AB 1867 was signed into law by Governor Newsom on September 9, 2020. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate gaps in coverage so that many more employee have access to paid sick days if they are exposed to or test positive for COVID-19 in 2020. This means that the new law applies to individuals employed at companies too big to qualify under the Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (“FFCRA”) passed by Congress in March and it also applies to individuals who may have been designated as essential, such as health care workers, and therefore exempt under the FFCRA. Employers who took advantage of designating some employees as exempt under the FFCRA may want to revisit that choice because, unlike FFCRA leaves, AB 1867 does not include a tax credit to offset the cost of providing the leave.
Who Is Entitled to Leave?
Beginning September 19, 2020, private employers with 500 or more employees nationwide (as well as certain health care providers and emergency responders), must provide employees supplemental paid sick leave if they are unable to work because:
- They are subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
- They were advised by health care provider to self-quarantine or self-isolate due to concerns related to COVID-19; or
- Their employer prohibits them from working due to health concerns related to the potential transmission of COVID-19.
The law only applies to employees who must leave their home for work. Continue Reading
The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) was enacted on March 18, 2020. The sweeping federal legislation provides emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) and expanded paid Family and Medical Leave (EFML) to certain covered workers impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. On April 1, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued regulations implementing the FFCRA and answering, at least in part, some questions related to coverage, eligibility, use, and job restoration. We first 
On September 8, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued 
The 2021 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® has recognized 107 Squire Patton Boggs lawyers across 46 practice areas, including 19 of our Labor & Employment and Employee Benefits lawyers who received recognition in the areas of Employment Law – Individuals, Employment Law – Management, Labor Law – Management, Litigation – Labor and Employment, Workers’ Compensation Law – Employers, and Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law. 
In the U.S., employees must be paid overtime compensation at a rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per workweek unless specifically exempted by law. For many employees, this means payment of a straight time hourly rate, and then payment of one-and-one-half times that hourly rate for each of their weekly overtime hours. However, for many years, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has sanctioned an alternate method of paying employees whose hours of work fluctuate from week to week. This method, known as the fluctuating workweek (FWW) method of calculation, not only requires that employees subject to such arrangement work a variable number of hours per workweek, but that they receive a fixed salary that does not vary with the number of hours worked, and which is sufficient to satisfy the applicable minimum wage for every hour worked in those workweeks in which the number of hours the employee works is greatest. 
Friday’s headline in The Telegraph above heralds the launch of a new Government campaign to encourage those currently working from home back into their physical offices. A series of noticeably unnamed Government Ministers and “sources” told the paper that “bosses at struggling firms will find it easier to hand out P45s to people they never see than to those who have been at their desks during the pandemic” and separately, “People need to understand that WFH is not the benign option it seems…suddenly the word “restructure” is bandied about and people who have been working from home find themselves in the most vulnerable position“. One Cabinet Minister went further – though seemingly unencumbered by the need for any actual evidence – and boldly asserted that “Companies will realise some people weren’t working as hard as they thought…there is going to be a review of how productive people are”.
