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.

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.