The Maryland Department of Labor is proposing delaying implementation of the Family and Medical Leave Insurance (FAMLI) program. Under the new recommended plan, payroll deductions would begin January 1, 2027 and benefits would become available on January 1, 2028. This proposed change will need to be approved by the General Assembly. In light of the anticipated delay, MDOL will halt any previously announced regulatory timelines for FAMLI. Read more about the potential delays here: Delays Ahead: Maryland DOL Proposes Pushing Back FAMLI Program Implementation by 18 Months.

Employers with employees in Michigan need to be aware of immediate changes to the state’s Earned Sick Time Act (ESTA). Under the amended ESTA, paid earned sick time begins to accrue as of Feb. 21, 2025.Our article, Last-Minute Changes to Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Law: What Employers Need to Know, highlights key aspects of the amended law now in effect that employers need to know to stay up to date.  

Minnesota is one of a dozen states that have enacted a statewide program providing compensation to employees during family and medical leaves. Minnesota’s law provides job protection and payment of benefits through a state-run insurance program to qualifying employees to take up to 12 weeks of leave for family and/or medical reasons (or a combined total of up to 20 weeks of leave if the employee qualifies for both types of leave in one benefit year) (“the Paid Leave Law”). The insurance program will be funded through employer and employee contributions beginning on January 1, 2026. Employees can also begin applying for compensation beginning on January 1, 2026.

Recently, the Division outlined how employers can use self-insured plans or plans from an insurance carrier to comply with the Paid Leave Law. The Division refers to insurance plans providing coverage for Minnesota’s Paid Leave law as “Equivalent Plans.”

Equivalent Plans must allow for the same, or more comprehensive, coverage than is expressly required by the Paid Leave Law. The Division details the conditions that an Equivalent Plan must meet to comply with the Paid Leave Law. As explained by the Division, employers can choose to use an Equivalent Plan to cover one leave category (family or medical) and can participate in Minnesota’s Paid Leave program to cover the other leave category (family or medical). The Minnesota Department of Commerce will begin accepting applications from employers to use Equivalent Plans “in the spring of 2025” according to the Division. The Minnesota Department of Commerce recently published a checklist  for employers to submit along with their Equivalent Plan application.

The Division is set to provide more information about Equivalent Plans soon. According to the Division, the information is likely to include a cost estimation calculator for employers and employees, and more details about the application process employers must follow to secure an approved Equivalent Plan.

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Division published final proposed rules in December, that, if adopted, will regulate the state’s Paid leave Law. We are monitoring these developments and will continue to provide updates as we approach the January 2026 rollout.

If you have questions about Minnesota’s statewide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws, or mandatory employee leave laws throughout the country, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney.

Employers face a complicated patchwork of state, local and federal laws governing time off for family and medical reasons. The intersection of these often-overlapping laws creates numerous issues including how to handle time off that qualifies under both state paid family medical leave (PFML) laws and the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). On January 14, 2025, the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) of the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an opinion letter stating that employers cannot require employees to use their employer-provided paid time off such as vacation time while the employee is taking leave under the FMLA and receiving pay under a state  or local PFML program. The WHD explained that the DOL’s FMLA regulations on substitution of paid leave apply to leave taken under a PFML program in the same way they apply when an employee is on FMLA leave and receiving benefits under a paid disability plan.

Background

Thirteen states and the District of Columbia have adopted mandatory PFML programs, and more states are considering similar legislation. Each state program is unique, but generally PFML programs provide income replacement for a certain number of weeks from a state fund for employees who are absent from work for specified family reasons, such as the birth of a child, and/or medical reasons, such as the employee’s own serious health condition. State and local PFML laws vary widely in their payment and eligibility structures but often employees who are eligible for leave and benefits under a state program are also eligible for unpaid leave under the FMLA.

Substitution of Paid Leave

When an employee takes job-protected leave under the FMLA, the regulations state that an employee may elect, or an employer may require an employee, to “substitute” accrued employer-provided paid leave (i.e., paid vacation, paid sick leave) for any part of the unpaid FMLA entitlement period.  However, if an employee taking FMLA receives payments under a disability plan or worker’s compensation program, the employer cannot unilaterally require the employee to use accrued employer-provided paid time off.

DOL’s Guidance

Against this backdrop, the DOL opined that while state and local PFML programs are not directly addressed in the FMLA regulations, the same principles apply to such programs as those that apply to employees that receive payments on FMLA from workers’ compensation insurance programs or disability plans.  These principles include:

  1. Where an employee takes leave under a state or local PFML program, if the leave is covered by the FMLA, it must be designated as FMLA leave and the employee must be given notice of the designation, including the amount of leave to be counted against the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement.
  2. Where an employee, during leave covered by the FMLA, receives compensation from a state or local PFML program, the FMLA substitution provision does not apply to the portion of leave that is compensated.  This means that an employee or employer cannot unilaterally require the concurrent use of employer-provided paid leave for leave that is already compensated by the PFML program.
  3. Where an employee is receiving compensation through the state or local PFML program that does not fully compensate the employee for their FMLA covered leave, the employer and employee may agree, if state law permits, to use the employee’s accrued employer-provided paid leave to supplement the payments under the state or local leave program, but the employer cannot require it.
  4. If an employee is eligible for a state or local PFML program under circumstances that do not qualify as FMLA leave, the employer cannot apply the leave against the employee’s FMLA entitlement. 
  5. If an employee’s leave under a state or local PFML program ends before the employee has exhausted the full FMLA entitlement, the employee is still entitled to the protections of the FMLA and the employee could elect, or the employer could require the employee, to substitute the employer-provided paid leave consistent with the FMLA rules and regulations.    

The DOL provides a useful example to illustrate these principles:

  • Yvette takes eight weeks of continuous FMLA leave to care for her mother following her mother’s inpatient surgery. Yvette’s employer notifies her that the eight weeks are designated as FMLA leave. Caring for a parent with a serious health condition is also a qualifying reason under her state’s family leave program, and she applies for and receives benefits that replace two-thirds of her normal income each week that she is on leave, for up to six weeks.
  • During the six weeks that Yvette is receiving paid leave benefits under the state program, under the FMLA, her employer cannot require, and she cannot unilaterally elect, to substitute her accrued vacation under her employer’s leave plan and thereby receive full pay from her employer in addition to the state-paid benefit. However, if Yvette’s state permits an employee to use accrued paid leave concurrently with the state’s paid leave, the FMLA permits Yvette and her employer to agree that Yvette will use one-third of a week of her vacation time each week to supplement the portion of her full pay that is not provided by the state’s paid leave benefit.
  • During the final two weeks of Yvette’s FMLA leave, she will have exhausted her state program’s paid leave. At that point, her leave becomes unpaid leave, and the FMLA substitution provision applies. Yvette elects to use her employer-provided accrued paid vacation time to receive pay during the final two weeks of her FMLA leave.

For additional guidance navigating state or local PFML programs or the FMLA, please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney.

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Jan. 13, 2025, in Stanley v. City of Sanford (No. 23-997), which addresses whether former employees have a right to sue their former employer under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for discrimination relating to receipt of post-employment fringe benefits.

Factual Background

Karyn Stanley is a former firefighter for the City of Sanford, Florida. In 2016, Stanley was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. Two years later, in 2018, she retired from the fire department as a result of her condition. During her employment with the City, the City’s benefit policy provided a health insurance subsidy to employees until the age of 65 who had retired after 25 years of service or because of a disability. In 2003, the City’s policy was amended to provide this subsidy until the age of 65 only to employees who retire after 25 years of service. The policy was further changed to provide the subsidy to those who retire as a result of disability for a period of only 24 months or until they became eligible for Medicare. As a result, Stanley ceased to receive this subsidy beginning in 2020.

In April 2020, Stanley filed suit against the City alleging the City discriminated against disabled retirees in its administration of these retirement benefits in violation of the ADA. It is the City’s position that former employees, including Ms. Stanley, lack standing to bring discrimination claims under, among others, the ADA for post-retirement fringe benefits.

Procedural History

The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida dismissed Stanley’s complaint, holding that the alleged discrimination relating to cessation of the health insurance subsidy payments occurred after Stanley was employed by the City, thus Stanley was not a “qualified individual” covered by the ADA. The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court’s decision, finding Stanley was not a “qualified individual” under the ADA as she was not employed by the City when her benefits were terminated, nor did she desire such employment.

Arguments

Before the Court, Stanley’s counsel and the Solicitor General’s office argued the alleged discriminatory actions related to benefits that Stanley earned while employed as a “qualified individual” under the ADA, thus the protections of the ADA extend beyond a period of active employment, including as it relates to post-retirement fringe benefits.

On the other hand, the City’s counsel argued that Stanley could not establish the City discriminated against her as the ADA protections extend only to current employees or applicants, and thus Stanley lacked standing to pursue her ADA claim. Counsel further argued that extending these protections to “unqualified individuals” would impose an undue burden on employers and an influx of litigation relating to post-employment benefits.

Court’s Inquiries

During the argument, the justices peppered both sides with various questions concerning the scope of ADA protections, including whether “former employees” are not afforded such protections in any context. Additionally, Justice Samuel Alito questioned Stanley’s counsel on the complex issues that would be presented to courts in analyzing whether the distinction between an individual who works for 25 years and somebody who works a shorter period of time and retired based on a disability is unlawful. Finally, the justices raised questions concerning the possible impact a decision in Stanley’s favor could have with respect to administration of benefits.

Potential Impact

The decision in this matter, expected this summer, could have significant and wide-ranging consequences for  employers around the country. The decision will likely provide guidance to employers as to the limits on ADA protections, especially as it relates to the administration of post-employment fringe benefits.

Contact a Jackson Lewis attorney if you have questions about Stanley v. City of Sanford or the current scope of the protections provided by the ADA.

As more employers incorporate wearable technology in the workplace, including those enhanced by artificial intelligence, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s new fact sheet “Wearables in the Workplace: The Use of Wearables and Other Monitoring Technology Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws,” offers important considerations for employers.  The EEOC explains how employers can navigate the complexities of using wearable technologies while ensuring compliance, primarily, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and to a lesser extent, Title VII and GINA.

What Are Wearable Technologies?

Wearable technologies, or “wearables,” are electronic devices that are designed to be worn on the body. These devices are often embedded with sensors that can track bodily movements, collect biometric information, monitor environmental conditions and/or track GPS location. Common examples of wearables include:

  • Smartwatches
  • Fitness Trackers
  • Wearable Cameras
  • Continuous Glucose Monitors
  • Smart Rings
  • Environmental or Proximity Sensors
  • GPS Devices
  • Other aids

Other examples of wearables that are beginning to be used in the workplace include smart glasses and smart helmets that can measure electrical activity of the brain referred to as electroencephalogram or “EEG” testing or detect emotions.  Exoskeletons are also being used to provide physical support and reduce fatigue.

Wearables in the workplace may implicate federal and state employment, data privacy, AI, and potentially other laws when employers require employees to wear them or if the information collected from the employee’s wearable is reported to the employer.

Key Considerations From the EEOC Guidance

The EEOC’s new guidance outlines several important considerations for employers using wearable technologies with employees:

  1. Medical Examinations and Disability-Related Inquiries: Employers using wearables to collect information about an employee’s physical or mental conditions, such as blood pressure monitors or eye trackers, may be conducting “medical examinations” under the ADA. Similarly, directing employees to provide health information in connection with using wearables may constitute disability-related inquiries. Under the ADA, medical examinations and disability-related inquiries are strictly limited to situations where they are job-related and consistent with business necessity such as in connection with a request for reasonable accommodation, in connection with a concern about whether an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions is impaired by a medical condition, or when there is a concern the employee may pose a direct threat of serious harm to their own or others’ health or safety due to a medical condition. In addition, medical examinations and inquiries are also permitted when required under a federal law or safety regulation (i.e. DOT or OSHA requirements), when conducted as part of a periodic examination of employees working in certain positions affecting public safety that are narrowly tailored to address specific job-related concerns (i.e. police officers, firefighters), or when made as part of voluntary wellness programs. A disability-related inquiry is a question(s) that is likely to elicit information about a disability. There are a variety of factors considered in determining whether a test or procedure is a medical examination, but generally speaking, a medical exam is defined by the EEOC as a procedure or test that seeks information about an individual’s physical or mental impairments or health.
  2. Confidentiality: Any medical or disability-related data collected from wearable devices must be kept confidential and stored separately from the employee’s personnel file. This information should only be shared with individuals who need to know it for legitimate business reasons consistent with the requirements of the ADA and PWFA.
  3. Non-Discrimination: Employers must ensure that the use of wearable-generated information does not lead to discrimination based on a protected characteristic such as race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. For example, the EEOC explains that using heart rate data to infer pregnancy and then making adverse employment decisions based on that information could violate EEO laws.
  4. Reasonable Accommodation: Employers may need to make exceptions to a wearables policy as a reasonable accommodation under Title VII (religious belief, practice, or observance), the ADA (disability), or the PWFA (pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions). For example, this could include providing an alternative for employees needing accommodation due to pregnancy, disability or a conflicting religious belief.
  5. Accuracy and Validity of Data: Employers should consider the accuracy and validity of the data collected by wearables, especially across different protected bases. Inaccurate data that disproportionately affects certain groups could lead to discriminatory practices. For example, the EEOC explains that relying on wearable technology that produces less accurate results for individuals with dark skin could lead to adverse employment decisions against those workers.

This overview highlights the key points from the EEOC’s new guidance. Employers should review the full guidance to ensure compliance and consult with legal counsel if they have specific questions or concerns. In addition to compliance with discrimination laws, the adoption of wearables and other emerging technologies in the workplace to manage human capital raises a number of additional legal compliance challenges including privacy, occupational safety and health, labor, benefits and wage-hour compliance to name a few. Jackson Lewis’ multi-disciplinary team of lawyers is prepared to assist.   

Compliance with California’s paid sick leave law grew increasingly complex this year with new legislative developments. The Labor Commission updated its Frequently Asked Questions Page for California Paid Sick Leave to address these changes. Our article, New FAQs on California Paid Sick Leave Unveiled | California Workplace Law Blog, identifies highlights from the FAQs that employers should be aware of as they enter the new year.

Cook County employers aren’t wrong if they’re feeling its “déjà vu all over again” when it comes to needing to review their paid leave policies. Recently approved amendments to the Final Interpretive and Procedural Rules governing the Cook County Paid Leave Ordinance add new requirements to most employers with employees working in Cook County (outside of Chicago) and are effective immediately. Notable changes to the rules include:

  1. Paid leave accrues during paid leave
  2. Employers must maintain and distribute a written paid leave policy
  3. Remote workers must receive notice of rights
  4. Paid leave calculations are clarified for employees with work for various rates
  5. FMLA regulations supersede ordinance rules

Our article, Illinois’ Cook County Amends Paid Leave Rules: It’s Time for Employer Policy Review, provides more detail to help employers comply with the amended rules.

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Division recently published final proposed rules (“Proposed Rules”) that, if adopted, will regulate the state’s Paid Leave Law. The Paid Leave Law establishes a benefit insurance program for paid family and medical leave for covered Minnesota employees and takes effect on January 1, 2026. The Proposed Rules reflect input from businesses, healthcare providers, and Minnesota workers. The public can submit comments on the final proposed rules until January 3, 2025. In tandem with the publication of the Proposed Rules the Paid Leave Division updated its website with important next steps for employers to follow, along with answers to the most frequent questions asked regarding Paid Leave.

Final Proposed Rules Fill Gaps in Minnesota’s Paid Leave Statute

Insight on interpretation. The Proposed Rules provide critical guidance on how the Paid Leave Division—the agency authorized to administer the Paid Leave Law—will interpret the statute. For example, the Proposed Rules explain how the Paid Leave Division will determine whether an employee is considered a “seasonal employee” and therefore not covered by the Paid Leave program. (Rule 3317.3000). The Proposed Rules emphasize that self-employed individuals and independent contractors must establish an online account through the Paid Leave Division (Rule 3317.4000, subpart 1). The Proposed Rules also outline how to calculate benefits for a covered individual taking intermittent leave (3317.4700).

Additional requirements. The Proposed Rules impose additional requirements on individuals and key stakeholders to receive benefits. For example, a covered individual must report to the commissioner any additional income received during leave covered by the Paid Leave Law (Rule 3317.4600, subpart 2). The Proposed Rules also create a roadmap for how a covered individual must (1) request an extension of their covered leave; (2) request a change to their intermittent leave schedule; (3) request to switch from intermittent to continuous leave; and (4) request to switch from continuous to intermittent leave (3317.4600, subpart 4-7).

The Proposed Rules impose certain qualifications that a professional must meet in order to certify an employee’s need for leave under the Paid Leave Law for safety reasons (“Safety Leave”). (3317.8000). The Proposed Rules require the professional who certified an applicant’s need for Safety Leave to maintain documentation verifying their credentials for certification and must be able to provide such documentation to the commissioner upon request. 

If an employee requests covered leave under the Paid Leave Law to care for a family member with a serious health condition, the Proposed Rules specify the information that employees must provide. (Rule 3317.6000) Notably, the Proposed Rules provide that when more than one applicant seeks leave to provide care for the same family member with a serious health condition, all applicants’ certifications must be completed by the same health care provider.

Private plans. With respect to employers opting to use a private plan administrator, the Paid Leave Division has not issued guidance on how it will process applications for private plans and has stated it is working with the Minnesota Department of Commerce to determine an approval process. The Proposed Rules explain that beginning in 2027, self-insured employers and private plan insurers must submit annual reports to the commissioner containing specific information outlined in the Rules, including total eligible claims, the percentage of and reasons for claims denied in the fiscal year, processing times for initial claims processing and final decisions, and the average weekly benefit amount paid for all claims by benefit category. (Rule 3317.5000). Employers will remain liable for premiums until a self-insured or private plan is approved and effective. (Rule 3317.5000, subpart 5). The Proposed Rules require employers opting for private plans to give employees notice of coverage under the private plan that meets requirements set out in the Rules. (Rule 3317.5100).

The Paid Leave Division Updates Frequently Asked Questions Guide to Complying with the Law

The Paid Leave Division updated its FAQ Guide for employers. The updated FAQ Guide explains that covered employers must report all wages paid to employees through online wage detail reports due to Minnesota’s Unemployment Insurance (“UI”) or Paid Leave Division each quarter. Because the Paid Leave Division will use the existing UI system to collect the quarterly wage detail reports, employers whose employees are covered by UI will not need to take any new action. Employers with employees who are not covered by the UI program will need to set up a Paid Leave Only account.  The FAQ Guide explains that the Paid Leave law is distinct from the UI program, and some employers who are not required to participate in the UI program, like religious organizations, non-profits, and agricultural employers, are likely required to participate in the Paid Leave program.

The updated FAQ Guide specifies that wages include all compensation including commissions, bonuses, benefits payments, tips and gratuities, and goods and services. If a corporation is an S corporation for tax purposes, then the corporate’s “wage-taking shareholders are considered employees” so the shareholders’ wages must be reported on the wage detail reports. The updated FAQ Guide states that the first premium payments will be due to the State of Minnesota’s Department of Employment and Economic Development by April 30, 2026. The premium rate will be set on an annual basis and will not change based on the level of employees’ utilization of the program. Premiums will be capped at the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) limit, which reflects the wage base used by Social Security.

If you have questions about Minnesota’s statewide mandatory leave laws, local leave laws, or mandatory employee leave laws throughout the country, please reach out to a Jackson Lewis attorney.

On December 4, 2024, the Maine Department of Labor (DOL) adopted finalized rules for the Maine Paid Family and Medical Leave Program (PFML). This rulemaking follows the Maine Legislature’s passage of the new law in 2023. Employer contributions and employee pay deductions to fund these benefits begin on Jan. 1, 2025.  Employees can begin receiving paid leave benefits effective May 1, 2026.

The finalized rules offer comprehensive details on the implementation and enforcement of Maine’s PFML program by the Department of Labor. While these rules carry few surprises and are largely consistent with the revised proposed rules discussed in previous blogs, there are several key differences highlighted below that employers should note:

Good Cause Definition: A “good cause” standard is now included within the definitions section of the rule. This will clarify circumstances which allow employees with “good cause” additional time to apply for benefits or request an appeal of a determination. The finalized rules define “good cause” as any serious health condition or any physical, intellectual, or linguistic limitation that prevents filing.

Waiting Period Adjustment: The final rules added a seven-day waiting period. Employees will receive benefits following the first seven calendar days of leave.

Notice and Undue Hardship: Employers can still determine undue hardship even if an employee provides reasonable notice of 30 days. An employer’s determination of undue hardship will not be considered reasonable unless the following are established: (1) the employer provided a written explanation of the undue hardship to the employee; (2) the employee retains the ability to take leave within a reasonable time frame relative to the proposed schedule; and (3) the employer has made a good faith attempt to work out a schedule for such leave that meets the employee’s needs without unduly disrupting the employer’s operations, subject to the approval of the employee’s health care provider.

Benefit Calculation Update: The calculation of the average weekly wage is now determined by dividing the applicant’s reported wages in their base period by fifty-two.

Private Plan Substitution: Employers can substitute a similar private plan for the state plan starting April 1, 2025.

With payroll contributions beginning on January 1, 2025, it is crucial for employers to fully understand their new responsibilities under the law. These final regulations represent a significant step in providing employers clarity as to their compliance obligations. Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions.

Maine’s PFML program and other state and local leave laws are included in our leave law map database that provides subscribers with a detailed explanation of state and local leave laws around the country. The Leave and Accommodation Suite is developed and updated continually by our Disability, Leave & Health Management attorneys. Register here if you would like to learn about our Leave & Accommodation Suite.