Oregon’s much anticipated Paid Leave program (formally called Oregon Paid Family and Medical Leave Insurance) will be here soon. Employee and employer contributions to the state program start January 1, 2023, and employees can start applying for benefits beginning September 3, 2023.
Almost all employers with employees in Oregon are required to participate in the
As Oregon’s April 2022 snowstorm becomes a distant memory, it’s time for some spring cleaning of employer leave policies. There are two recent changes that may require updates to your employee handbook.
Oregon Paid Sick Leave—Expanded to Account for Evacuation Orders, Poor Air Quality, and Heat.
BOLI recently adopted, effective April 1, 2022
California Provides Employees with Another Bucket of COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Leave
On February 9, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom approved Senate Bill 114 (“SB 114”), which entitles most California employees to a new bucket of COVID-19 supplemental paid sick leave. The law will go into effect on February 19, 2022.
California’s prior law entitling workers
For the past year, Washington employers have been required to accommodate those employees characterized by the CDC as being at high risk of severe illness or death from COVID-19. Required accommodations can include allowing those employees to take extended leaves of absence if alternative work assignments, telework, remote work locations, or social distancing measures are
As many of you know, in 2019 the Oregon Legislature passed (and Governor Brown signed) HB 2005, which creates a Paid Family and Medical Leave program for Oregon employees. Our original blog posts about the new law are here and here.
The Oregon Employment Department has launched listening sessions for employers and employees across
California Assembly Bill 1867 (signed by California Governor Gavin Newsom on September 9, 2020) and Senate Bill 1383 (signed on September 17, 2020) significantly expand the rights of California employees to both paid and unpaid leave. In addition, and especially as they relate to Senate Bill 1383, these laws will require California employers to promptly
On the day that its temporary rule was set to expire, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (“BOLI”) issued a permanent rule to allow employees to continue to avail themselves of protected “sick child leave” under the Oregon Family Leave Act (“OFLA”) to care for a child whose school or childcare provider has been closed in conjunction with a statewide public health emergency, including COVID-19. We previously blogged about BOLI’s temporary rule here.
Based on public comment received during the permanent rule-making process, as well as the fluid nature of safety protocols with respect to childcare providers and school re-openings, the agency determined that its now permanent rule would benefit from additional, immediate clarifications to other OFLA rules. Accordingly, BOLI simultaneously issued another set of temporary rules (effective September 14, 2020 through March 12, 2021) of which employers should be aware both with respect to implementing the expanded sick child leave and to the extent they want to provide input during the public comment period.
Under the temporary amendments, BOLI broadly defines “childcare provider” to include any “place of care” or person who cares for a child. “Place of care” includes day care facilities, preschools, before and after school care programs, schools, homes, summer camps, summer enrichment programs, and respite care programs. The physical location does not have to be solely dedicated to such care. A person who cares for a child includes nannies, au pairs, babysitters, and individuals who regularly provide childcare at no cost, for example, grandparents, aunts, uncles, or neighbors.
Continue Reading BOLI Permanently Expands OFLA for Eligible Working Parents Impacted by COVID-19
The DOL recently updated its guidance regarding when childcare leave can be taken under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (or “FFCRA”). FFCRA requires most employers to provide employees with up to 12 weeks of protected leave, paid at 2/3rds the employee’s regular rate of pay, up to a maximum of $200 a day (reimbursed
On April 16, 2020, California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-51-20 (the “Order”). Similar to laws recently enacted by local California jurisdictions, the Order entitles certain workers to paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19 who are otherwise ineligible for such paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).
As discussed here, FFCRA requires employers to provide employees with up to 80 hours of paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19. Notably, however, FFCRA excludes from its scope employees working for employers with 500 or more employees.
Since FFCRA’s enactment, numerous local jurisdictions have passed ordinances attempting to fill the gap left by FFCRA by requiring employers with 500 or more employees to provide paid leave for reasons related to COVID-19. This includes the cities of San Francisco, San Jose, and Los Angeles.
While similar to those ordinances, the Order issued by Governor Newsom is different in that it applies to “Food Sector Workers” and “Hiring Entities.” Specifically, it provides that Hiring Entities are required to provide Food Sector Workers with up to 80 hours of paid sick leave (“COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave”) to the extent the workers are unable to work for any of the following reasons:
Under the Ninth Circuit’s recent holding in Escriba v. Foster Poultry Farms, Inc., 743 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2014), many employees now have greater flexibility to extend family and medical leave beyond the typical 12-week limit under the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”). While the Escriba court’s holding was intended to benefit the employer in that case, Foster Farms, its impact on other employers may have the opposite effect.
Maria Escriba sought two weeks of leave from her employment with Foster Farms in order to care for her ailing father in Guatemala. Although Ms. Escriba informed her supervisors of the FMLA-qualifying reason for the leave, she expressly requested that the time be deemed as vacation leave, rather than family leave. When Ms. Escriba failed to return to work after the expiration of her vacation leave, Foster Farms terminated her employment.
Ms. Escriba filed suit, alleging that Foster Farms violated the FMLA and the substantively identical California Family Rights Act by terminating her employment. Specifically, she claimed that Foster Farms was required to designate her leave as FMLA leave, regardless of whether she declined FMLA leave, arguing that an employee cannot waive her rights under the FMLA.