June 26, 2020

The Week in FFCRA Complaints

This is the second installment in our roundup of FFCRA complaints. As we noted in the first post, we will be keeping you up to date with all the cases and highlighting the ones that we think have special bearing on our practice, employment law in New York State, or are just particularly noteworthy. 

  • Wells v. Haynes Ambulance of Alabama, Inc. (M.D.A.L.) 6/15/20
  • Plaintiff, a flight paramedic with two minor children, sued his employer, an ambulance company, under FFCRA/EFMLEA (expanded FMLA) for not notifying him of his rights under the EFMLEA, failing to tell him that his EFMLEA request was denied and why, and retaliating against him by terminating him. The Plaintiff inquired about taking leave when Alabama announced school closures due to Covid-19 because he had no other childcare options for his two minor children. The complaint alleges that the Plaintiff was told he was terminated because of his inquiry about the mere possibility of taking leave “ruffled feathers at the top” of the company.
  • Brown v. Irvington Township (U.S. District Court of N.J.) 6/19/20
  • Plaintiff, a clerk-typist in the Tax Department, sued his employer, Irvington Township, under FFCRA and EPSLA for denying his request to take paid leave under EPSLA after he received a note from his doctor certifying that he was being treated for Covid-19 and should be excused from work. Irvington Township informed Brown that he was not eligible because the township has over 500 employees; however, FFCRA applies to public employers regardless of number of employees. Instead of approving his leave, the township began making unexplained and improper deductions from his pay.
  • Donohew v. America’s Insurance Associations, Inc. (M.D.F.L.) 6/23/20
  • Plaintiff sued her employer under FFCRA and EPSLA for denying her the paid leave created by these laws, and instead putting her on unpaid leave and suspending her when Plaintiff’s daughter’s school closed due to Covid-19. The company went so far as to suggest that Donohew drop her daughter off at the local YMCA for $95 per week, all while allowing other employees to work from home.

The other two cases this week were Bowden v. Brinly-Hardy Company, Inc. (W.D.K.Y.) 6/18/20 Lewis v. Discount Parking Fll, LLC (S.D.F.L.) 6/12/20. We have several additional cases on our radar and will provide updated information about them next week.

white line

What Employees Should Know About Their Rights to Protest, in Person or on Social Media

June 29, 2020
No items found.
Employees may find themselves retaliated against because of their protesting outside of the workplace, in person or online. But, as the protests continue, and the depth of feeling about their purpose grows, there will be increasing interest in using all available legal tools to allow employees to express their political views off-site while remaining employed.

Returning to Work After Protesting: Employee Rights and Employer Responsibilities

June 29, 2020
No items found.
Some employers may be concerned about the risk posed by the return of employees who have participated in protests to newly reopened workplaces. Similarly, employees may want to know whether their increased risk of exposure could affect their job security, and what their rights are in this situation.

Berke-Weiss Law Weekly Roundup

June 26, 2020
No items found.
This week we’re looking at how women’s job losses are bad for the hops of a wider economic recovery, New York’s plans for phase three of reopening, and the trend to home birth trends, which we will also be discussing at greater length in a multi-post blog about coronavirus’s effects on pregnancy, abortion, and childbirth, specifically for low-income black women and women of color.

Get In Touch

Knowing where to turn in legal matters can make a big difference. Contact our employment lawyers to determine if we can help you.