![Maria Dwyer of Clark Hill.](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2020/03/Maria-Dwyer-Article-202003271507.jpg)
Families First Coronavirus Response Act: How School Plans Will Impact Employees
These plans can generally be organized into the following categories: full-time remote learning; in-person learning with an option for remote learning; and hybrid learning scenarios, with a combination of remote learning and in-person instruction.
September 11, 2020 at 12:24 PM
4 minute read
As kids, parents, teachers and educational institutions approach the start of a new school year, there are still many questions about exactly what school might look like in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. The many private and public educational institutions across the nation are taking different approaches with regard to how schools will operate this school year. These plans can generally be organized into the following categories: full-time remote learning; in-person learning with an option for remote learning; and hybrid learning scenarios, with a combination of remote learning and in-person instruction.
What does this mean for employers? It will be critical to understand leave-management obligations applicable to covered employers under the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (H.R. 6201) (the act) that was passed by the Senate and signed by the president in March 2020. The act expands the protections under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and requires many private and all public educational institutions to provide significant amounts of paid leave related to COVID-19.
- Are school personnel entitled to FFCRA leave for their own childcare issues?
At the end of August 2020, the Department of Labor issued responses to various frequently asked questions (FAQs) relating to the use of FFCRA leave in the context of educational institutions resuming school under the different approaches (remote/virtual, hybrid or in-person). When an employee's child's school is remote only, the employee is entitled to leave; however, when the employee's child's school is hybrid, or when in-person is available, the answer becomes more complex.
- Can an employee take FFCRA leave if the employee's child's school is using the hybrid approach?
An employee may take paid leave under the FFCRA on each of his/her child's remote-learning days. This scenario essentially contemplates child-care obligations from the home. The employee is required to be at work on those days when the employee's child is engaged in in-person learning. This type of leave is akin to an intermittent leave use.
- Can an employee take FFCRA Leave if the child's school is open, but the employee opts-out of in-person instruction?
An employee is not eligible to take paid leave under the FFCRA if the school is open for his/her child to attend in-person. Said another way, if an employee's child is home not because the child's school is closed, but because the parent/employee has chosen to keep his/her child home, the employee is not entitled to FFCRA paid leave. However, if, because of COVID-19, an employee's child is under a quarantine order or has been advised by a health care provider to self-isolate or self-quarantine, or because of the child's own illness with COVID-19, the employee may be eligible to take paid leave to care for the child under quarantine.
- Are spouses working for the same employer each entitled to 12 Weeks of EFMLEA of EPSLA?
The FMLA "marriage penalty" does not apply to the FFCRA because the act does not address this issue. The rule that narrows FMLA usage for spouses who work for the same employer is statutory and only applicable to certain types of FMLA leave.
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 All![How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/thelegalintelligencer/contrib/content/uploads/sites/402/2024/02/Taylor-Briggs-767x633.jpg)
How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning
7 minute read![The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/72/a9/0ad326cf4e00a726b67a1398d883/paul-riekhof-767x633.jpg)
The Keys to Estate Planning During and After Divorce
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Eliminating Judicial Exceptions: The Promise of the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act
- 2AI in Legal: Disruptive Potential and Practical Realities
- 3One Court’s Opinion on Successfully Bankruptcy Proofing a Borrower
- 4Making the Case for Workflow Automation
- 5Copyright Infringement by Generative AI Tools Under US and UK Law: Common Threads and Contrasting Approaches
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