August 3, 2020

Volume X, Number 216

July 31, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Coronavirus Questions and Answers: What Do Employees Need to Know

While COVID-19 is first and foremost a public health crisis, it has increasingly become an economic crisis with devastating effects for workers across the country.  Recommendations from public health experts and resulting government dictates have led Americans to implement “social distancing” in an effort to “flatten the curve” of the spread of the virus; in other words, avoid coming into close contact with other individuals to slow the spread of COVID-19 to ensure that our hospitals are not stretched to the breaking point.  These steps have rocked several industries, such as the hospitality, travel, retail, and service sectors, and have also had substantial ripple effects in industries that support those sectors, such as the marketing industry. 

COVID-19 has left many vulnerable workers questioning what protections they have against employer actions linked to the pandemic.  This article will attempt to address some common questions we have received from workers who have been affected by COVID-19.  Readers should understand that the answers below do not attempt to address any moral obligations that employers may owe their employees, nor do they suggest wise decisions an employer may make to retain valuable employees over the long term.  Instead, this article seeks only to outline an employer’s existing obligations under federal law relating to COVID-19.

If I am quarantined because of COVID-19, am I entitled to paid time off?

In general, the answer to this question is no: individuals who are quarantined because of COVID-19 are not entitled to paid time off.  At the moment, federal law does not require employers to provide workers with paid sick leave (setting aside the question of whether a quarantine would qualify an employee for such leave).  In addition, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) (a) does not entitle workers to paid leave; and (b) likely does not extend to preventative efforts like quarantine.  In other words, while COVID-19 likely qualifies as a “serious health condition” that would entitle a worker to unpaid leave under the FMLA, an individual’s efforts to avoid contracting COVID-19 – or avoid spreading the virus – would not entitle her to those same benefits.

Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”) signed by the President on March 18, 2020, and effective April 2, 2020, many employees will be entitled to paid time off due to COVID-19-related quarantine.  The FFCRA entitles employees of employers with under 500 employees to up to 12 weeks of leave for, among other things, caring for a child under age 18 if the child’s school has closed or the child’s caretaker is unavailable due to COVID-19 restrictions. Ten weeks of that leave must be paid at two-thirds of the employee’s normal rate of pay.  All full and part-time employees are eligible if they have worked for an employer for 30 days.

The separate sick leave provision of the FFCRA requires employers with under 500 employees to provide employees with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave over a two-week period if they are subject to a government-ordered quarantine order, if a doctor has recommended that they self-quarantine, or if they are showing any COVID-19 symptoms.  Alternatively, the bill provides that covered employers must pay employees two-thirds of their normal pay for 10 days (80 hours) if they are caring for an individual or child who is subject to a quarantine.

Can my employer require me to use paid sick leave if I am quarantined for COVID-19?

Yes.  Because federal law does not require employers to provide paid sick leave, the government also does not regulate an employer’s practices with respect to the types of absences covered by that leave.  Under the FFCRA, employers would only be required to pay employees for up to 80 hours of work during their first two weeks of absence associated with a COVID-19-related quarantine.

Can I refuse to go to work if I feel at risk for contracting COVID-19?

Probably not.  However, there may be circumstances under which an employee could make such a refusal.  Employers may be required to separate employees who are or should be quarantined (e.g., because of contact with a COVID-19 carrier) from other employees under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (the “OSH Act”).  The OSH Act’s General Duty Clause, found at 29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1), requires employers to furnish to each worker “employment and a place of employment, which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.”  An employer who attempted to force an employee to come into work when that employee had justifiably self-quarantined – or where, for instance, another employee was a known carrier – may be acting in violation of the OSH Act.  If an employee opposed her employer’s efforts to force her to work under those circumstances, she may be protected from retaliation under Section 11(c) of the OSH Act, which prohibits an employer from discriminating in any manner against an employee because she, among other things, exercised on her own behalf or on behalf of others any rights afforded under the OSH Act.

In addition,  employees may have rights to  accommodations such as leave or telework under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., if they have a serious health condition that renders them unusually vulnerable to contracting COVID-19.  According to the CDC, the most prominent examples of such conditions are individuals with chronic lung disease or moderate to severe asthma; individuals with heart disease with complications; individuals who are immunocompromised, including those who have received cancer treatment; and people of any age with severe obesity or certain related conditions like diabetes, renal failure, or liver disease.

What paid leave options are available if I have to stay home with my children while schools are closed?

Under the FFCRA, parents of children whose schools have been closed due to COVID-19 will be entitled to up to 12 weeks of leave, 10 paid at two-thirds of their normal rate.  As set forth above, an employer is not required to pay for the first 10 days of that leave – although an employee may use her paid sick leave, including those days available to her under the FFCRA, to cover that initial period.

Outside of the FFCRA several counties and municipalities already extend paid leave to individuals who are forced to take time away from work to care for a child whose school has been closed due to a “public health emergency” like COVID-19.  Those jurisdictions include New York, New York; Montgomery County, Maryland; San Diego, California; Chicago, Illinois; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

What if I have to care for a family member who has COVID-19?

The federal FMLA guarantees most workers the right to take up to 12 weeks unpaid leave to care for a family member with a serious health condition.  However, the FMLA only covers employees who have been working for their employer for at least one year and worked at least 1,250 hours during the year.  Moreover, it only covers employers with at least 50 employees within 75 miles of the employee’s worksite.  

The expanded protections available under the FFCRA do not extend to workers who find themselves caring for a family member with COVID-19; instead, it is limited to situations wherein a child’s school or place of care has closed due to the virus.  Several states, however, do require employers to provide paid family leave to their employees, which would extend to caring for a family member with COVID-19.  These include Washington, D.C., California, New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, Oregon, and Rhode Island.

What protections do I have if I am retaliated against for using sick leave due to COVID-19?

As set forth above, under certain circumstances, an employee may be able to advance a claim of retaliation under the OSH Act.  In addition, depending on the circumstances of the retaliation, an employee may have a claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy.  Although it is uncommon, courts in some states have found that employers may not terminate an employee because that employee opposed or refused to engage in actions that threatened public or workplace safety. 

If an employee requests an extended period away from work to treat her own case of COVID-19, or to care for a child whose school or place of care has closed, she may be protected from retaliation under the federal FMLA.  Moreover, under the FFCRA, employees would be protected from retaliation for taking sick leave for a broad range of situations associated with COVID-19, including self-quarantine.

Is my employer allowed to fire me because of the impact COVID-19 has had on its business?

Yes, with limited exceptions.  Employers in many industries are likely to be forced to terminate or cut back hours for many workers as a result of the measures being taken to grapple with COVID-19.  Employees in 49 of the 50 states are considered “at-will,” which generally means that an employer may terminate an employee for any reason or for no reason at all, except for an illegal reason.  There are no states that have passed laws prohibiting an employer from terminating an employee due to a substantial disruption to the employer’s business like the one caused by COVID-19.  Even Montana – the one state in which workers are not employed “at-will” – permits an employer to terminate an employee for a “legitimate business reason.”

The primary exception to this general rule arises in cases where an employee is working under a contract.  Contractual employees are not “at-will” employees; the terms and conditions of their employment are set forth in writing.  The most common example of contractual employees are union employees, who have collectively bargained with their employers to secure certain rights and protections.  In some cases, those rights and protections may insulate workers from the vicissitudes of the economy and ensure that an economic downturn does not result in their losing their job. 

Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLPNational Law Review, Volume X, Number 98

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Matthew LaGarde Employment Attorney Katz Marshall
Associate

Matthew LaGarde joined Katz, Marshall & Banks as a paralegal in October 2011 and became an associate with the firm in August 2016.

Mr. LaGarde focuses his practice on the representation of whistleblowers who have experienced workplace retaliation or wish to report wrongdoing to the government. Outside of the office, Mr. LaGarde serves as an officer of the Eastern Pennsylvania affiliate of the National Employment Lawyers Association.

Mr. LaGarde graduated magna cum laude from the University of Maryland School of Law, which he attended from the fall of 2012 until...

215.309.2921
Carolyn Wheeler Employment Lawyer Katz Marshall Banks

After a long and distinguished career in the federal government with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Ms. Wheeler joined Katz, Marshall & Banks as Of Counsel in August 2015.

As an appellate lawyer with the EEOC, Ms. Wheeler was in the forefront of developing cutting edge legal arguments and theories to prove discrimination and harassment under Title VII, The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Equal Pay Act.  Ms. Wheeler was an Assistant General Counsel in EEOC’s Office of General Counsel, Appellate Services Division, for 25 years, and for 12 years served intermittently as the Acting Associate General Counsel, with responsibility for managing the entire office and staff. 

As an Assistant General Counsel, she supervised six attorneys who prepared briefs and argued appeals in EEOC cases in all the federal courts of appeals, as well as the Supreme Court, and who filed briefs as amicus curiae in cases raising important legal issues under EEOC’s statutes.  For example, in past years she worked on the landmark decision holding that fetal protection policies that bar fertile women from particular jobs violate Title VII and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, UAW v. Johnson Controls; the trilogy of disability cases that spurred the amendments to the ADA, Sutton v. United Airlines, Murphy v. UPS, and Albertson’s v. Kirkingburg, as well as the disability case that led Congress to reexamine the meaning of “substantially limited,” Toyota v. Williams; the cases that led to the creation of an affirmative defense for supervisory sexual harassment, Faragher v. City of Boca Raton and Ellerth v. Burlington Industries; the sexual harassment case recognizing that same-sex harassment is actionable, Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, and the sexual harassment case recognizing that harassment victims do not need to prove they were emotionally devastated to the point of being unable to work to establish actionable harassment, Harris v. Forklift Systems.

 

202.299.1140 w