Employers Need to Prepare for Potential Employment Challenge Posed by Dorian
With Dorian eyeing the Florida coast, now is the time for Florida businesses to prepare for some of the challenges that may come. In addition to potential lost economic output, lost revenue and property and crop damage, employers need to be aware of employment laws affecting their business which may also be impacted by the storm.
August 28, 2019 at 01:15 PM
6 minute read
With Dorian eyeing the Florida coast, now is the time for Florida businesses to prepare for some of the challenges that may come. In addition to potential lost economic output, lost revenue and property and crop damage, employers need to be aware of employment laws affecting their business which may also be impacted by the storm.
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 or disciplining employees who don't come to work because of an impending hurricane, lose time because a storm closes a business or don't return to work after the storm. Instead, private employers must look to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Department of Labor regulations, which provide for different treatment of nonexempt employees (entitled to overtime) and exempt employees (not entitled to overtime). Further, an employer's own policy manual or a collective bargaining agreement may need to be consulted to arrive at an answer, as will the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act for covered employees such as a reservist or National Guard member who is called up to assist prior to, during or in the aftermath of a storm.
FLSA Mandates Treatment of Employee Pay
As a general rule, the FLSA obligates employers to pay 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 nonexempt employees. However, employees employed under a flex-time or fluctuating schedule who are guaranteed payments regardless of the number of hours worked in a week are treated differently. So long as the business is not closed for a full work week, these employees must be paid their usual pay.
Moreover, time spent at work helping the business close or prepared for Dorian would be compensable, as would time an employer requires such employees to be "on call" or who are required to remain on site during a storm to assist business customers, such as hotel guests, or who "volunteer" to assist an employer during a natural disaster by performing their usual, customary duties. (Not-for-profit organizations who "allow" paid employees to "volunteer" during an emergency may be required to provide compensation when those employees are performing their regular job.) Conversely, if employees take shelter at an employer's premises for their own safety or security, rather than to assist the business, such time is not typically compensable for nonexempt employees.
Businesses may allow nonexempt employees to use vacation time, paid time off or sick leave (so long as it is in compliance with company policy) to cover the time lost and receive pay; 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 because of 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" and so would not be counted toward a calculation of overtime. In addition, if nonexempt employees don't return to work after the business reopened, businesses are not required to allow workers to make up missed time, even if Dorian negatively impacts transportation, and employers who arrange for ride-sharing after a storm must compensate the employee drive (but not the employee passenger) from the time of pick-up. Moreover, a failure to return to work without good cause after a storm passes can be grounds for termination for misconduct.
One wrinkle is that, if an employer has previously allowed 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 or, if a covered business, allow employees affected by a natural disaster to take leave under the Family Medical Leave Act to care for themselves or family members whose care was impacted by the storm. (Employers also need to address how the length of a business closure due to a hurricane may affect the calculation of FMLA leave time for those employees who were out.)
A different set of rules apply 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 work week 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 so long as the absence is not for illness or disability or covered by an ADA accommodation or leave under FLMA.
Recovery of Lost Time
Efforts by businesses to "recover" some of that lost time following a storm must comply with the FLSA regulations, such as overtime rules. Businesses may not circumvent the FLSA simply because they lost productive time, although requiring exempt employees to make up time is permissible once business operations recommence. It is also possible that business interruption insurance might cover payments made to employees during the time the business was closed. Or, should Governor DeSantis declare a state of emergency, assistance may be available from programs such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency's unemployment assistance program.
Consulting an employment attorney both prior to and after a storm is a positive step to keep employers from avoiding, even inadvertently, FLSA violations or unexpected pay obligations, including overtime, which may further impact businesses already dealing with the economic effects of Dorian's pending visit to the Sunshine State.
Aaron Tandy heads 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
© 2024 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 AllNavigating Claims Under the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act and Florida Telemarketing Act
4 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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