by Carolyn Kick | Nov 13, 2020 | Compliance, COVID-19 Resources, Human Resources
Among the many challenges brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, one issue facing employers has proven to be more difficult to face than others. Unemployment fraud has become an excessive problem for many – one that, until now, many employers haven’t had to concern themselves with. Unemployment claims are being processed in numbers that have never been seen before, and many state unemployment departments are doing so with insufficient controls and outdated systems.
We hope to provide employers with the information they’ll need to understand and address this growing issue by offering a set of best practices and action steps for both employers and employees that have been affected by fraudulent unemployment claims.
A Case of Unemployment Fraud
The Illinois Department of Employment Security or IDES is the agency responsible for processing unemployment claims in the state of Illinois. They receive claims, verify them using data reported by employers, and then process payments if employees are found to be eligible – a rather straight forward process under typical circumstances. However, due to COVID-19 and the impact it has had on the workforce, they have seen a tremendous increase in the number of claims being processed. In addition, there is a demand to process claims more quickly. In meeting this demand, the level of scrutiny used to process claims has decreased. With heightened demands, less scrutiny, and the use of insufficient controls, the result has been excessive fraud.
The IDES reports receiving approximately 14,000 claims of identity theft in only five months. A dramatic increase compared to just a year ago, reporting just 651 in the same time frame. There have been several reports from employees of other instances indicative of fraud as well, such as IDES debit cards unexpectedly arriving in the mail, letters for deceased spouses, and claims for children who have never been employed.
Multiple stories from Illinois and national news stations revealed several cases of fraudulent activity in both the state of Illinois and nationwide. You can view them here:
What Does It Mean For Employers?
Unemployment benefits function similarly to health insurance. In most instances, the employer will pay into an unemployment fund which is handled by the state and determined by their tax rate. Unemployment claims are granted based on the eligibility of the employee (despite how much the employer has paid into the fund). In the case of Illinois, the tax rate is determined by the dollar amount of claims paid by the employer in the previous year as a portion of total payroll. This creates a big issue the more claims there are to be paid. The tax rate increases as the number of claims paid out rises. Therefore, fraudulent unemployment claims have a direct impact on the amount paid in unemployment taxes. The difference, based on the current minimum and maximum tax rates, could be as much as ten times more than what is normal.
How Employers Can Take Action
Regardless of legitimacy, when an unemployment case is filed, employers will receive a notice of claim. As the employer, if you receive a notice of claim, and the employee is still employed, you should immediately dispute the claim according to the process of your state. Additionally, you should take the opportunity to alert the department responsible for processing claims that there is suspected fraud on the claim. You should also notify the employee that the claim is filed for that there is suspected fraud in their name.
How Employees Can Take Action
As an employee, if you receive notice of a fraudulent unemployment claim from an employer or a notification of unemployment benefits when you haven’t filed, it is likely due to some form of identity theft. Identity theft can be a very serious issue so it is imperative that you follow these steps:
- DO NOT cash any checks or use any debit cards received
- Contact IDES to notify them of suspected fraud (submit online here OR call 800-814-0513)
- Contact the Illinois Attorney General’s Identity Theft Hotline (call 866-999-5630)
- Contact their Identity Theft provider (i.e. LifeLock, Experian, Identity Guard)
- Place a Credit/Security Freeze on your credit report.
- Contact the Federal Trade Commission for additional information and guidance
The Importance of Unemployment Fraud Awareness
Unemployment fraud is an incredibly serious matter and it deserves the attention of every employer. Failing to be aware of unemployment fraud is a failure to protect your company’s interests and the interests of your employees. For assistance with communicating this information to your employees, contact your HR manager or HR advisor. If you’d like more information on the topic of unemployment fraud or other human resources topics, please contact us at Launchways.
by Jim Taylor | Nov 2, 2020 | COVID-19 Resources, Employee Benefits
COVID-19 is Changing Priorities
Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the benefits landscape has seen changes on a fundamental level. Both employers and employees have recognized the need for plans that cover the health and well-being of individuals and their families in new ways. Because of this, employee benefits are playing a larger role in retaining employees and attracting new talent for employers.
While unemployment rates across the nation have spiked, retaining and attracting new talent continues to be a challenge for several growing businesses. In a study conducted by The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), sourcing qualified talent is ranked as one of the biggest issues facing scaling businesses – second only to the cost of health insurance.
As these growing businesses prepare for the uncertain times ahead, identifying new ways to connect with their employees and creating benefits plans that align with their priorities will be a key factor in their success.
Meeting the Needs of Employees
Because of COVID-19, employees are starting to see the importance of benefits that may have ranked lower on their priority list in a pre-COVID era. For example, employees now look at benefits such as income protection resources as a necessity.
In a study conducted by LIMRA, research showed that roughly 25% of employers claimed that life insurance and short-term disability have become more important than ever before. In addition, roughly 40% of employers claimed that critical illness and hospital indemnity coverage is far more important now than in a pre-COVID era.
The employee benefits that, in the past, might have placed a potential employer higher on a job seeker’s list may be different than they once were. For businesses that offer their employees no benefits at all, sourcing and retaining quality talent is becoming a much bigger challenge. As stated above, the NFIB study shows that many growing businesses are struggling because of this. While they might need to expand their workforce, they feel their company is too small or the cost of health insurance is too high for them to offer potential employees the coverage they are seeking from an employer.
At the same time, certain supplemental benefit offerings are now and continue to become more relevant. For example, mental health benefits are increasing in demand as stress, anxiety, and depression are on the rise due to the effects of social isolation. Employees are now seeking benefits from their employers that look out for both their mental and physical well-being. In a study conducted by the National Alliance of Health Purchaser Coalitions, research showed that, because of COVID-19, 53% of employers are now offering their employees special emotional and mental health programs. In addition, 32% of employers have added to their mental health and well-being offerings for their employees.
Personal finances are, in most cases, the leading cause of added stress felt by employees. This is prompting more interest in financial wellness benefits from employers. As a result, there has been a focus from employers on helping their team navigate the challenges created by finances both individually and for their families, providing them with resources to help them understand and better manage their finances.
The Role of Financial Stress in Benefits
Financial uncertainty is having a large impact on the bottom line for growing businesses, forcing them to make tough calls that will ultimately change the landscape of employee benefits. Benefits such as health insurance are fundamental to the offerings of an employer. In fact, research shows more than a 25% increase in benefits offered since March. However, for businesses that have been impacted by COVID-19 more significantly, this could likely mean higher premiums for employees or adjustments to other benefit offerings.
For example, it’s possible that we will see a shift to more voluntary benefits. However, this doesn’t come without warning. In a study conducted by LIMRA, research shows that the interest in 100% employee-paid products is only 35% for life insurance and 39% for critical illness coverage. Additionally, many reported that they weren’t sure they would even enroll.
Putting together a first-rate benefits package for employees is nothing short of a balancing act. Many things have to be considered such as the needs of employees, which benefits to offer, and the budget you have to work with. That said, the businesses that are investing in getting it right are not just helping their employees, they are setting themselves up to be an employer of choice in the future.
Looking to the Future
Overhauling the entirety of your benefits offerings is a daunting task. Growing businesses should focus on listening to the needs of their people, and let communication be the guiding principle in developing a benefits package that works for them. The conversation doesn’t have to include the details of specific benefits but should allow for a dialog to better understand the concerns that employees have. This kind of communication will help to uncover the core needs employees have, and how they might have changed amidst COVID-19. As employee priorities shift, so should the decisions of the employer concerning benefits. If you are able to listen to your team and create a plan that works for them, you will be able to retain the people you have and attract the talent you need to be successful.
by Carolyn Kick | Oct 15, 2020 | Compliance, COVID-19 Resources, Human Resources
As temperatures begin to drop with the arrival of the fall season, certain areas of the U.S. are beginning to see a rise in confirmed COVID-19 cases. With infection rates trending back upward, it’s important for employers to understand what their responsibilities are to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in terms of reporting requirements specific to COVID-19 cases affecting their employees.
In addition to a published list of answers to COVID-19 frequently asked questions, OSHA has provided further clarity on when employers must report employee illness or fatality as a result of COVID-19.
In this post, we’ll cover:
- How to determine whether a COVID-19 infection is work-related
- When employers are required to report cases related to COVID-19
Determining Work-Related Illness
Under OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements, COVID-19 is considered a recordable illness that requires employers to keep records of their employees’ confirmed infections. Employers are only responsible for recording an employee infection if:
- The employee has tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19
- The case is work-related, meaning that an infected individual was exposed to the virus in their work environment
- The case involves at least one of the following criteria: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness
Given the highly infectious nature of the virus and its ubiquitous spread across the globe, determining the source of an employee’s infection can often be difficult. If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, employers are not expected to undertake extensive measures to determine the exact point of viral exposure. In most cases, it is enough for employers to ask their infected employee how they believe they contracted the virus by discussing their activities within and outside of work, along with a review of their employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure.
All available evidence pointing a viral contraction within the workplace should be taken into account. Such evidence could include a cluster of confirmed cases within a group of employees that frequently work closely together, a confirmed case after recent exposure to another infected employee or customer, or an employee’s frequent exposure to the general public. Cases are less likely to be work related if an infected employee has had recent close contact with an infected person that is not a coworker.
If, after reviewing the evidence and discussing the case with the employee, you have determined that viral exposure is likely to have originated outside of your work environment, it is not necessary to record the instance of infection. However, it is important to note that if an employer later learns more pertinent information concerning the case, that new information should be factored into the determination of whether a case was, indeed, work related.
Reporting Requirements
While employers must record all work-related infections, you are only required to report work-related COVID-19 illnesses that result in an employee’s in-patient hospitalization or fatality. Specifically, OSHA requires employers to report hospitalizations of employees who have been admitted for in-patient treatment within 24 hours of exposure to the COVID-19 virus in their workplace. The report itself must be submitted within the 24 hour window during which the employer learned of their employee’s hospitalization. Note that hospitalization for diagnostic testing or observation is not considered in-patient treatment.
Reports of employee fatalities as a result of work-related exposure must be submitted within 8 hours of the employer learning of the fatality. Any fatality that occurs within 30 days of a work-related exposure to COVID-19 must also be reported. Exceptions to this rule include fatalities that occur on commercial or public transportation, or as a result of a motor vehicle accident on a public road.
Key Takeaways
While determining the origin of an employee’s infection, hospitalization, or death as related to COVID-19 can be difficult, OSHA’s clarifications aim to provide employers with better guidelines. As we continue to wade through the onslaught of obstacles and challenges presented to Human Resources by COVID-19, keep the following in mind:
- Employers must record a COVID-19 case if the employee presents a positive COVID-19 test, experiences one of the criteria outlined in this post, and there is evidence to conclude that the infected employee was exposed within the workplace.
- Employers should take reasonable steps to gather evidence and discover whether an infected employee was exposed within the workplace. Such evidence could include multiple and closely occurring positive tests of employees or an employee’s frequent exposure to the general public.
- OSHA requires employers to report both in-patient hospitalizations for treatment of COVID-19, and fatalities that may have occurred as a result of exposure to the COVID-19 virus.
by Carolyn Kick | Sep 30, 2020 | COVID-19 Resources, Return to Work
Individuals, economies, and health care systems around the globe have been anxiously waiting for a COVID-19 vaccine. Fortunately, news from the vaccine developers is promising, and most reliable medical professionals agree that a vaccine will become widely available in the foreseeable future.
As exciting as this news is, employers might find themselves scrambling for answers if they are not prepared to handle the logistics and legality of providing the vaccine to their employees.
In this post, we’ll cover some key considerations for employers related to the COVID-19 vaccine:
- What governmental guidance has been (or will be) provided
- Legal and safety considerations
- Sorting out logistics of vaccine administration
Governmental Guidance
Guidance has been issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in the past, although it hasn’t specifically addressed a COVID-19 vaccine. However, employers can still find value in this guidance.
OSHA Guidance
In some cases, employers can require that their employees get vaccines. According to OSHA, employers can require that employees be vaccinated for influenza. However, employers must properly inform employees of “the benefits of vaccinations.” Further, OSHA states that employees can refuse to get a vaccination due to a reasonable belief that they have an underlying health condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death.
It has not yet been determined if this same precedent will apply to a COVID-19 vaccine, but employers will want to keep an eye on this as more OSHA guidance is released.
EEOC Guidance
The EEOC is more commonly known for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). However, the EEOC has also issued guidance regarding vaccines in the employment context. In March of 2020 around the time that COVID-19 started being widely spread in the United States, the EEOC addressed whether employers covered by the ADA and Title VII can compel employees to receive the influenza vaccine. In this guidance, it was acknowledged that there was not a COVID-19 vaccine yet and more information would be needed before specific guidance could be provided.
However, the EEOC explained that an employee may be entitled to an exemption from an employer’s vaccine requirement based on a preexisting disability that prevents the employee from taking the vaccine. This would be considered a reasonable accommodation, and the employer would be required to grant the accommodation. If an employer believes that this causes undue hardship, they can dispute the exemption. According to the ADA, undue hardship can be defined as an action requiring significant difficulty or expense when considered in light of factors such as an employer’s size, financial resources, and the nature and structure of its operation. However, you should always consult with legal counsel before taking this route.
Under Title VII, the EEOC also states that employees with sincerely held religious beliefs may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination, which is considered a reasonable accommodation, unless it creates an undue hardship for the employer. Title VII defines undue hardship as a “request that results in more than a de minimis cost to the operation of the employer’s business.” It’s important to note that this is a much lower standard than under the ADA.
As a general rule of thumb, employers should do their best to encourage vaccination rather than mandating it. There are clear risks associated by mandating employees to receive any vaccine
Safety and Legal Concerns
Employers will be challenged to find the balance between determining how much risk to accept by allowing employees to not get vaccinated, and how much risk to accept by mandating the vaccine despite the exceptions that employees may try to claim. Allowing employees to go without the vaccine poses a safety burden to their coworkers. Trying to mandate a vaccine to employees who may claim a religious or health exemption carries the risk of lawsuits if not handled properly.
When trying to find this balance, employers will need to decide whether there are other precautions that can be put into place to protect employees, which may include social distancing protocols, requiring employees to wear masks at work, and leveraging telecommuting arrangements
If you as an employer decide to mandate employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine, you will need to be prepared for the challenge of determining if exemptions to that mandate are legitimate under ADA or Title VII. Of course, this should not be done without the advice of your legal counsel. Be prepared to make these decisions on a case-by-case basis.
You need to consider the possibility that legal claims may arise if an employee has an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine. Have a plan in place for this possibility before any employees receive the vaccine.
Sorting Out the Logistics of Vaccine Administration
Whether you decide to mandate that your employees get a COVID-19 vaccine or simply encourage them to do so, you’ll need to ask yourself the following questions:
- Will you hold on-site vaccination clinics? If so, where will you set up? What will the hours be? Who will administer the vaccines? What costs are associated with these decisions?
- Assuming that multiple versions of the COVID-19 vaccine will be available, which one will be used? Who will ultimately make that decision?
- Who will pay for the vaccine? Will it be covered by your company’s health plan?
- Will the company require or cover the costs of vaccination for the employee’s family?
- How long after the vaccine becomes available must employees receive the vaccine, if vaccination is mandated? This will be impacted based on vaccine availability.
Key Takeaways
Employers must navigate the inherent legal risks and logistics of mandating or encouraging employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. Some key considerations include:
- Understanding that the government allows vaccine mandates in certain circumstances, but also allows certain religious or health exemptions.
- Employers will need to weigh the pros and cons of vaccine mandates and the risks involved.
- The logistics of vaccine administration should be determined long before you implement a vaccination. Because it’s been stated that a vaccine will be available within the next several months, employers should start making these plans now.
We hope that this guidance has been helpful for you. As is the case with any complex health mandate for your employees, always have a qualified attorney review your plan to implement or encourage the COVID-19 vaccine to your employees.
by Jim Taylor | Sep 23, 2020 | COVID Healthcare Costs, COVID-19 Resources, Employee Benefits
Many HR professionals are awaiting key information from insurers on healthcare costs for 2021. Given all the uncertainty surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and how it will impact healthcare costs for 2021 and beyond, employers may be faced with difficult decisions very soon.
To help employers navigate these uncertain waters, we’ve put together some key considerations that you may useful in light of COVID-19’s impact on the U.S. healthcare system.
In this post, we’ll cover:
- Avoiding the traps associated with short term gains
- Understanding key industry trends to keep in mind
- How to effectively communicate plan decisions to your team
Short-Term Gains are Deceiving
Even with the costs of treating COVID-19, many employers have seen savings in their health plans during 2020. These short-term gains are most likely because many employees have been putting off preventative or elective care due to lockdowns, financial uncertainty, or simply a desire to stay home during the spread of the virus.
Although these decisions have decreased health care costs as a whole during 2020, this trend is unlikely to continue into 2021. Employees will soon return to preventative care regimens, and likely with a much higher demand that usual, and a winter season during the pandemic could lead to an increase in costs to treat COVID-19. These two factors combined could lead to a substantial increase in healthcare costs, and employers should plan accordingly.
Industry Trends to Keep in Mind
A recent survey performed by Mercer reveals some interesting HR industry trends to be aware of:
- Nearly 32% of companies are considering, “Adding, expanding or incentivizing virtual care, telemedicine, and/or remote/online digital care.” On a related note, 66% of companies anticipate virtual health and wellbeing offerings becoming permanent fixtures in the workplace.
- Nearly 20% of companies are likely to change health care plans, or at least change the design of the health care plan, to share more costs with employees.
- Over 55% of companies are currently conducting, or are planning to conduct, on-site temperature screenings, and 40% are considering on-site symptom questionnaires. Both of these trends are presumably to help employers catch potential infections early on and reduce workplace spread.
- 16% of companies are planning to add or expand voluntary benefits. Doing so can help fill the gaps with things like hospital indemnity and critical illness coverage.
- 92% of employers have taken, or are planning to take, steps to provide more, “flexible work options to align to a new way of working.”
- 20% of employers are considering implementing, “New messaging to help employees consider how the pandemic might affect their usual benefit choices.”
If you are unsure about the potential need to make changes to your 2021 health benefit program due to the pandemic, you are not alone. Nearly 50% of companies surveyed indicated that they are not sure about what changes they’ll make in 2021 and they are currently monitoring the situation.
Of course, many of the trends listed above have associated implementation costs. On the other hand, these benefits are designed to improve employee health, which should drive down costs in the future. Research has shown that employers are extremely concerned with the mental health of employees during the pandemic. By reading the list above, and by reading more closely into the Mercer survey, it’s clear there are significant changes in the industry that are designed to help employees maintain their mental health.
The exact extent to which these industry trends will drive down costs is yet to be determined, but companies should be aware of these trends and consider implementing them if it makes the most sense for their business model and employee population.
Communicating Your Plan Changes with Employees
Regardless of what benefits decisions your company makes for 2021 and beyond, the need to communicate openly and frequently with your employees about their benefits options has never been more important. Employees deserve to be kept in the loop about the challenges that your company is likely facing. Doing so will help company leadership maintain the trust of employees, with is critically important during these difficult times.
Your company should have a designated employee, or team of designated employees, to plan the employee communications that go along with any benefits decisions. They should constantly be asking themselves, “If we change or eliminate X benefit, how will we appropriately communicate that to our employees?” Now, more than ever before, it is critical for employees to understand their benefits. Therefore, it is more important now than ever to master the art of communicating benefits changes to your employees openly and frequently.
Even better yet, working with a proactive benefits broker that takes on the employee communication piece of your plan rollout can be even more impactful. The right benefits broker will be able to help your employees see the true value in the benefits being offered, and can help employees select the plan that’s right for them and their family.
Key Takeaways
Nearly half of companies are unsure about what difficult benefits decisions they will have to make over the next few months. Hopefully, this article has provided useful information to you as an employer or HR professional to help you be better situated to make these tough decisions.
Here are some key takeaways from this post:
- Business leaders should not get deceived over the fact that their health care costs have been low during 2020. They will most likely increase substantially in 2021.
- Current industry trends indicate that companies are taking precautions to limit COVID-19 outbreaks at their workplaces. Companies are also taking extra steps to care for the mental health of their employees. Voluntary benefits options are also being expanded to fill in potential gaps that may be created by upcoming plan decisions.
- Employers should openly and frequently communicate with their employees about the challenging benefits decisions that may be taking place soon. Good communication is critical for maintaining positive relationships with employees, which matters now more than ever before.
by Jim Taylor | Sep 15, 2020 | Compliance, COVID-19 Resources
The moment we have all been awaiting over the last several weeks has finally arrived. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued important regulations that clarify and revise who can qualify for emergency paid sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).
In this urgent update, we’ll cover the following:
- What is the background behind this important announcement by the DOL
- What specific clarifications and revisions were made
- What this means for your business moving forward
What is the background behind this important FFCRA announcement?
In April, U.S. District Judge Paul Oetken issued a ruling that found the DOL had exceeded its authority by blocking workers from FFCRA leave when their employer didn’t have any work for them to perform.
The challenge to this aspect of the FFCRA was originally put forward by New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also challenged the DOL’s interpretation of the FFCRA’s exclusion for healthcare providers, the rule’s limits on intermittent leave, and certain documentation requirements outlined in the language of the act.
Since Judge Oetken’s ruling, many employers have been left without clear guidance when trying to implement the new, but extremely important, FFCRA.
Hopefully the DOL’s clarifying announcement will be a light in the dark for employers who are trying to juggle many aspects of the fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic.
What specific clarifications and revisions were made?
The revisions, which were specifically made to the regulations that implemented the paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave provisions of the FFCRA, do the following:
- Reaffirm and provide additional explanation for the requirement that employees may take FFCRA leave only if work would otherwise be available to them.
- Reaffirm and provide additional explanation for the requirement that an employee have employer approval to take FFCRA leave intermittently.
- Revise the definition of “healthcare provider” to include only employees who meet the definition of that term under the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations or who are employed to provide diagnostic services, preventative services, treatment services or other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care which, if not provided, would adversely impact patient care.
- Clarify that employees must provide required documentation supporting their need for FFCRA leave to their employers as soon as practicable.
- Correct an inconsistency regarding when employees may be required to provide notice of a need to take expanded family and medical leave to their employers.
To ensure we communicate this information to our readers accurately, the above bullet points were taken directly from the DOL’s announcement about these important revisions, which can be read in its entirety by clicking here.
What does this mean for your business moving forward?
Friday’s announcement reaffirms the DOL’s stance that leave under the FFCRA can only be taken if the employer actually has work for the employee to do. This is important, especially for businesses who have taken a hit during this pandemic. If an employer legitimately doesn’t have any work for the employee to do, they are allowed to reject the employee’s FFCRA leave request.
The DOL also remained firm in its original interpretation of intermittent, or periodic, leave under the FFCRA. Intermittent leave, according to this now clarified rule, is only allowed when the employee gets permission from their employer.
According to Friday’s announcement, “The Department believes the employer-approval condition for intermittent leave under its FMLA regulation is appropriate in the context of FFCRA intermittent leave for qualifying reasons that do not exacerbate risk of COVID-19 contagion. It is a longstanding principle of FMLA intermittent leave that such leave should, where foreseeable, avoid ‘unduly disrupting’ the employer’s operations.”
In addition to the previous two clarifications, the DOL revised the definition of “Health Care Provider” to mean, “employees who are health care providers…and other employees who are employed to provide diagnostic services, preventive services, treatment services, or other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care.” This clarification was necessary because Judge Oetken had found that the agency’s previous definition was too broad and potentially excessively cut off workers from using FFCRA leave.
Employers in the health care industry should understand that this revised definition of “Health Care Provider,” – and the exclusion of health care providers in the first place – was done to, “provide a safety valve to ensure that critical health and safety services would not be understaffed during the pandemic.”
These revisions will officially take effect on Wednesday, September 16th. Keep in mind that the FFCRA will remain in place at least through the end of 2020. Assuming the pandemic has not ended by 2021, expect an expansion of the FFCRA to continue into next year.
Key Takeaways
Employers’ heads might be spinning after reading this announcement. This is important news that will have significant impacts on the workforce of many businesses and industries over the next few months. Employers should now feel that they have more leverage when it comes to dealing with employee FFCRA requests.
Here are the most important takeaways from this announcement:
- If you legitimately don’t have enough work for your employees to do (which very well might be the case if your business has been suffering during the pandemic), then you can deny employee requests for FFCRA leave under this new clarification from the DOL.
- Employees can only take intermittent leave if they have permission from their employer.
- Healthcare workers should understand that they might be excluded from the FFCRA.
- Employers should be aware that these revisions take effect as of Wednesday, September 16, 2020.
