The DOL's Wage and Hour Division tells us how it will look at these issues.
One of the hot (get it?) issues with the Families First Coronavirus Response Act is how it will apply to employees' child care needs after the kids' school would have been closed for the summer anyway.
The quick answer is that there would be no more FFCRA leave based on the school closing, but there could be FFCRA leave for the parents if their kids' summer programs are unavailable for reasons related to coronavirus.
The U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, recently issued a Field Assistance Bulletin discussing the "summer program care" issue in more depth. The Bulletin discusses what investigators from the Division should consider during an FFCRA enforcement action. Unfortunately, employers do not have the authority to ask the questions that the government investigators may ask. However, it is still helpful to employers to know how the Division is approaching this issue.
According to the Bulletin, the closing of a summer day camp or other program would be considered the same as the closing of a day care center or other "place of care" for a preschool child. If the closing or lack of available summer care was due to coronavirus, one of the parents would be entitled to FFCRA leave to care for the children, assuming the other requirements of the law were satisfied.
The Bulletin points out that a "closing" could include reduced enrollment (for example, to allow for social distancing), which prevents the child from being admitted.
Definitively establishing which school or year-round preschool a child would have been enrolled in is usually a clear-cut matter. Enrollment in summer programs, though, is often more wishy-washy. And that's the main subject of the Bulletin.
"The question is whether a specific summer camp or program would have been the place of care of an employee's child had it not closed for COVID-19-related reasons, which must be established by a preponderance of the evidence . . ." U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division, Field Assistance Bulletin 2020-4 (June 26, 2020)
What would the Wage and Hour Division look at in determining whether the parents really intended to send their kids to a particular summer program? Generally, there must be
- Evidence of a "plan" to enroll the child in the program, OR
- Anything else showing that "more likely than not" the child would have been enrolled in a particular program but for COVID-19.
Mere "interest" in a program would not be enough. Evidence that the Division would consider in determining that the child would have been enrolled in a given program could include any one of the following:
- The parents submitted an application for enrollment or paid a deposit.
- The child attended the program in the past and was eligible to return in 2020 (for example, the child had not aged out of the program).
- In the case of a child who just became old enough to enter a program in 2020, or who had aged out of his or her regular program and had to enter a different program in 2020, or who had recently moved to the area, the child was on a program's wait list.
The Bulletin cautions that there is no "one-size-fits-all" rule, and that other evidence might be relevant.
Again, employers beware: This is what the government will consider during FFCRA enforcement action. You, the employer, are not authorized to probe into any of this when your employee requests leave. The FFCRA regulations say that the employer may request only the following:
- The name of the employee's son or daughter.
- The name of the school, place of care, or child care provider that is no longer available.
- A representation that no suitable person is available to care for the son or daughter during the period for which FFCRA leave is sought.
- Any information required by the Internal Revenue Service to be able to issue a tax credit to the employer (which is currently no more than the above, plus an explanation as to why a child who is 14 years old or older needs a caregiver during daylight hours).
(The FFCRA applies to private sector employers with fewer than 500 employees in the United States or its territories and possessions. It also applies to virtually all public sector employers, regardless of size. The law will expire on December 31.)
- Partner
Robin has more than 30 years' experience counseling employers and representing them before government agencies and in employment litigation involving Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with ...
Robin Shea has 30 years' experience in employment litigation, including Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (including the Amendments Act).
Continue Reading
Subscribe
Contributors
- William A. "Zan" Blue, Jr.
- Obasi Bryant
- Kenneth P. Carlson, Jr.
- James M. Coleman
- Cara Yates Crotty
- Lara C. de Leon
- Christopher R. Deubert
- Joyce M. Dos Santos
- Colin Finnegan
- Steven B. Katz
- Ellen C. Kearns
- F. Damon Kitchen
- David C. Kurtz
- Angelique Groza Lyons
- John E. MacDonald
- Kelly McGrath
- Alyssa K. Peters
- Sarah M. Phaff
- David P. Phippen
- William K. Principe
- Sabrina M. Punia-Ly
- Angela L. Rapko
- Rachael Rustmann
- Paul Ryan
- Piyumi M. Samaratunga
- Robin E. Shea
- Kristine Marie Sims
- David L. Smith
- Jill S. Stricklin
- Jack R. Wallace
Archives
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010