Takeaways: 

  • Starting October 1, 2025, Maryland employers who are covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) are no longer required to comply with the state’s unpaid parental leave law. 
  • Senate Bill 785 changes the definition of “employer” under Maryland’s Parental Leave Act to exclude those already covered by FMLA, even if they have between 15 and 49 employees. 
  • Because both laws determine coverage based on employee counts over a 20-week period in the current or previous year, some employers may qualify for FMLA even if they currently have fewer than 50 employees—making them exempt from the state law under the new rule. 

Effective October 1, 2025, Maryland employers covered by the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) will no longer be subject to the state’s unpaid parental leave requirements. 

Senate Bill 785, sponsored by Senator Justin Ready, was passed by the Maryland General Assembly and signed into law by Governor Wes Moore on May 6, 2025. The bill amends Maryland’s Parental Leave Act (“PLA”) to reduce overlap with federal law and ease compliance burdens for certain employers. 

What Is the Maryland Parental Leave Act? 

The Maryland PLA requires employers with 15 to 49 employees in Maryland to provide eligible employees with up to six weeks of unpaid parental leave for the birth, adoption, or foster placement of a child. To qualify, employees must have worked for a covered employer for at least 12 months and logged 1,250 hours in the prior 12 months before leave. 

This law was designed to ensure that employees at smaller companies—those not covered by the federal FMLA—still had access to job-protected parental leave. A covered employer for purposes of the FMLA is one with 50 employees.  

What’s Changing? 

Senate Bill 785 changes the definition of “employer” under the PLA. Now, if an employer is already covered by the federal FMLA, they are excluded from the Maryland PLA—even if they have between 15 and 49 employees. 

This change prevents employers from being subject to both state and federal leave laws. It simplifies compliance for businesses that already meet federal requirements.  

Example: When This Applies 

Let’s say a Maryland company has 48 employees in twenty or more workweeks this calendar year. Normally, that would make that employer subject to the Maryland PLA. But if that company had 50 or more employees for at least 20 workweeks in the prior calendar year, it is considered covered by the FMLA for the current year—even if their headcount has since dropped. 

Under the new law, that company would no longer have to comply with Maryland’s PLA, because they are already covered by the FMLA. 

On May 14, 2025, the Missouri Senate passed a bill (HB 567) repealing the paid sick leave requirement along with a portion of the minimum wage increase included in Proposition A, which voters approved on November 5, 2024.  Passage required Missouri employers to allow employees to accrue, and use paid sick leave for qualifying reasons on and after May 1, 2025.  Likewise, Proposition A provided an increase to the Missouri minimum wage.  

While the legal challenges to Proposition A that were filed in the Missouri Supreme Court were not successful, on May 14, 2025, the Missouri Senate accepted and passed House Bill 567, which repealed the entire paid sick leave requirement in Proposition A.  The bill also repealed a portion of the minimum wage increase provision in Proposition A, which based future increases to minimum wage on the Consumer Price Index, beginning in 2027.  Minimum wage will still increase to $15 per hour in 2026, but there is no longer an increase set to take effect in 2027 and beyond.

The bill repealing the Missouri Paid Sick Leave provisions will now go to Governor Kehoe for signature, who has expressed support for the bill.  Because HB 567 does not contain an emergency clause, the repeal will not become effective until August 28, 2025.  In the interim, the paid sick leave provisions under Missouri law remain in force and effect.  This means employers must continue to provide paid sick leave benefits in accordance with Proposition A’s requirements through August 28, 2025. This is particularly important given the individual right to file a lawsuit seeking legal and injunctive relief and to recover actual damages, liquidated damages at two (2) times the amount of actual damages, and attorney fees and costs.

Jackson Lewis’ attorneys will continue to monitor the bill and any other challenges closely. If you have any questions regarding HB 567 or related issues, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you customarily work.

Takeaways

  • Only certain volunteer emergency service providers and members are subject to HB 128.
  • Employers may not terminate volunteer emergency service providers or members after their probationary period has ended for being absent or late to work due to performing emergency volunteer services.
  • Employees must provide written notice of their status as a volunteer emergency service provider or membership of a volunteer emergency service unit or organization.
  • Non-exempt employees are not owed regular pay for time missed from work for performing volunteer emergency services.

Related link

HB 128: An Act Protecting Volunteer Emergency Service Providers From Termination by a Public or Private Employer Under Certain Conditions; and Providing for a Legal Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination.

Article

On April 16, 2025, Montana Governor signed into effect HB 128: An Act Protecting Volunteer Emergency Service Providers From Termination by a Public or Private Employer Under Certain Conditions; and Providing for a Legal Cause of Action for Wrongful Termination. The purpose of this bill is to provide employment protection for certain volunteer service providers who are late or absent for work due to their volunteer positions. The bill also increases communication and transparency between these workers and their employers.

Under HB 128, a public or private employer is prohibited from terminating an employee whose probationary period has ended because the “employee elected to serve as a volunteer emergency services provider or joined a volunteer emergency unit or organization, including but not limited to a municipal, rural, or subscription fire department.” For purposes of this bill, “‘volunteer emergency services provider’ means a volunteer firefighter as defined in M.C.A. § 7-33-4510 or a volunteer emergency medical technician as defined in M.C.A. § 50-6-202, and who are not paid full-time by the entity for which services are performed in the local service area.”

Pursuant to HB 128, employees must provide notice to their employer if they serve as a volunteer services provider or join a volunteer emergency unit or organization. Employees serving before the effective date of the bill (April 16, 2025) are required to provide written notification of their service within 30 days of the effective date of the bill. After the effective of date of this bill, employees who become volunteer emergency service providers or join volunteer emergency units or organizations, must provide this written notice within 30 days of their change of status or within 30 days of hire. Once an employer receives written notice, they cannot terminate an employee for being absent or late to work due to performing volunteer emergency service duties if the employee’s probationary period has been completed. The bill incorporates a probationary period of twelve (12) months, commencing on the date that the employee begins work, unless an employer establishes an alternative probationary period.  M.C.A. § 39-2-910 (1). Employers may extend a probationary period prior to its expiration but the original probationary period with extensions cannot exceed 18 months. M.C.A. § 39-2-910(2).

There are several conditions that the employee and employer must follow under the bill:

  • An employee who will be absent or late to work due to performing volunteer emergency service duties must provide notice to their employer as soon as possible. If an employee’s “absence or delay would imperil public safety or prevent the [employer] from performing an essential function, the [employer] may require the employee to request and receive” prior authorization to respond to an emergency.
  • Non-exempt employees may not claim regular pay for the time absent due to performing volunteer emergency service duties. An employer may deduct regular pay for time not worked.
  • Employers determine whether an employer may leave work to respond to an emergency.

If you have any questions regarding the new Montana law, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work. As always, to stay up to date on state and local leave laws, employers can subscribe to LeaveSuite Via JL.

The Dole Act recently amended and expanded employment protections afforded veterans by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Read more about amendments to USERRA’s anti-retaliation provisions, potential remedies, and more here: Increased Workplace Protections for Veterans: Dole Act Amends USERRA – Jackson Lewis.

On April 15, 2025, the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota issued its decision granting partial summary judgment to the Catholic Benefits Association, on behalf of its members and the Bismarck Diocese (collectively the CBA).  The court found that the portions of the PWFA Final Regulations that require employers to reasonably accommodate limitations arising out of infertility, abortions, and in vitro fertilization violate the  CBA’s rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA).  The court also found that the EEOC’s Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace violates the CBA’s rights under the RFRA to the extent the EEOC Guidance forces the CBA to “speak or communicate in favor of abortion, fertility treatments, or gender transition when such is contrary to the Catholic faith; refrain from speaking or communicating against the same when such is contrary to the Catholic faith, use pronouns inconsistent with a person’s biological sex; or allow persons to use private spaces reserved for the opposite sex.” 

Because the court granted partial summary judgment and permanently enjoined the EEOC’s enforcement of the PWFA and Guidance On Harassment in the Workplace in this manner, the court declined to address the CBA’s other arguments including that the PWFA final regulations violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

What Does This Mean for Employers?

This ruling, and the court’s injunction, is limited to the CBA and its members. Moreover, the applicability of the court’s reasoning, other than the court’s discussion about whether the CBA had legal standing to bring the case, is limited to RFRA challenges to the PWFA regulations and EEOC Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace. While the EEOC could appeal the decision, it is entirely possible the agency will not do so since the EEOC has indicated its intent to revisit the breadth of the PWFA final regulations once the EEOC regains a quorum of commissioners and the Trump Administration has directed the EEOC to rescind the Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

More than half-a-dozen lawsuits have been filed by private employers and a number of states challenging the EEOC’s authority to enact portions of the PWFA Final Regulations. We are continuing to monitor these developments. Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about this decision or the other pending cases challenging the PWFA final regulations or the EEOC’s Guidance on Harassment in the Workplace.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) withdrew 11 documents providing guidance to businesses on compliance with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (Title III). The DOJ Guidance sets forth how the agency interprets certain issues addressed by Title III of the ADA.  Although the guidance has been withdrawn, the law remains the same. Title III requires that covered businesses must provide people with disabilities with an equal opportunity to access the goods or services that they offer.

The DOJ says the documents were withdrawn in order to “streamline” ADA compliance resources for businesses consistent with President Trump’s January 20, 2025 Executive Order “Delivering Emergency Price Relief for American Families and Defeating the Cost-of-Living Crisis” . According to the DOJ’s press release, “Today’s withdrawal of 11 pieces of unnecessary and outdated guidance will aid businesses in complying with the ADA by eliminating unnecessary review and focusing only on current ADA guidance. Avoiding confusion and reducing the time spent understanding compliance may allow businesses to deliver price relief to consumers.”  

The DOJ identified the following guidance for withdrawal:

  1. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a business stop me from bringing in my service animal because of the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  2. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the Department of Justice issue exemptions from mask requirements? (2021)
  3. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Are there resources available that help explain my rights as an employee with a disability during the COVID-19 pandemic? (2021)
  4. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Can a hospital or medical facility exclude all “visitors” even where, due to a patient’s disability, the patient needs help from a family member, companion, or aide in order to equally access care? (2021)
  5. COVID-19 and the Americans with Disabilities Act: Does the ADA apply to outdoor restaurants (sometimes called “streateries”) or other outdoor retail spaces that have popped up since COVID-19? (2021)
  6. Expanding Your Market: Maintaining Accessible Features in Retail Establishments (2009)
  7. Expanding Your Market: Gathering Input from Customers with Disabilities (2007)
  8. Expanding Your Market: Accessible Customer Service Practices for Hotel and Lodging Guests with Disabilities (2006)
  9. Reaching out to Customers with Disabilities (2005)
  10. Americans with Disabilities Act: Assistance at Self-Serve Gas Stations (1999)
  11. Five Steps to Make New Lodging Facilities Comply with the ADA (1999)

The DOJ is also “raising awareness about tax incentives for businesses related to their compliance with the ADA” by prominently featuring a link to a 2006 publication.

The withdrawn guidance was prepared before the most recent Title III regulations went into effect in 2011 or deals with COVID-19.  We do not expect the DOJ’s withdrawal of the guidance to have significant impact on business operations. However, Jackson Lewis attorneys, including Disability Access Litigation and Compliance group are closely monitoring the rapid developments from the federal agencies that impact our clients.

If you have questions about the withdrawn guidance, your obligations under Title III or the available tax incentives, please reach out to our Disability Access Litigation and Compliance group or any other Jackson Lewis lawyer.

On Nov. 5, 2024, Missouri voters approved Proposition A, which included a new statewide paid sick leave law and an increase to the minimum wage. The paid sick leave requirement is set to go into effect on May 1, 2025, while the $13.75 per hour minimum wage took effect on Jan. 1, 2025.

On March 13, 2025, the Missouri House of Representatives passed a bill (HB 567) that, if enacted, would repeal the paid sick leave requirement and delay the minimum wage increase. However, if passed by the Senate and signed by the governor in its current form, the bill would not become effective until Aug. 28, 2025, after the paid sick leave requirement is set to take effect on May 1, 2025. The bill has now been read twice in the Senate, and a public hearing is set for March 26, 2025.

On March 12, 2025, the Missouri Supreme Court heard oral argument on the constitutionality of Proposition A.

Opponents of the law, mostly business groups, argue that:

  • The fiscal note summary to the ballot initiative did not include the costs to state and private businesses or some local governments
  • The summary statement failed to notify voters of certain elements of the paid sick leave law
  • It included two different subject matters (paid sick leave and a minimum wage increase) in violation of the Missouri Constitution.

Proponents of the law dispute that Proposition A was misleading or violated Missouri’s Constitution. They argue that overturning the law would be denying the will of the Missouri voters who voted to approve Proposition A.

The Court’s questions focused on whether it has original jurisdiction to rule on the legal challenges or whether the trial courts were the proper venue to hear the matter. A decision should be forthcoming.

Barring extraordinary relief by the Missouri legislature or the Missouri Supreme Court, employers are required to provide written notice to their employees about the paid sick time by April 15. Employers should proceed as if the paid sick leave law will take effect on May 1, 2025, and they are able to provide the required notices by April 15. In the meantime, Jackson Lewis’ attorneys will continue to monitor both legal challenges closely.

Washington expanded the covered uses and definition of a family member under Washington’s paid sick leave law effective January 1, 2025.

Under Washington’s paid sick leave law employers must provide non-exempt employees with at least one hour of paid sick leave for every 40 hours the employee works. Leave accrual is not capped, which means there is no limit on the amount of paid sick leave hours an employee can accrue in one year. Employers are required to allow employees to carry over 40 unused hours each year.

Employees may use accrued paid sick leave for certain legally protected reasons, including: (1) the employee’s personal medical care; (2) to care for a family member with a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition; (3) to care for a child when their school or place of care is closed by a public official for a health-related reason; (4) closure of the employee’s place of business for a health-related reason; or (5) for reasons under Washington’s Domestic Violence Leave Act.

The definition of who is considered an employee’s family member or child for purposes of using paid sick leave has been expanded as follows:

  • The definition of “family member” is revised to include any individual who regularly resides in the employee’s home and “who has a relationship with them that creates an expectation that they would take care of them during an illness.” Family member does not include an individual who resides in the same home with no expectation that the employee will care for the individual.  
  • “Child” now also includes the spouse of the employee’s child.
  • “Grandchild” and “grandparent” will be defined to mean the employee’s grandchild or grandparent.

 Employers are reminded to review their policies for compliance with these latest legislative updates. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have any questions about these developments.

Over a year after Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time (ESST) law went into effect in January 2024, Minnesota’s Department of Labor and Industry (DLI) recently published proposed permanent rules (the Proposed Rules) that, if adopted, will regulate the ESST law. Although the rules are not yet final, they offer insights for employers on DLI’s interpretation of the ESST law.

Certain Employees Accrue ESST When Working Outside of Minnesota

As a reminder, under the Minnesota ESST law, employees accrue one hour of ESST for every 30 hours worked, up to 48 hours annually. The Proposed Rules explain that an employee’s hours worked outside of Minnesota count towards accrual as long as the employer anticipates the employee will work more than 50% of their hours for the employer inside of Minnesota per accrual year. If the employer anticipates that the employee will work 50% or less of their hours in Minnesota during the accrual year, then only the employee’s hours worked in Minnesota will count toward accrual of ESST. If the employee begins the accrual year without the expectation of working in Minnesota for more than 50% of their work time, but the expectation of working in Minnesota increases during the year to more than 50% of worked time, then the employer must allow the employee to accrue hours beginning on the date of the change in circumstances. Under the Proposed Rules, an employee who is teleworking is considered​ to be working in the state from which they telework.

Guidance on Calculating ESST Deductions for Indeterminate Shifts

When an employee takes ESST for a shift scheduled for an indeterminate time, the ESST law does not expressly state how an employer should calculate the hours to deduct from an employee’s ESST bank. The Proposed Rules clarify that an employer can only deduct from an employee’s “accrued” ESST the hours worked by the employee who picked up the ESST-taking employee’s shift. If there is not a replacement worker for that shift, but there are similarly situated employees, then the employer can deduct: either the average hours worked by the similarly situated employees who worked the same shift or the greatest hours worked by a similarly situated employee who worked the same shift. If there is no replacement worker or any similarly situated employees, then the employer may use the hours worked by the ESST-taking employee in their most recent similar shift of an indeterminate length.

Employers Can Demand Documentation from Employees Suspected of ESST Misuse

The Proposed Rules provide guidance on an employer’s ability to address a suspected “pattern of misuse” of ESST. The Proposed Rules define a pattern of misuse for claimed unforeseeable use of ESST as an employee routinely taking ESST (1) before a weekend, vacation, or holiday; or (2) before the start of a scheduled shift for under 30 minutes. The Proposed Rules do not indicate what number of such suspected misuses qualify as “routine.” When an employer observes a pattern of misuse, the Proposed Rules allow the employer to demand reasonable documentation from the employee suspected of ESST misuse. The reasonable documentation is limited to the definition in the ESST statute.

The ESST Law Covers Other Paid Time Off Used for Qualified ESST Purposes

If a covered employer provides paid time off beyond the hours required by the ESST law to an employee for absences from work due to personal illness or injury, then under the Proposed Rules, the excess paid time off is also subject to certain requirements imposed by the ESST law when the employee uses the time off for a reason covered by the ESST law. Such requirements include but are not limited to those related to the ESST requirements on notice, documentation, and anti-retaliation.

Next Steps

The DLI has opened a second comment period on these Proposed Rules. Comments are due by April 2, 2025. We will continue to monitor these developments. In the meantime, if you have questions about Minnesota’s state-wide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws in Minnesota, or the mandatory employee leave laws around the country, please reach out to Jackson Lewis.