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. 


CLIENT ALERT: Ohio Managed Care Organization (MCO) Open Enrollment

Open Enrollment started April 30, and will continue through May 25, 2018, for your MCO (Managed Care Organization). Every State Fund Ohio employer can select their MCO for the coming policy year. The MCO is responsible for helping to manage Ohio Workers’ Compensation claim costs. All State Fund employers will begin to receive correspondence urging them to select that particular MCO, or urging them not to make a switch.

Medical Marijuana Rules and You

The Ohio Medical Board has adopted regulations in conjunction with the Ohio Pharmacy Board that would govern physicians who may elect to participate under the Ohio Medical Marijuana statutes.

BMD Obtains Dismissal of ADA Title III Suit Against National Outlet Mall Chain

On January 12, 2018, Brennan, Manna & Diamond obtained the dismissal of an Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) lawsuit filed against Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit, which was brought under Title III of the ADA, alleged that Tanger’s Byron Center, Michigan outlet mall contained barriers to access in violation of the ADA’s accessibility requirements. The plaintiff demanded prospective injunctive relief, including a retrofit of the entire mall, as well as expert witness and attorneys’ fees.

CLIENT ALERT: Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law

Bureau of Workers' Compensation Budget Amends Law As we head into 2018, you should be aware of some recent changes made in Ohio’s laws concerning Workers’ Compensation. These changes became effective September 29, 2017. Some will affect business more than others, but these are changes you should really know about.

Client Alert: NLRB Reverses 2015 Browning-Ferris Joint Employer Decision

The NLRB issued a 3-2 decision reversing the Board’s standard for joint employment in collective bargaining that it issued in the 2015 Browning-Ferris decision. That controversial decision by the liberal leaning Board overturned years of precedent and significantly expanded the definition of joint employment. The decision spurred legislation (H.R. 3441, the Save Local Business Act) to overturn the expansive definition, and replace it with a far more narrow and proper definition of joint employment.