'Families First' Law Gets Test in Lawsuit Over Paid Leave for COVID-19 Self-Quarantine
Some employment lawyers in New Jersey who are familiar with the law think it's unlikely to generate much litigation.
May 22, 2020 at 02:10 PM
4 minute read
A federal lawsuit filed in Camden claims an employer violated the Families First Coronavirus Response Act by denying paid leave to a worker who had symptoms of COVID-19.
A medical billing service in Pennsauken is accused of violating the FFCRA by denying paid leave to an employee who was under doctor's orders to self-quarantine after experiencing a fever, chills and body aches.
The FFCRA, which went into effect April 1, provides paid sick leave to people who are quarantined or have COVID-19 symptoms, and are waiting for a diagnosis. The act also provides paid sick leave to any employee caring for a person under quarantine or for a child whose school or day care center is closed due to COVID-19.
In the New Jersey case, plaintiff Brian Spells claims his employer, Physician and Tactical Healthcare Services, denied his request for paid leave and suggested he apply for unemployment, which he did. Spells later developed a cough, and his doctor advised him to extend his quarantine, even after his COVID-19 test came back negative.
Spells asked his employer to allow him to work from home but was told his position did not allow remote work and that he should either report to work or take a voluntary layoff, his suit claims. Later, after Spells' doctor cleared him to return to work, he notified the personnel manager of his change in status but received no response. He believes he was terminated in retaliation for his requests for paid sick leave, the suit claims.
Spells' suit brings claims under the FFCRA and the Fair Labor Standards Act for wrongful termination, unpaid wages and retaliation. Tony DiLuca, a principal of Physician and Tactical Healthcare Services, did not respond to a phone message about the suit. Spells' lawyer, Ari Karpf of Karpf, Karpf & Cerutti also did not respond to a request for comment.
Despite widespread predictions that job losses related to COVID-19 will produce an avalanche of suits, some employment lawyers in New Jersey who are familiar with the FFCRA think the law is unlikely to generate much litigation.
Alan Schorr, a plaintiff-side employment lawyer in Cherry Hill, said he is puzzled by Spells' suit. The amount at the center of the dispute is modest: two weeks' pay at Spells' rate of $15 an hour. What's more, to obtain unemployment benefits, Spells had to certify that he was not disabled, but he was unable to work while under quarantine, Schorr said. Spells is likely to face questions about his conflicting assertions, Schorr said.
Schorr says that under the circumstances, Spells could have applied for disability benefits for the two weeks he was under quarantine, instead of filing his suit, and would have received the same amount as provided under the FFCRA. The law provides some provisions, particularly for states whose disability programs are less generous than New Jersey's, according to Schorr.
The FFCRA contains some provisions that might provide a defense to Spells' employer, according to Benjamin Widener, chairman of Stark & Stark's Labor and Employment Practice Group. The FFCRA contains exemptions for health care providers and entities contracted to such companies. That exemption could apply to Physician and Tactical Healthcare Services, based on the way its operations are described in the suit, said Widener. "That's probably going to be the big issue in the case—whether the act applies to this particular defendant," said Widener.
In addition, there's the question of whether Spells is entitled to the continued protection of the FFCRA after his doctor told him he tested negative for COVID-19, said Widener.
Widener said he does not anticipate a large volume of suits filed over the FFCRA.
"My experience is that employers are trying to and do intend to comply with the act, because failure to comply could be punitive," Widener said. "Also, there's a benefit: if employees request leave and are entitled to paid leave, employers are entitled to reimbursement through refundable tax credits, dollar for dollar, when submitting their quarterly taxes."
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 AllArbitrators Under Fire for Allegedly Forcing Workers to 'Stay or Pay' Employers
5 minute readAmid Growing Litigation Volume, Don't Expect UnitedHealthcare to Change Its Stripes After CEO's Killing
6 minute readTrending Stories
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