Hurricane Irma Forces Employers to Consider Effects on Employee Pay
Florida officials' early estimates forecast that Florida businesses stand to lose over $50 billion in lost economic output, lost revenue, and property and crop damage from Hurricane Irma.
October 03, 2017 at 12:05 PM
5 minute read
Florida officials' early estimates forecast that Florida businesses stand to lose over $50 billion in lost economic output, lost revenue, and property and crop damage from Hurricane Irma. They privately admit the figure will likely be higher. In addition, hourly workers and sometimes salaried workers may also lose income, sometimes much needed pay, because Irma forced businesses to close early and remain closed for days.
Unlike some states that have rules regarding pay for inclement weather closure, or require or encourage inclement weather days be paid time off, Florida provides little or no guidance to employers regarding compensating employees for lost time because of Irma. Instead, employers must look to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Department of Labor regulations, which provide for different treatment of hourly, nonexempt employees and salaried employees. Further, an employer's own policy manual or a collective bargaining agreement may need to be consulted to arrive at an answer.
FLSA Mandates Treatment of Employee Pay
As a general rule, the FLSA obligates employers to pay hourly, nonexempt employees only for those hours that are actually worked. Therefore, if an employer closes a business early in anticipation of a hurricane, the employer is not required to pay nonexempt employees who are sent home due to the approaching storm. Nor is there a legal requirement to pay such workers if the business remains closed during and after the storm. Such missed time is not considered to be “hours worked” for determining pay for hourly, non-exempt employees. However, time spent at work helping the business close or prepare for Irma would be compensable.
Businesses may allow these employees to use vacation time, paid time off (PTO) or sick leave (as long as it is in compliance with company policy) to cover the time lost; however, if employees have already used up such time, an employer is not required to provide more PTO days simply because the business did not operate due to a hurricane. Businesses are free to provide compensation to nonexempt employees for time missed as a “bonus” or to boost employee morale, but are not required to do so. However, any voluntary payments made would not be considered “hours worked” so it would not be counted towards a calculation of overtime. In addition, if hourly, nonexempt employees didn't come to work after the business re-opened, businesses are not required to allow workers to make up missed time even if they are unable to report to work because of impacts Irma made on infrastructure or transportation.
One wrinkle is that if an employer has previously allowed hourly, nonexempt employees to telecommute (i.e., work from home or another location), employers will be responsible for compensating employees for hours worked and arranging to properly record and document this time while the normal business location is closed. And employers may be required to offer temporary telecommuting to disabled employees under the Americans with Disabilities Act, and pay these employees for hours worked outside the office. Yet another wrinkle are employees employed under a flex time or fluctuating schedule who are guaranteed payments regardless of the number of hours worked in a week. As long as the business is not closed for a full workweek, these employees must be paid.
A different set of rules applies to exempt employees. The FLSA requires employers to pay exempt employees their full salary if the business was closed for less than a week regardless of how many hours the exempt employee actually worked. Conversely, if the business is closed for an entire workweek then employers are not required to pay exempt employees for that week, unless these employees are permitted to telecommute and record any amount of working hours because then they must receive their full salary for that week. Once the business reopens, employees who choose not to come to work, or not to work from home if it is permitted, would be required to take a PTO day for the missed work or have deductions made from their salary for missing the full day of work as long as the absence is not for illness or disability.
Businesses May Not Be Creative in Attempting to Recover Lost Time
Any efforts by businesses to recover some of that lost time following Irma must comply with the FLSA regulations, such as overtime rules. Businesses may not circumvent the FLSA simply because they lost productive time. It is possible that business interruption insurance might cover payments made to employees during the time the business was closed. Or, given that Gov. Rick Scott declared a state of emergency for all Florida counties, assistance may be available from programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's unemployment assistance program.
Understanding the law is important to avoid, even inadvertently, FLSA violations or unexpected pay obligations, including overtime, that may further impact businesses already dealing with the economic effects of Irma's visit.
Aaron Tandy heads the Pathman Lewis employment law practice, helping employers and employees navigate complex employment issues. Contact him at [email protected].
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSupreme Court Wrestles With Disabled Ex-Firefighter's Discrimination Case
Essential Labor Shifts: Navigating Noncompetes, Workplace Politics and the AI Revolution
Southwest Airlines Faces $100M Class Action Over Pay Periods
Trending Stories
- 15th Circuit Considers Challenge to Louisiana's Ten Commandments Law
- 2Crocs Accused of Padding Revenue With Channel-Stuffing HEYDUDE Shoes
- 3E-discovery Practitioners Are Racing to Adapt to Social Media’s Evolving Landscape
- 4The Law Firm Disrupted: For Office Policies, Big Law Has Its Ear to the Market, Not to Trump
- 5FTC Finalizes Child Online Privacy Rule Updates, But Ferguson Eyes Further Changes
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250