Resources

Client Alerts, News Articles, Blog Posts, & Multimedia

Everything you need to know about BMD and the industry.

Department of Labor Adds Q&A to FFCRA Guidance: Provider & Emergency Responder Leave Exceptions

Client Alert

Employer Alert: Excluding healthcare providers and emergency responders from the mandatory paid leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”).

On March 29, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) added additional Questions & Answers to its FFCRA guidance that address the healthcare provider and emergency responder leave exceptions under the EFMLEA and EPSLA.

As contained in the original language of the FFCRA, both EFMLEA (childcare leave) and EPSLA (paid sick leave) contain exceptions removing healthcare provider and emergency responder employees from these leave requirements, even if an employer has fewer than 500 employees. Specifically, if an employer, including a public-sector entity, employs a healthcare provider or an emergency responder, the employer is not required to pay such employee paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave (childcare) on a case-by-case basis.

However, at the time of implementation, the FFCRA did not provide any guidance on who a healthcare provider included and other considerations that need to be made before excepting a healthcare provider under these leave protections.

In short, the definitions of healthcare provider and emergency responder are very broad and meant to be interpreted as such. In fact, a healthcare provider includes almost anyone who touches healthcare services. These employees who meet the definition of healthcare provider or emergency responder are excluded entirely from emergency paid leave, even paid sick leave if they have COVID-19. Reading between the lines, the laws are saying that all healthcare providers and emergency responders need to keep working as much as possible, but everyone else can stay home. The official guidance is as follows.

First, the DOL’s new guidance defines healthcare provider very broadly, but to include all of the following part-time, full-time, or “joint employer employees”:

  • Any person who is employed at:
    • A doctor’s office
    • Hospital
    • Healthcare center
    • Healthcare clinic
    • A post-secondary educational institution offering healthcare instruction
    • Medical school
    • Local health department or agency
    • Nursing facility
    • Retirement facility
    • Nursing home
    • Home healthcare provider
    • Any facility that performs laboratory or medical testing
    • Pharmacy
    • Any other similar institution, employer or entity

  • Any person who is employed by an entity that has a contract with any of the above institutions or entities to provide services to the institution/entity or to maintain the operation of the facility.

  • Any person who is employed by an entity that provides medical services, produces medical products, or is otherwise involved in the making of COVID-19 related medical equipment, tests, drugs, vaccines, diagnostic vehicles, or treatments.

  • Individuals that are determined by the highest official of a state to be necessary for the state’s response to COVID-19.

Second, the guidance defines an emergency responder as follows:

  • An employee (part-time, full-time, or “joint employer employee”) who is necessary for the provision of transport, care, healthcare, comfort, and nutrition of patients, or whose services are otherwise needed to limit the spread of COVID-19. This includes, but is not limited to:
    • Military/National Guard
    • Law enforcement officers
    • Correctional institution personnel
    • Fire fighters
    • Emergency medical services personnel
    • Physicians
    • Nurses
    • Public health personnel
    • Emergency medical technicians
    • Paramedics
    • Emergency management personnel
    • 911 Operators
    • Public works personnel
    • Persons with skills or training in operating specialized equipment or other skills needed to provide aid in a declared emergency

  • Emergency responder also includes individuals (part-time, full-time, or “joint employer employees”) who work for such facilities employing these above listed individuals and whose work is necessary to maintain the operation of the facility. This provision is different from the above under healthcare provider where a determination of necessity is not required, but it should be considered as a best practice.

  • Individuals that are determined by the highest official of a state to be an emergency responder necessary for the state’s response to COVID-19.

For official guidance, see https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-questions.

From the DOL’s guidance, it is clear that “healthcare provider” and “emergency responder” are to be interrupted broadly. However, the DOL does warn that employers are to have good judgment and sense when determining who can be excepted to help avoid the spread of COVID-19.

What This Means for Employers
If you have any employees who meet the definitions of “healthcare provider” or “emergency responder,” as these terms are broadly defined, you are not required to pay such employee paid sick leave under EPSLA or expanded family and medical leave under EFMLEA on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, if an employee meeting one of these above definitions requests paid leave, you should determine, on an individual basis, why the employee is being denied as a healthcare provider and/or emergency responder. Although this documentation is not required under the guidance, it is a best practice in the event an employee files a lawsuit or administrative charge seeking backpay under EFMLEA and/or EPSLA.

For questions, please contact Bryan Meek at bmeek@bmdllc.com, or any of the Employment and Labor team members at BMD. 


Enhancing Privacy Protections for Substance Use Disorder Patient Records

On February 8, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) finalized updated rules to 42 CFR Part 2 (“Part 2”) for the protection of Substance Use Disorder (“SUD”) patient records. The updated rules reflect the requirement that the Part 2 rules be more closely aligned with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”) privacy, breach notification, and enforcement rules as mandated by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act of 2020.

Columbus, Ohio Ordinance Prohibits Employers from Inquiries into an Applicant’s Salary History

Effective March 1, 2024, Columbus employers are prohibited from inquiring into an applicant’s salary history. Specifically, the ordinance provides that it is an unlawful discriminatory practice to:

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board’s Latest Batch of Rules: What Providers Should Know

The Ohio Chemical Dependency Professionals Board has introduced new rules and amendments, covering various aspects such as CDCA certificate requirements, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, remote supervision, and reciprocity application requirements. Notable changes include revised criteria for obtaining a CDCA certification, expanded services for LCDCs and CDCAs, and updated ethical obligations for licensees and certificate holders, including non-discrimination, confidentiality, and anti-sexual harassment measures.

Governor Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University Introduce the SOAR Study on Ohio Mental Illness

On January 19, Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine and The Ohio State University announced a new research initiative, the State of Ohio Adversity and Resilience (“SOAR”) study, which will investigate all factors influencing Ohio’s mental illness and addiction epidemic.

CHANGING TIDES: Summary and Effects of Burnett et. al. v. National Ass’n of Realtors, et. al.

In April 2019, a class-action Complaint was filed in federal court for the Western District Court for Missouri arguing that the traditional payment agreements employed by many across the United States amounted to conspiracy resulting in the artificial increase in brokerage commissions. Plaintiffs, a class-action group comprised of sellers, argued that they paid excessive brokerage commissions upon the sale of their home as a result of the customary payment structure where Sellers agree to pay the full commission on the sale of their property, with Seller’s agent notating the portion of commission they are willing to pay to a Buyer’s agent at closing on the MLS or other similar system.