DOL Proposes Phase Out of Subminimum Wages for Some Employees with Disabilities

The Department of Labor announced a proposed rule that would phase out certificates allowing payment of less than minimum wage to some workers with disabilities. Press release here. 

As summarized by the DOL in the proposed rule:

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA or Act) authorizes the Secretary of Labor to issue certificates allowing employers to pay productivity-based subminimum wages to workers with disabilities, but only where such certificates are necessary to prevent the curtailment of opportunities for employment.

The actual proposal is summarized as:

Not official use. 

The Department specifically proposes to cease issuance of new section 14(c) certificates to employers submitting an initial application on or after the effective date of a final rule and permit existing section 14(c) certificate holders, assuming all legal requirements are met, to continue to operate under section 14(c) certificate authority for up to 3 years after the effective date of a final rule. The Department is also requesting comment as to whether, if this proposed rule is finalized, it would be appropriate to grant an extension for existing section 14(c) certificate holders who demonstrate a need and seeks comments on the need for such an extension period, and, if needed, its scope, structure and length. 

Given the pending change of administrations, we will have to wait and see if this actually gets finalized and goes into effect.

Overtime and Noncompete Regulations to Plan for in 2024

What better way to kick off the new year than with my latest article in Pennsylvania Business Central? The article addresses Overtime and Noncompete Regulations to Plan for in 2024. Will they actually take effect? We don't know yet. But, employers should start planning just in case.

DOL proposes new independent contractor rule

Ah, one of the joys of being an employer (or employment lawyer) . . . the way the law just magically changes depending on who is president. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is 84 years old, and yet we still don't quite know how to determine who is a covered "employee." Late last week, the Department of Labor issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for determining employee or independent contractor classification under the FLSA (News Release here).  

Long story, short: more workers will be classified as employees under the new rule. The new rule would apply a "totality-of-the-circumstances" analysis to the "economic realities test." The "ultimate inquiry" is whether the worker is "economically dependent on an employer for work." DOL has identified six factors to use as a "guide" in this analysis:

• Opportunity for profit or loss depending on managerial skill;

• 

  Not official use.

  Investments by the worker and the employer;
• Degree of permanence of the work relationship;
• Nature and degree of control;
• Extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer's business; and
• Skill and initiative.

Sound convoluted? Well, wait, there's more! We must also consider "additional factors," which "may be relevant in determining whether the worker is an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the FLSA, if the factors in some way indicate whether the worker is in business for themself, as opposed to being economically dependent on the employer for work."

Wait, where'd it go? DOL pulls down Fact Sheet

My last post was based on the new DOL Wage and Hour Fact Sheet # 84 (DOL: Pay employees for job-mandated COVID vaccines, tests, screening during normal work hours). Welp, DOL unpublished the fact sheet - it's gone (here's the full numeric list, with no #84 as of the date of this post). 

I have not seen any formal explanation. As I noted in my post, the fact sheet was intertwined with the OSHA vax-or-test ETS, and relied on the same justification for tying the vaccine to the workplace (which, notably lost at the Supreme Court). Presumably, DOL is going back to the drawing board after the Supreme Court stayed the OSHA mandate. 

DOL: Pay employees for job-mandated COVID vaccines, tests, screening during normal work hours

[Update 1/21/2022 2:05 pm: Where did it go? Looks like DOL pulled the Fact Sheet described in this post from its website (although, it still appears in the Department's Index of fact sheets)]. 

Welp, I'm sure this was supposed to coincide with the now-seemingly-dead OSHA vaccine mandate. That said, it it applies to employer mandates more broadly. I'm talking, of course, about U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #84: Compensability of Time Spent Undergoing COVID-19 Health Screenings, Testing, and Vaccinations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?). 

The bottom line:

[I]f an employer requires an employee to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine dose, undergo a COVID-19 test, or engage in a COVID-19 related health screening or temperature check during the employee’s normal working hours, the time that the employee spends engaged in the activity is compensable. Employees must be paid for such time during normal working hours, regardless of where the activity occurs.

Sounds simple enough, but what about mandatory activities that occur outside of normal working hours?

DOL appears to take the general position that employer-mandated COVID-19-related activities are still compensable when done outside of working hours. But, there's a carveout in a vax-or-test scenario for employees who "voluntarily" choose not to get vaccinated and get tested instead - they do not get paid for their time spent testing. Employees with a disability or religious exemption to the vaccine mandate are not voluntarily foregoing the vaccine, so they would get paid for testing.

I should also note that the DOL's position on this seems based on an argument that is very similar to OSHA's (losing) argument at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the DOL fact sheet reads:

As reflected in the OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS, the Federal Government has determined that vaccination is the most effective and efficient control available to protect employees from becoming seriously ill and dying due to occupational exposures to COVID-19. Employers must pay employees who report to a workplace where other individuals are present and who do not work exclusively outdoors for time spent going to, waiting for, and obtaining a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine dose because it is necessary that employees be able to perform their jobs safely and effectively during the pandemic.

In the context of the OSHA ETS, the Supreme Court specifically rejected this argument that vaccines are workplace employment safety regulations. So, it is not clear if DOL would fair any better - perhaps they would because in this context it would be an employer-issued requirement.

DOL withdraws Trump-era proposed independent contractor rule

We've got an early contender for least surprising news of the year... DOL is withdrawing the Trump-DOL independent contractor rule. You can read all about the now-dead proposed rule in my prescient January 7, 2021 entry (okay, you didn't need a crystal ball to see this one comin'), DOL publishes new independent contractor rule, but is it DOA? That rule is withdrawn, effective today.

So, where are we now? Well, the "supplementary information" in the formal withdrawal notice in the Federal Register points us to the "economic realities" test. This test distinguishes between independent contractors, who are "engaged in a business of [their] own," and employees, who "as a matter of economic realities are dependent upon the business to which they render service." The notice provides a fair amount of analysis, and identifies some specific factors:

(1) The degree of the employer's right to control the manner in which the work is to be performed; 

Not official use.

(2) the worker's opportunity for profit or loss depending upon his or her managerial skill; 

(3) the worker's investment in equipment or materials required for his or her task, or employment of helpers; 

(4) whether the service rendered requires a special skill; 

(5) the degree of permanence of the working relationship; and 

(6) whether the service rendered is an integral part of the employer's business.

That said, the list is not exhaustive, and different courts have utilized assorted variations. 

Bottom line: If you thought the proposed rule from January was going to make classifying workers as independent contractors easier - well, it's not, because that rule's dead now. There's nothing groundbreaking in the withdrawal though. As always, I have a few caveats:

• This notice applies to classification of workers under the FLSA - different courts and agencies apply different tests when analyzing classification under different statutes;
• Even under the FLSA, the federal courts have tended to do their own thing and not give too much deference to ever-changing views of the DOL;  and
• Even the DOL changes its mind sometimes. 

That said, this latest notice provides insight into the DOL's views on classification, and some factors for businesses to consider when classifying workers. 

DOL publishes new independent contractor rule, but is it DOA?

You probably heard the big news out of DC yesterday... the U.S. Department of Labor published its final rule to clarify independent contractor status under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). What? Did something else happen?

The new rule generally makes it easier to classify workers as independent contractors as opposed to employees under the FLSA (i.e. federal minimum wage and overtime law). The actual rule is here. Short version of a long and complicated issue, the new rule focuses on two primary factors:

(1) the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work; and 

(2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.

But, if need be, there are three additional "guideposts":

(3) The amount of skill required for the work; 

(4) The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer.

(5) Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

But, wait! This comes with so many caveats... I don't know where to begin. 

• The Rule takes effect March 8th; 
• But, we get a new president January 20th and he has already flagged this rule as "an example of the type of last-minute regulation Mr. Biden would seek to halt or delay with a memo he intends to sign on inauguration day;"
• This is *just* the rule for the FLSA - There are countless other laws that require independent contractor vs. employee classification analysis and they each have their own tests (worker's comp., unemployment compensation, collective bargaining, etc.); 
• Also, your state probably has its own minimum wage and overtime law that does not necessarily track with the federal rules; and
• Courts are not bound by agency regulations, and often adopt their own tests (See, e.g., the Obama administration's paid intern rule that was rejected over and over again). 

In other words, although the rule itself is easier to apply, classifying workers remains as frustrating and convoluted as ever. 

DOL proposes new independent contractor rule under the FLSA

 My favorite subject - employee/independent contractor classification! On Tuesday, DOL issued a press release: U.S. Department of Labor Proposes Rule to Clarify Employee and Independent Contractor Status Under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The new rule is part of their efforts to "simplify the compliance landscape."

The proposed rule:

• Adopts an “economic reality” test to determine a worker’s status as an FLSA employee or an independent contractor. The test considers whether a worker is in business for himself or herself (independent contractor) or is economically dependent on a putative employer for work (employee); 
• Identifies and explains two “core factors,” specifically the nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work, and the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment. These factors help determine if a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business or is in business for himself or herself;
• Identifies three other factors that may serve as additional guideposts in the analysis: the amount of skill required for the work; the degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer; and whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production; and 
• Advises that the actual practice is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible in determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.

You can read the actual rule here. 

Not official use.

Believe me, employers (and their poor attorneys) need simpler rules to follow in this area. A five-factor test in which two factors count more but none of the factors is determinative and even more factors exist because the list is not exhaustive... I'm not sure that's simple. And, of course, that's only the test for the FLSA (maybe, we'll have to see how courts actually apply the rule and whether they even follow it) - employers will still have different tests for state wage and hour laws, another test for UC benefits, and yet another for workers' comp. Simple enough for ya yet?

Oh yeah, we have an election coming up, so let's wait and see if the final rule even crosses the finish line. 

DOL revises FFCRA regulations

Remember about a month ago, when a federal court in New York ruled that some provisions in the FFCRA regulations were invalid? Welp, now the DOL has revised the regulations to clarify the paid leave requirements under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. The DOL describes the primary "revisions" as:

• 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.

The first two bullets notably double down on the DOL's regs before the NY decision - but, part of the court's criticism was that DOL did not adequately explain their decisions. So, the new DOL regs provide more explanation. 

The third bullet point is DOL's biggest concession, a far narrower definition of the "healthcare provider" exclusion from benefits. The regulations clarify that the exception applies to people who actually provide healthcare services, and not to people who only provided services to healthcare services (e.g., "information technology (IT) professionals, building maintenance staff, human resources personnel, cooks, food service workers, records managers, consultants, and billers"). 

Finally, the last two bullet points reflect a change in the notice requirements. Instead of requiring notice "prior to" leave, the regulations now require notice "as soon as practicable" - but,note that "it will generally be practicable to provide notice prior to the need to take leave."

Although the FFCRA expires at the end of 2020, there is still plenty of time for new lawsuits on this (especially if Congress extends it into 2021) - so stay tuned!

Four new DOL Wage and Hour opinion letters!

 DOL has been super busy the past few months! On Monday, it released four new opinion letters:

1. "An employee's work hours do not have to fluctuate above and below 40 per workweek for an employer to be able to use the fluctuating workweek method of calculating overtime pay." For my Pennsylvania readers, don't forget about this SCOPA decision. 

2. DOL packed several exemption issues into this opinion letter on a corporate-management trainer who works part-time. Some takeaways: a. Paying a day rate does not satisfy the salary basis test (because it varies, is not calculated on a weekly basis, and is not known until after the work is completed); b. employees may maintain their exempt status even if they receive an hourly wage rate for hours on top of the required minimum salary; c. employees must meet the minimum salary threshold for the white collar exemptions (and the minimum annual salary threshold for the highly compensated employee exemption), and this amount may not be prorated for part-time employees.

Not official use.

3. Another opinion letter "[a]ddresses an employer’s compliance with FLSA’s minimum wage requirements when reimbursing delivery drivers for business-related expenses incurred while using their personal vehicles during the course of employment."

4. Finally, an oddly specific letter concluding that truck drivers who provide waste removal service for oilfield operators may qualify for the "retail or service exemption" if the services are "not different from the services furnished to the general public and that its services are recognized as retail within the waste-removal industry."

FFCRA guidance on hybrid and virtual schooling

DOL once again updated its ever-expanding list of FFCRA questions and answers. The new ones address remote (virtual) learning and hybrid options. 

The guidance is pretty straightforward - If your child is not permitted to attend school in-person, then you are eligible for FFCRA leave (assuming you meet the other criteria). For example, if your child alternates between days attending in-person and days participating virtually, then you are eligible on the days they attend remotely. 

Not official use.

Here's a controversial take from the DOL though - If you have a choice between in-person and remote learning, and choose the remote option, then you are not eligible (even if you made that choice out of fear that your child will contract or bring home COVID). 

See Questions 98-100 for details. 

New DOL guidance on compensation for teleworking employees

DOL published a new Field Assistance Bulletin: Employers’ obligation to exercise reasonable diligence in tracking teleworking employees’ hours of work. Generally, employers must pay nonexempt employees for time worked, "if the employer knows or has reason to believe that work is being performed." 

Employers must, as a result, pay for all work they know about, even if they did not ask for the work, even if they did not want the work done, and even if they had a rule against doing the work.

Allen v. City of Chicago, 865 F.3d 936, 938 (7th Cir. 2017). Obviously, this presents some challenges for employers of remote employees. Specifically, how do they know what work is being done when the employees are teleworking from home?

Not official use.

Employers must "exercise reasonable diligence to acquire knowledge regarding employees’ unscheduled hours of work." That's great, but what does it mean? Well, one way for an employer to show reasonable diligence is by "establishing a reasonable process for an employee to report uncompensated work time." Allen at 938. 

What if an employee doesn't report the time, but the employer could discover that the work has been completed? Per the new bulletin (relying a lot on Allen):

[I]f an employee fails to report unscheduled hours worked through such a procedure, the employer is generally not required to investigate further to uncover unreported hours . . .  Though an employer may have access to non-payroll records of employees’ activities, such as records showing employees accessing their work-issued electronic devices outside of reported hours, reasonable diligence generally does not require the employer to undertake impractical efforts such as sorting through this information to determine whether its employees worked hours beyond what they reported.

The bulletin also cites case law, noting that employers need not sort through phone records, supervisors' knowledge, computer aided dispatch ("CAD") records, etc. 

Bottom line: Employers can avoid a lot of potential wage and hour headaches (and, by "headaches," I mean DOL investigations and lawsuits) by simply establishing an easy way for employees to report their time. Some employers utilize automated tools - not a problem per se, but employees must have some way to report additional time worked if it happens.
 

Federal court in New York invalidates parts of FFCRA final rule

Yesterday, S.D.N.Y. issued an opinion in New York v. U.S. Dept. of Labor,* invalidating potions of DOL's FFCRA final rule. Now, don't freak out just yet, this is just one district court's opinion - but, it is important to see this take. The Court invalidated four provisions:

Work Availability Requirement 

DOL's final rule requires emergency paid sick leave (or emergency FMLA) only if the employer has work available for the employee. The FFCRA statute requires such leave "due to" one of the reasons listed (see the 6 reasons here) with no express work availability requirement. 

The Court rejected DOL's justification for the work availability requirement both because it only applied to some of the qualifying events (with no explanation as to why it didn't apply to all), and because it found DOL's justification to not be sufficiently "reasoned." Although DOL's justification was very brief, I frankly found it quite persuasive: "[T]he work-availability requirement is justified 'because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she' did not have a qualifying condition." But, nobody asked me to decide this case. 

Definition of "Health Care Provider"

Employers may exclude "health care provider[s]" from the FFCRA leave requirements. The Court held that DOL's definition of a "health care provider" was too broad, noting that it would encompass, "an English professor, librarian, or cafeteria manager at a university with a medical school." The Court emphasized that the definition must at least include some minimal "role-specific determination" (i.e. was the employee actually serving some health care function?).

Intermittent Leave

A mixed ruling on this issue - The Court held that DOL could allow employers to bar intermittent leave in cases "that implicate an employee's risk of viral transmission." But, employers cannot be afforded such discretion in other cases; for example, employees without child care, and presumably employees teleworking, because they are not a risk of transmission.

Documentation Requirements

Finally, the Court held that the documentation requirements cannot be a precondition to leave because of the unforeseen nature of the qualifying events. The statute, however, does require "such notice of leave as is practicable" under the EFMLA provisions. And, "after the first workday" an employee receives EPSL, the employer may require the employee to follow "reasonable notice procedures."

Conclusion

If you're not in the Sourthern District of New York, then this ruling does not directly apply to you - but, it might be a sign of things to come in your jurisdiction. If so, then employers face some issues:

• Employees who satisfy a qualifying event may be entitled to FFCRA leave even if they have been temporarily furloughed;
• Employers may only be able to exclude "health care providers" who actually perform a health care role;
• Employers may be required to provide intermittent leave to employees who do not pose a risk of transmission (e.g. employees working from home, or staying home to care for children due to lack of childcare); and
• Employers may not require documentation as a precondition for leave. 

I wouldn't go re-writing everything just yet - but these are important issues to keep an eye on. 

*HT to Eric Meyer, of The Employer Handbook fame, for posting the opinion. 

COVID-19 Guidance for Employee Benefit Plans

DOL issued new COVID-19 Guidance for Employee Benefit Plans. The guidance includes a few helpful documents:

• Extension of Certain Timeframes for Employee Benefit Plans, Participants, andBeneficiaries Affected by the COVID-19 Outbreak;
• EBSA Disaster Relief Notice 2020-01; and
• Frequently Asked Questions.

Unfortunately, benefits plans issues are always complicated. Take, for example, this question that both employers and employees have been struggling with:

Q1: If my place of employment temporarily closes because of the COVID-19 outbreak, am I still covered by my employer's group health plan?

What's the answer?

As long as the employer exists, continues to sponsor a health plan, and employs you, and you continue to meet your employer's eligibility requirements, you would generally remain covered under your existing health plan, even if the employer's physical location closes

This just raises more questions. Are employees who are laid off during the quarantine still "employed?" What if they're on UC? What are the eligibility requirements? And on, and on. This guidance is a good start though.

Employer settles with DOL for FFCRA violation

Yesterday, the DOL issued a news release, Tucson, Arizona, Company to Pay Back Wages After Denying Paid Sick Leave To Worker Whose Doctor Ordered Coronavirus Quarantine. The employee provided documentation to his employer of his doctor's instructions to self-quarantine. Of course, people who are directed by their doctor to self-quarantine are entitled to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave under the FFCRA.

So, what's the settlement? The employer agreed to pay the employee $20/hour wage for the 80 hours of leave available under the FFCRA - or $1,600. It is not clear from the press release whether the employer will receive the tax credit ordinarily available for FFCRA leave payments. Here, the employer could end up effectively paying nothing if they get the money back via tax credit. 

Note, however, that the FFCRA regulations make clear that FFCRA violations may result in the penalties available under the FLSA. Under 29 U.S. Code § 216, that includes lost wages, doubled as liquidated damages, and in extreme circumstances, potentially even fines up to $10,000 and jail time for repeat offenders. Enforcement may also include injunctions under 29 U.S. Code § 217.

DOL clarifies interplay between PTO and FFCRA Leave

After a little bit of a lull, DOL updated its Q&A page with a few new tidbits. Question 86 specifically addresses paid time off (I'll just use "PTO" to encompass PTO, vacation, sick, etc.) and its interaction with FFCRA leave. A few scenarios arise:

Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL)

Easy enough - "An employer may not require employer-provided paid leave to run concurrently with—that is, cover the same hours as—paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act."

Emergency Family and Medical Leave Act (EFMLA)

Not official use.

A little more complicated - Yes, "an employer may require that any paid leave available to an employee under the employer’s policies to allow an employee to care for his or her child or children because their school or place of care is closed (or child care provider is unavailable) due to a COVID-19 related reason run concurrently with" EFMLA. But! The employer must pay the employee 100% of their pay (whereas EFMLA alone only requires 2/3 pay), and the employer will still only receive a tax credit for that required 2/3. Finally, the employer and the employee may agree to use PTO to supplement the 2/3 pay and instead provide full pay.

* Reminder, that 2/3 pay is also capped at $200/day, $10,000 total.

EPSL and EFMLA together

The first two weeks of EFMLA are unpaid (subject to the use of PTO above). The employee may choose (but the employer may not require) the employee to use their two weeks of EPSL during the first two weeks of EFMLA. The EPSL pays out at 2/3 pay. If the employee runs out of EPSL in the first two weeks, then the employee may choose (bit, again, the employer may not require) to use PTO provided for under the employer's policy (so long as that leave would be available to stay home to care for one's child).

Counting employees under the FFCRA

The FFCRA regulations specifically address the method for counting the number of employees:

• "[C]ount all full-time and part-time Employees employed within the United States at the time the Employee would take leave;"
• Part-time count as much as full-time;
• Include employees on leave of any kind;
• Do not count independent contractors.

But, of course, nothing is ever that simple. The regs also make clear that businesses must count employees under a "joint employer" or "integrated employer" test. Here, they incorporate the joint employer test under the FLSA:

[A] four-factor balancing test . . . to assess whether the other person: 

(1) hires or fires the employee; 

(2) supervises and controls the employee’s work schedule or conditions of employment to a substantial degree; 

(3) determines the employee’s rate and method of payment; and 

(4) maintains the employee’s employment records. 

No single factor is dispositive in determining joint employer status, and the appropriate weight to give each factor will vary depending on the circumstances.

The test for an integrated employer (or integrated enterprise) comes from the FMLA:

A determination of whether or not separate entities are an integrated employer is not determined by the application of any single criterion, but rather the entire relationship is to be reviewed in its totality. Factors considered in determining whether two or more entities are an integrated employer include: 

(i) Common management; 

(ii) Interrelation between operations; 

(iii) Centralized control of labor relations; and 

(iv) Degree of common ownership/financial control.

29 CFR § 825.104(c)(2).

This, of course, presents a double-edged sword. It could push some employers over 500 and exclude them from coverage. Other employers, however, will be pushed over 50 and outside of the small business exemption.

New OSHA poster with 10 tips for reducing coronavirus risk

One day, I'll go back to regular employment law instead of an onslaught of DOL updates and guidance . . . but NOT today! DOL issued a new OSHA poster: Ten Steps All Workplaces Can Take to Reduce Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus. Here are the ten tips: 

1. Encourage workers to stay home if sick.  

2. Encourage respiratory etiquette, including covering coughs and sneezes. 

3. Provide a place to wash hands or alcohol-based hand rubs containing at least 60% alcohol.  

4. Limit worksite access to only essential workers, if possible.  

5. Establish flexible worksites (e.g., telecommuting) and flexible work hours (e.g., staggered shifts), if feasible.  

6. Discourage workers from using other workers’ phones, desks, or other work tools and equipment.  

7. Regularly clean and disinfect surfaces, equipment, and other elements of the work environment. 

8. Use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved cleaning chemicals with label claims against the coronavirus. 

9. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for use of all cleaning and disinfection products.  

10. Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

CARES Act updates from US DOL and PA UC

The new CARES Act Unemployment Compensation expansion is starting up, and we have some new resources:

• DOL published a new Program Letter to guide states;
• PA UC published CARES Act updates on its page. 

Yes, on 4/3 DOL is still adding to the FFCRA Q&A

Just a quick update to point out that DOL added Questions and Answers 60-79 to the FFCRA Q&A yesterday. A lot of emphasis on the care-for-others provisions. And, a helpful guide for calculating paid sick leave for seasonal employees.