO’s Coronavirus Updates webinar where our very own, Paul Hughes, will share his thoughts.  Click here for registration details.

 

Brief Update on Recent Activities By David Daniel, Florida PEO Lobbyist

Image result for florida

Update on Recent Activities related to COVID-19 from FAPEO –

There is a lot of COVID-19 related activity we have been working on for Florida PEOs as we face these uncertain times.  This email is intended summarize our recent work.

Emergency Orders at DBPR

With the required annual financial reports due to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation we contacted Secretary Beshears and asked that he issue an order delaying their due date.  Secretary Beshears indicated to us would be taken care of.

DBPR Emergency Order 2020 – 01 was issued March 16.  In the order Secretary Beshears suspends and tolls for 30 days any existing renewal deadline for a license, permit registration or certificate.

DBPR Emergency Order 2020 – 03 was issued March 23, 2020.  The order suspends and tolls through May 31, 2020 all time requirements, notice requirements and deadlines for final agency action or applications for permits, licenses, rates and other approvals under any statutes or rules.

Unemployment Compensation

As you can imagine there are reports from DEO of increased filings for unemployment compensation insurance.  While the UC Fund has significant resources available, as we have seen in the last recession, the unemployment compensation trust fund can go from flush to negative in a short amount of time.

It is expected with the dramatic decline in business activity related to the social distancing and businesses closures, employers will be forced to make some tough decisions with their workforce.  As you know, 443.131 F.S allows the Department of Economic Opportunity the ability to not charge an employer’s unemployment compensation contribution rate for a declared national disaster or an disaster of national significance.  Further, 443. 116 F.S. creates the short-time compensation program which allows an employer to reduce work for employees in lieu of layoffs with DEO approval.  We have requested DEO make the decision that this event and the subsequent layoffs which will follow are not chargeable to an employer’s unemployment compensation rate.  Further we have asked that if an employer chooses a short-time compensation arrangement it would also not be chargeable to their UC rate.

To that end, last week Governor DeSantis indicated in a press conference this event would not be charged to an employer’s unemployment compensation rate.  We are awaiting the official announcement from DEO.  There is no word yet on the short-time compensation and will let you know when we hear more from DEO.

Essential Business Sectors under CISA Guidance

The state and the country have been grappling with the impacts of decisions on social distancing, shelter in place orders and mandatory business closures.  Several counties have already issued emergency orders closing non-essential employers including Miami-Dade, Broward, Alachua and Duval counties.  We have asked the Governor’s Office to include professional employer organizations as essential critical infrastructure workers in any statewide emergency order mandating business closure.  At the direction of the Governor’s Office, we have based our request on Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency guidance.  (See attached)

While the decision to issue a statewide emergency order closing all non-essential businesses has as not been made to date, our proactive efforts have placed us in the best possible position to remain open.

Additional Readings – Statues Issued

443.131 F.S. – Click here to read more.

443.1116-F.S. – Click here to read more.

DBPR – Emergency Order 2020 – Click here to read more.

CISA Guidance on Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers – Click here to read more. 

State of Florida Emergency Order – Click here to read more.