|
APPLIES TO
|
EFFECTIVE
September 30, 2025 |
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
|
Quick Look
- In specific circumstances, the employer should include “emergency pay” earned for hours worked within the regular rate for purposes of overtime premium calculations.
- When one employer employs a worker for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same worker for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario may be, under appropriate circumstances, “horizontal” joint employment.
- Front-of-house oyster shuckers may be considered employees that customarily and regularly receive tips and can be included in the tip pool.
- An employer seeking to calculate the hourly equivalent of FMLA leave available to an employee should do so based on the employee’s actual, normally scheduled workweek.
|
Discussion
On September 30, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued several opinion letters clarifying several issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The issuance of the opinion letters was the result of the Deputy Secretary of Labor’s announcement in June to provide meaningful compliance assistance in understanding how federal labor laws apply in specific situations. The opinion letters addressed tip pooling, emergency pay, the interplay between the FLSA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and joint and several liability for overtime for commonly controlled entities.
Emergency Pay
FLSA2025-04 addressed whether “emergency pay” provided to firefighters and other employees of a city must be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime premiums and how to calculate the regular rate when such pay is included. This opinion letter specifically addresses a firefighter/paramedic receiving a premium payment of one half the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay (the base or usual hourly rate) for every hour worked during an emergency period. This is defined as a period where, due to a disaster or emergency declaration, only some designated emergency employees must work. While the job duties remain the same, other factors, like extreme weather, make the duties more likely to cause physical hardship.
The WHD found, under these specific facts, the employer at issue should include “emergency pay” earned for hours worked within the regular rate for purposes of overtime premium calculations. The FLSA requires payment “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [the employee] is employed” to all non-exempt employees for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The “regular rate” must include “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” and must reflect all payments earned during the workweek, exclusive of overtime payments.
The FLSA provides for eight exclusions from the regular rate of pay. The situation at hand did not fit either of the two exclusions which most likely may have applied: discretionary bonuses and regular premium pay. This particular payment was not paid pursuant to a policy that left no discretion as to whether they are owed to the employee. Also, it is not an excludable premium because: (1) it is not contingent upon the employee working in excess of any particular amount of hours; (2) it is not contingent upon the work being performed “on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek”; and (3) it is not contingent upon the work being performed outside “the basic, normal, or regular workday … [or] workweek” of the employee. Therefore, the emergency pay should be included in the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime premiums for any non-exempt employees.
The calculation method to follow is as described below.
| Straight-time earnings with emergency pay |
(Total hours worked in a workweek x Base hourly rate) + (Hours of emergency pay x Base hourly rate x Emergency pay rate as percentage of base hourly rate) = Total
|
| Regular rate |
$ Straight-time earnings with emergency pay = Total
Total hours worked in a workweek
|
| Premium rate |
Regular rate x Emergency pay rate as percentage of base hourly rate = Total
|
| Overtime Premium |
Premium rate x Overtime hours = Total
|
| Total Compensation |
Straight-time earnings with emergency pay + Overtime premium = Total |
Using the WHD’s provided example of an employee earning a base wage of $20 per hour for a total of 50 hours in a workweek, during which 20 hours are emergency pay hours paid at a rate of one half the base hourly rate:
| Straight-time earnings with emergency pay |
(50 hours x $20) + (20 hours x $20 x 0.5) = $1,200
|
| Regular rate |
$1,200 =$24
50 hours
|
| Premium rate |
$24 x 0.5 = $12
|
| Overtime Premium |
$12 x 10 overtime hours = $120
|
| Total Compensation |
$1,200 + $120 = $1,320
|
Joint Liability for Overtime
FLSA2025-05 addresses whether two entities that are physically connected, and whose ownership, management, and operations appear common, are jointly and severally liable for all aspects of compliance under the FLSA. This opinion letter addresses an employee who works at a restaurant and a members-only club which operate on separate floors of a hotel but whose ownership, management, operations, and other factors appear to be common. The employee’s rate of pay is the same for both employers. The establishments share a kitchen, offer substantially the same food and beverages, and operate under similar trade names. The employee performs work in the same workweek for both establishments as do other employees. The employee is also “clocked in” at one establishment while assigned to another. Managers in one establishment participate in disciplinary matters for the other establishment. Picking up additional hours at one establishment while working primarily at another puts the employee beyond 40 hours worked in the workweek. However, the employee was told they would not be eligible for overtime since the establishments were two different companies.
Under the FLSA, separately incorporated entities may be considered a single employer with respect to an employee, or employees, for purposes of compliance with the FLSA. Alternatively, even if two or more entities are considered separate employers, they can nonetheless be “joint employers” for purposes of liability for wages and overtime. When one employer employs a worker for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same worker for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario may be, under appropriate circumstances, “horizontal” joint employment. This can occur where employers interchange or share employees.
Here, the WHD found evidence that there was horizontal joint employment: (1) they shared a kitchen and had similar food and beverage menus; (2) managers periodically supervise and manage both facilities; (3) the facilities have the same owners; (4) the employees can clock in at one establishment and be directed to work at the other; and (5) there are identical rates of pay. Employers with similar structures should be aware that corporate formalities are not enough to overcome the operational realities.
Tip Pooling and Front-of-House Employees
FLSA2025-03 addresses whether a restaurant employer may include “front-of-house” oyster shuckers in a traditional tip pool with servers for whom the employer takes a tip credit. This opinion letter addresses a seafood restaurant employer that requires servers to contribute to a tip pool that includes other employees that do not receive tips directly from customers. This includes front-of-house oyster shuckers at the oyster bar in the dining room. These oyster shuckers are also included in the tip pool. The back-of-house oyster shuckers work in the restaurant’s kitchen and are not a part of the tip pool. The employer also takes a tip credit towards its federal minimum wage obligation for the servers.
Employers are generally required to pay employees no less than the federal minimum wage. However, the FLSA permits an employer to satisfy a portion of its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees by taking a tip credit equal to the difference between the required direct wage (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the federal minimum wage. Only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips are considered when taking a tip credit. An employer taking a tip credit can require employees to participate in a tip pool only if the tip pool is limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. Examples of included employees are waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, and service bartenders. Examples of excluded employees are janitors, dishwashers, chefs, and laundry room attendants. The WHD has found, however, that counter person(s) who interact with and serve customers may participate in tip pools, like itamae-sushi chefs, teppanyaki chefs, sommeliers, and hibachi waiter-chefs.
The common thread in WHD’s guidance is that to be an individual who customarily and regularly receives tips, an employee must engage in service-related functions and have sufficient interaction with the customers who leave tips, a portion of which are subsequently contributed to a tip pool. In the case of the front-of-house oyster shuckers, they may be considered employees that customarily and regularly receive tips and can be included in the tip pool. Similar to sommeliers, they directly service the customers by sharing and detailing oyster offerings, make suggestions to customers regarding the oyster offerings, and field questions about the different options. They also prepare the oysters in plain view of the customers like an itamae-sushi or teppanyaki chef. The back-of-house oyster chefs do not meet these requirements and are properly excluded from the tip pool. This interpretation is consistent with prior WHD guidance defining occupations that “customarily and regularly” receive tips.
FLSA and FMLA
FLSA2025-02-A addresses how to calculate the number of hours of Family and Medical Leave Act leave available to correctional law enforcement employees who work a fixed “Pitman Schedule” requiring 12-hour shifts over a two-week cycle that includes mandatory overtime. In this opinion letter the WHD addressed the appropriate method for calculating intermittent or reduced schedule FMLA leave hours when employees work fixed schedules that include mandatory overtime hours and may volunteer for additional hours that are not part of the published weekly schedule. The employer’s published schedule mandates 84 hours of work every two weeks. Therefore, the employer calculates the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement as equivalent to 504 hours. This calculation excludes voluntary hours that are not part of the published hours.
The FMLA regulations provide that an employer may calculate an employee’s FMLA leave entitlement by converting fractions of a workweek of leave to their hourly equivalent in a manner that equitably reflects the employee’s total normally scheduled hours. These are generally the hours the employee would have worked but for the use of leave. It is common for employers to convert the entitlement to 480 hours of FMLA leave per leave year for employees who work a 40-hour workweek. However, it is the specific employee’s actual schedule that determines the conversion calculation. Similarly for intermittent leave, the leave use should not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled beyond the amount of leave actually taken.
In this specific case, the conversion of the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement to a 504-hour leave entitlement is in accordance with the FMLA’s requirements. It properly includes normally scheduled hours while excluding voluntary additional hours. When deducting from the FMLA entitlement, mandatory overtime hours are included properly.
Action Items
- Review inclusion of emergency pay in calculations for determining overtime, if applicable.
- Evaluate commonly controlled entities sharing employees for joint overtime liability with legal counsel, if applicable.
- Regularly review tip and tip pooling policies for eligible participants and compliance with tip credit requirements, if applicable.
- Review calculation of FMLA entitlement to include regularly scheduled and mandatory overtime hours, where applicable.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Philadelphia, PA: Ban the Box Requirements Expanded
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in Philadelphia, PA
EFFECTIVE
January 6, 2026
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Philadelphia Bill No. 250373-A will amend the Fair Criminal Record Screening Standards Ordinance to expand employee protections and employer requirements as of January 6, 2026. Generally, an employer cannot inquire into an applicant’s criminal history until after a conditional offer of employment. The following summarizes the recent updates.
Definitions
The definitions of conviction and inquiry have been expanded; and the definitions of felony, misdemeanor, summary offense, incarceration, job advertisement, adverse action, and excessive and unreasonable levels of supervision have been added.
Notably, any criminal record inquiry through public or government records or internet searches, either by or on behalf of an employer, is specifically subject to the Ordinance. Job advertisement is defined to mean any verbal or written communication of potential employment. Adverse action means any action that negatively affects an applicant or employee’s compensation, terms, or condition of current or future work or is intended to harass an applicant or employee in connection with work, including excessive and unreasonable levels of supervision, refusal to hire or promote, blacklisting, interferences with current employment or employment prospects, contacting law enforcement or a government agency to file a report, including reporting suspected or actual immigration status.
Advance Notice
An employer may provide applicants and employees notice of its intent to conduct a criminal background screen, including in job advertisements, which is required to have certain information in it. The bill expands the notice requirements to include a statement that any consideration of the background check will be an individualized assessment based on the applicant or employee’s specific record and the duties and requirements of the specific job.
Individualized Assessment
An employer may take adverse action following an individualized assessment of the criminal history results. The bill expands the individualized assessment process to prohibit taking adverse action unless it is determined that a reasonable person would conclude that employing the applicant or employee would pose a specific unacceptable risk to the operation of the business or to co-workers or customers, as independently determined by the factfinder. Among the previously stated factors for consideration in the individualized assessment process, the bill expands the definition of evidence of rehabilitation that may be considered.
Criminal Record
The bill also expands what may and may not be considered in an individual’s criminal record for purposes of employment evaluation. The seven-year lookback period will now be determined by the timing of the underlying arrest or the release from incarceration for such conviction, whichever is later. Misdemeanor convictions may be considered if occurring within less than four years of the underlying arrest or release from incarceration for the conviction, whichever is later.
An employer cannot consider a conviction record that has been expunged, sealed, or otherwise cannot be used, whether the record appears on a criminal background check, a Driver Record issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, or any other source. The individual must be given the opportunity to provide evidence of expungement or sealing.
Adverse Action
The adverse action process will be expanded. The employer must provide a preliminary notice of intent to deny a job application along with a notice of rights; a statement that the employer will consider evidence of any error in the criminal history records and evidence of rehabilitation and mitigation, including a list of the types of evidence that may be offered; and instruction on how to submit evidence or explanation to the employer. The applicant will still have 10 business days to provide evidence of an error or rehabilitation, but that timing must be observed before the employer may issue a final determination.
Retaliation
A new section on prohibited retaliation has been added to the Ordinance. Specifically, employers are prohibited from retaliating against an applicant or employee for exercising their rights, and retaliation is presumed if adverse action is taken within 90 days of when that person engaged in the exercise of rights, unless the employer acts in good faith to comply with the law and moves forward with adverse action after considering additional information submitted by the individual, if the adverse action is based on legitimate business concerns that are not related to the criminal history, or when addressing an employee’s pending criminal charge as permitted in the Ordinance.
Enforcement
The enforcement process has been further detailed on information required to be provided to the Commission when a claim has been made. Employers may also be subject to liquidated damages to make the individual “whole” as a result of a violation.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
November Alerts
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
Varies
EFFECTIVE
Varies
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
EEOC Regains Quorum
With the Senate’s approval of Brittany Panuccio as the third EEOC Commissioner on October 7, 2025, the agency has regained its quorum and full authority to take action. The Republican majority is expected to advance a Trump-era agenda, including rolling back DEI initiatives, revising harassment guidance affecting LGBTQ+ workers, rescinding parts of the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and expanding protections for religious expression in the workplace. Employers can now anticipate new rules, guidance, and litigation that may significantly reshape compliance obligations and workplace policies.
California: AB 288 Challenged in Court
As of January 1, 2026, AB 288 will expand the California Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to manage employee claims against private employers that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) fails or refuses to address. However, the NLRB filed a lawsuit against California on October 15, 2025 challenging the bill, similar to lawsuit the NLRB has filed against New York for a similar law. Continue to look for updates as this issue develops.
California: New Silica Exposure Standards
As of January 1, 2026, SB 20 implements a new standard for occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica from artificial stone. The standard restricts methods for processing artificial stone and implements safety requirements when doing so.
Los Angeles County, CA: New Hotel Worker Protections
As of April 1, 2026, Los Angeles County’s Hotel Worker Protection Ordinance will implement safety requirements for hotel workers in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County, such as using personal security devices, implementing work restrictions, and adding a required notice and posting. As of October 1, 2026, mandatory training requirements will go into effect.
Portland, ME: Voters Pass Increase of City’s Minimum Wage
On November 4, 2025, Portland voters approved a ballot initiative that will gradually raise the city’s minimum wage to $19 per hour by 2028, with the first increase to $16.75 taking effect on January 1, 2026 (the state of Maine minimum wage is set to increase from $14.65 to $15.10 on January 1, 2026). Employers operating in Portland must prepare for a series of scheduled wage hikes over the next three years, followed by annual cost-of-living adjustments beginning in 2029. While tipped workers are not subject to a separate increase, employers remain responsible for ensuring total compensation meets the city’s minimum wage. Impacted businesses should begin assessing payroll budgets, updating compensation policies, and planning for compliance with both city and state wage laws.
New York: Large Increase to Maximum Weekly Unemployment Insurance Benefit
Effective October 6, 2025, New York’s Department of Labor announced an increase of the maximum weekly unemployment insurance benefit from $504 per week to $869 per week. Recipients of unemployment insurance benefits began to see the increased amount starting the week of October 13. This is the first increase in the benefit rate since 2019. The increase in benefits was the result of paying off nearly $7 billion of a federal UI Trust Fund loan as part of Governor Kathy Hochul’s FY26 Enacted Budget. This brought the state’s unemployment insurance fund to solvency. Employers will also no longer receive annual Interest Assessment Surcharge bills.
Cuyahoga County, OH: Hairstyles Protected from Discrimination
As of November 13, 2025, employers with four or more employees in Cuyahoga County, Ohio are prohibited from discriminating on the basis of a person’s hair texture or hairstyle, if that hair texture or hairstyle is commonly associated with a particular race or national origin (including, but not limited to, a hairstyle in which hair is tightly coiled or tightly curled, locs, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, and Afros). The ordinance is not intended to prohibit employers from enforcing health or safety standards as long as they are applied equally and are not a pretext for discrimination based on hair texture or hairstyle.
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
New Labor Challenges for Employers: Major Changes to H-1B Visa Process and Enforcement
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Last month, the federal government announced several changes to the H-1B visa program. On September 19, 2025, the President issued a proclamation instituting a dramatic change in the H-1B petition process that set off confusion. On the heels of this announcement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a proposed rule to replace the current random lottery system with a weighted system that prioritizes high paying jobs. Lastly, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced new employer H-1B enforcement measures. There appears to be a lot of misinformation about these proposals. Here’s what employers need to know.
New H-1B Visa Fee
Citing abuse of the H-1B visa program in order to replace American workers with lower-paid labor, the proclamation restricts entry into the United States by requiring a payment of $100,000 for H-1B petitions effective September 21, 2025. Employers must provide payment prior to filing an H-1B petition on behalf of a potential worker who is outside the United States. The fee requirement is set to expire twelve months from the effective date unless it is extended. The Secretary of State was instructed to issue additional guidance. The Secretary of DHS is also permitted discretion to waive the fee requirement if “the hiring of such aliens to be employed as H-1B specialty occupation workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”
The proclamation instantly created confusion for employers by not providing clarity in several areas. The Department of State (DOS) and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued guidance to address the most common questions asked below. Employers should use the following information in conjunction with consulting with their immigration legal counsel since additional guidance is expected.
Does the new $100,000 fee apply to new or existing H-1B visa holders? A September 20, 2025 USCIS memo stated the fee applies to new petitions. The memo goes on to make clear it does not apply to petitions filed before the effective date of the proclamation, currently approved petitions, or to individuals who currently have valid H-1B visas in their possession.
Should current H-1B visa holders refrain from traveling outside the United States due to the proclamation? No. The USCIS memo also clearly states the proclamation “does not impact the ability of any current visa holder to travel to or from the United States.”
Does the proclamation apply to fees connected with renewing currently valid H-1B visas? No. The DOS FAQ issued September 21, 2025 states that current payments or fees required for H-1B renewals are not affected by the proclamation.
In addition to the new fee requirement, the proclamation also instructs the Secretary of Labor to initiate rulemaking to revise the prevailing wage levels to be consistent with the goal of the proclamation to protect American workers. The proclamation also instructs the Secretary of Homeland Security to “initiate a rulemaking to prioritize the admission as nonimmigrants of high-skilled and high-paid aliens.”
Legal challenges to the new fee requirement and other proposed changes are almost certain. Congress has the right to establish naturalization rules under the U.S. Constitution. In addition, there is legal precedent which supports Congress’ right to establish the terms and conditions of visas.
DHS Proposal to Replace Random Lottery Selection
DHS issued a proposed rule on September 24, 2025 entitled Weighted Selection Process for Registrants and Petitioners Seeking To File Cap-Subject H-1B Petitions. The proposed rule would implement a weighted selection process to favor allocation of H-1B visas to higher skilled and higher paid foreign workers while still preserving the ability of employers to obtain workers at all wage levels. Currently, the United States uses a lottery system where it allocates a limited number of H-1B visas (the H-1B cap). Registrants are randomly selected based on properly submitted electronic registrations. The intention of the proposed rule is to move away from random selection to a weighted selection process.
The weighted selection process would rely on each beneficiary’s equivalent wage level based on the highest Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) wage level that the beneficiary’s employer intends to pay. This wage would equal or exceed the relevant Standard Occupational Classification code in the area of intended employment. There would be four wage bands into which beneficiaries would be assigned. The higher the wage band, the more registrations the beneficiary would be entitled to, thereby increasing their likelihood of selection. The wage bands and corresponding registrations are as follows:
Regardless of the number of registrations submitted for a beneficiary, the beneficiary would only be counted once toward the allocation of H-1B visas. The selection process would still occur through a random, computer-generated process. The fiscal year cap on total H-1B workers would also still be maintained.
Written comments on the proposed rule are due by October 24, 2025. Legal challenges are also expected. Data from DHS in 2020 showed that the vast majority of H-1B workers were paid at Level I or II wages. This means the weighted selection process will require employers to increase their wages in order to obtain a higher likelihood of their beneficiary being selected in the new process.
DOL Increased Enforcement Measures
On September 19, 2025, the DOL announced enhanced enforcement measures to ensure employers comply with H-1B requirements. Project Firewall’s intent is to make sure employers prioritize hiring American workers and hold employers accountable for H-1B abuse. As part of its enforcement, the DOL will conduct investigations of employers to maximize H-1B program compliance which will be personally certified by the Secretary of Labor for the first time in the DOL’s history. Investigations will be certified where there is reasonable cause to believe an employer is non-compliant.
Employers found to be in violation of the H-1B program can be required to pay back wages to affected workers, pay civil monetary penalties, and be barred from future use of the H-1B program. The DOL will also share information with the following government agencies to ensure compliance: U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and USCIS.
Next Steps for Employers
Employers who rely on H-1B workers are facing multiple changes and increased scrutiny in how they participate in the H-1B visa program. What should employers do to manage the scope and scale of these changes?
Because these proposed changes are new, additional guidance and legal challenges are expected. Legal counsel can help advise employers on how best to protect their business operations and stay compliant. There is also a lot of misinformation regarding the changes which is causing confusion for holders of H-1B visas. Work with legal counsel to draft communications that keep affected workers up to date on what is required. Employers should also prepare for the implementation of these changes while legal challenges are pending. This includes ensuring job descriptions and pay levels are commensurate with the H-1B program requirements. Individuals within the organization who oversee or are part of the H-1B petition process should be kept informed and trained on the most current requirements.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Federal Government Shutdown Impacted E-Verify
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers Using E-Verify
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
E-Verify Suspended
Employers using E-Verify found out on October 1, 2025 that the service was suspended due to the ongoing government shutdown. An email sent by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) stated that it was due to a lapse in Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations and statutory authority to continue the E-Verify program during the lapse. The email notice reiterated employer obligations to complete and retain Form I-9 regardless of the E-Verify service being taken offline. This included reaffirming that employers enrolled in good standing in E-Verify were still authorized to perform remote examination of employees’ Form I-9 documents. The notice also confirmed that employees could not resolve E-Verify Tentative Nonconfirmations (TNCs) during this time. The email was available briefly on E-Verify’s What’s New section of their website, but then was taken down shortly after it was posted.
E-Verify Resumes Services
On October 9, however, E-Verify sent another email and issued a notice that its services were operational once again. Employers had until Tuesday, October 14, 2025 to create cases for employees who were hired during the period of time the services were unavailable. The notice provides answers to the following questions:
What if an employer is not able to create a case by the third business day after the employee began to work because E-Verify was unavailable? Use the prompt available during case creation which requires a reason for the delay. Select “Other” in the dropdown and enter “E-Verify not Available.”
What if the unavailability of E-Verify affected an employee’s ability to contest a mismatch? Additional time will be given to contact Social Security Administration (SSA) or DHS if the Referral Date Confirmation notice stated action was to be taken by October 1, 2025 or later. Refer to the next question below for more information.
What if an employee received a mismatch (TNC) and intended to contest it but the employer’s Referral Date Confirmation was impacted by the E-Verify’s suspension? Employers must revise the date to when the employee must contact the SSA or DHS. There are three options:
What if you are a federal contractor required to enroll in or use E-Verify and could not? Enroll or use E-Verify as soon as possible. Any calendar day when E-Verify was unavailable will not count toward any of the federal contractor deadlines.
What if E-Verify is suspended again?
Although E-Verify’s notice stated that it was in service again, many users reported they were still unable to create new cases. With continued uncertainty around the shutdown and continued technical issues, employers should prepare for the event that E-Verify could be unavailable again. Employers should remember that the unavailability of E-Verify does not excuse them from their obligation to complete and retain Form I-9 for new hires. In addition, employers should reference the existing guidance issued during the suspension and resumption of service as a roadmap to handling new cases. Guidance could change, however, so continue to monitor the E-Verify website for the most up-to-date information.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Recent Immigration Updates
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
Gold Card Visa Program
On September 19, 2025, the President issued an Executive Order instructing the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a “Gold Card” program where an individual who makes an unrestricted gift to the Department of Commerce can receive expedited processing for an immigrant visa. The gift amounts are to be $1 million individually or $2 million for an entity on behalf of an individual. This monetary gift is to be evidence of eligibility in addition to consideration of public safety and national security concerns. The gift amounts are to be deposited into a separate fund in the Department of the Treasury and used to promote commerce and American industry.
Within 90 days of the date of the Executive Order, the Secretary of Commerce, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security must:
The White House also issued a Fact Sheet which emphasized that the program’s purpose was to increase investment, revitalize industry, and create economic growth for the U.S.
H-2A Final Rule Changes Minimum Wage Policy
On October 2, 2025, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued an interim final rule, Adverse Effect Wage Rate Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations in the United States, which drastically changes the H-2A visa program’s minimum wage policy. The H-2A program allows U.S. agricultural employers to use foreign nationals to fill temporary agricultural jobs in anticipation of a labor shortage. As part of this process, the DOL calculates the Adverse Effect Wage Rate (AEWR) which is the minimum hourly wage that employers must pay to H-2A workers. Employers must comply in order for H-2A workers to not negatively affect wages and working conditions of domestic agricultural workers in similar positions. The AEWR is calculated based on data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Farm Labor Survey (FLS) which lists average wages for farmworkers in a state or region. In 2023, there was controversy over a new rule that would significantly raise certain H-2A wages. This resulted in a lawsuit that blocked the new rule and led to the suspension of the publication of the FLS.
The new interim final rule will now base AEWRs for farmworkers, agricultural equipment operators, livestock workers, graders/sorters, and packers on the statewide average hourly wages reported by the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey for the five most common Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) codes. The AEWRs will also be based on two skill levels:
An adjustment will be applied to the OEWS wage rates to also reflect fixed costs, like housing, that H-2A employers are required to provide to their workers for no cost. A rate table included in the interim final rule also shows that for certain states, the state minimum wage will become the highest applicable wage rate for H-2A workers unless it is lowered downward by the nonmonetary compensation adjustment.
Although the rule is effective October 2, 2025, interested parties have until December 1, 2025 to submit comments on the rule.
EAD Expiration Updates for TPS and Humanitarian Parole
There have been several changes this year to the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and humanitarian parole programs. Below is a non-exhaustive summary for the countries most affected by ongoing litigation and changes to the termination dates of their programs and associated Employment Authorization Documents (EADs). For additional information on specific countries, please review the USCIS website.
EAD Expiration Date
2021 TPS designation ends November 7, 2025.
TPS Ends for Venezuela
On October 3, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed for termination of the TPS program for Venezuelan nationals while the underlying case challenging the merits of the termination proceeds. The case challenging DHS’ authority to end TPS benefits for Venezuelan nationals was appealed from a district court and Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that DHS lacked authority to vacate the TPS benefits. This ruling only affects the lower court’s order that termination of the program was suspended pending review of the underlying legal challenge to the validity of the TPS termination. This decision allows termination of the program to proceed while the legal challenge is ongoing. Venezuelan nationals will no longer have legal status as of November 7, 2025. Employers whose workforce is made up of Venezuelan nationals with TPS benefits should consult with legal counsel to understand the ramifications of the Court’s ruling.
New $1,000 Parole Fee
Effective October 16, 2025, a notice published in the Federal Register titled Immigration Parole Fee Required by HR-1 Reconciliation Bill states that DHS will begin imposing and collecting a $1,000 fee for “any alien who is paroled into the United States.” Parole is a grant of temporary permission to enter the U.S. for urgent humanitarian or significant public benefit reasons, but does not confer immigration status. DHS interprets this to mean each time an alien is granted parole, the fee will be required. This includes initial parole from outside the U.S., Congressionally authorized “parole in place,” re-parole, or parole from DHS custody. Collection begins October 16, 2025 for individuals granted parole or re-paroled while physically present in the U.S.
The notice identifies ten exceptions to the fee where there is insufficient time for admission through the normal visa process. The Secretary of Homeland Security will determine if the following exceptions are met:
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Proposed OBBB Regulations Issued for the Tip Tax Deduction
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with Tipped Employees
EFFECTIVE
Pending
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Treasury Department recently issued proposed regulations to implement the tip tax deduction created under the One Big Beautiful Bill. Specifically, individuals may take up to a $25,000 tax deduction on their income tax returns for qualifying tips received in the taxable year, which amount may be reduced by $100 for every $1,000 earned by which the adjusted gross income exceeds $150,000 ($300,000 for married couples filing jointly).
The proposed rule explains the requirements necessary for tips to be qualified for the tax deduction:
Additionally, employees who enter into a Tipped Employee Participation Agreement as part of the Tip Reporting Determination Agreement (TRDA) program or a Model Gaming Employee Tip Reporting Agreement as part of the Gaming Industry Tip Compliance Agreement (GITCA) program may determine the amount of qualified tips using the applicable tip rate in their agreement (and amounts reported on Form 4137) in lieu of reporting actual tips received.
The proposed rule provides a number of examples to further explain these requirements. Employers should review the proposed rule for further guidance. It is unclear what the timing will be for approving the proposed rule in light of the current government shutdown. Employers should continue to monitor the situation for updates.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
FTC Overhauls Enforcement and Oversight of Non-Compete Agreements
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
As Indicated
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
First Enforcement Action of the Joint Labor Task Force
In February 2025, the FTC’s Chairman directed the formation of a Joint Labor Task Force, with an aim of “rooting out and prosecuting deceptive, unfair, and anticompetitive labor-market practices that harm American workers.” Following formation of the Task Force, the FTC has taken its first enforcement action targeting a company that imposed non-competes on all new hires, regardless of role. As a result of the enforcement action, employers should note that blanket non-compete policies may trigger federal scrutiny. The resulting consent order requires the company to notify employees that non-competes are void and limits non-solicitation clauses to customers the employee directly served in the past 12 months.
New Legal Standard for Non-compete Evaluation
In a separate statement, issued on September 4, 2025, the FTC announced that they will use a fact-specific approach similar to the common-law “rule of reason,” when evaluating whether a non-compete is narrowly tailored to protect legitimate business interests (with limited exceptions). Among the factors relevant to the FTC’s finding of unlawfulness here included:
FTC Drops Biden-Era Non-compete Ban
Employers will recall that the Biden-era FTC proposes a near complete ban on non-compete agreements in April 2024. This proposed rule has been subject to significant ongoing litigation and the FTC was required to update the appellate court on their intentions to continue to defend the ban by September 8. Just before their deadline, the FTC announced that they will stop pursuing the action and filed paperwork to dismiss their legal actions. Rather than defending the rule, the FTC has indicated that they will address non-compete agreements “through enforcement actions against companies that misuse them in violation of the law.”
Information Requested from the Public on Use of Non-compete Agreements
On September 4, 2025, the FTC published a public request for information (RFI) asking the public to provide information on the use and enforcement of employee non-compete agreements. Employers are encouraged to participate in the FTC’s public inquiry, especially if they’ve experienced hiring challenges due to competitors’ non-compete practices. This is an opportunity to influence future enforcement and policy direction.
The public has 60 days to respond to the FTC’s RFI, which asks a number of questions, including which employers are using non-compete agreements, what are the terms of those agreements, and how are they being enforced. The FTC also offers a confidential submission option to protect the confidentiality of many of these types of agreements.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Department of Labor Issues Opinion Letters on Several Wage and Hour Issues
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers
EFFECTIVE
September 30, 2025
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
On September 30, the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) issued several opinion letters clarifying several issues under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The issuance of the opinion letters was the result of the Deputy Secretary of Labor’s announcement in June to provide meaningful compliance assistance in understanding how federal labor laws apply in specific situations. The opinion letters addressed tip pooling, emergency pay, the interplay between the FLSA and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and joint and several liability for overtime for commonly controlled entities.
Emergency Pay
FLSA2025-04 addressed whether “emergency pay” provided to firefighters and other employees of a city must be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime premiums and how to calculate the regular rate when such pay is included. This opinion letter specifically addresses a firefighter/paramedic receiving a premium payment of one half the employee’s regular hourly rate of pay (the base or usual hourly rate) for every hour worked during an emergency period. This is defined as a period where, due to a disaster or emergency declaration, only some designated emergency employees must work. While the job duties remain the same, other factors, like extreme weather, make the duties more likely to cause physical hardship.
The WHD found, under these specific facts, the employer at issue should include “emergency pay” earned for hours worked within the regular rate for purposes of overtime premium calculations. The FLSA requires payment “at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which [the employee] is employed” to all non-exempt employees for all hours worked over 40 hours in a workweek. The “regular rate” must include “all remuneration for employment paid to, or on behalf of, the employee,” and must reflect all payments earned during the workweek, exclusive of overtime payments.
The FLSA provides for eight exclusions from the regular rate of pay. The situation at hand did not fit either of the two exclusions which most likely may have applied: discretionary bonuses and regular premium pay. This particular payment was not paid pursuant to a policy that left no discretion as to whether they are owed to the employee. Also, it is not an excludable premium because: (1) it is not contingent upon the employee working in excess of any particular amount of hours; (2) it is not contingent upon the work being performed “on Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, or regular days of rest, or on the sixth or seventh day of the workweek”; and (3) it is not contingent upon the work being performed outside “the basic, normal, or regular workday … [or] workweek” of the employee. Therefore, the emergency pay should be included in the regular rate of pay to calculate overtime premiums for any non-exempt employees.
The calculation method to follow is as described below.
Total hours worked in a workweek
Using the WHD’s provided example of an employee earning a base wage of $20 per hour for a total of 50 hours in a workweek, during which 20 hours are emergency pay hours paid at a rate of one half the base hourly rate:
50 hours
Joint Liability for Overtime
FLSA2025-05 addresses whether two entities that are physically connected, and whose ownership, management, and operations appear common, are jointly and severally liable for all aspects of compliance under the FLSA. This opinion letter addresses an employee who works at a restaurant and a members-only club which operate on separate floors of a hotel but whose ownership, management, operations, and other factors appear to be common. The employee’s rate of pay is the same for both employers. The establishments share a kitchen, offer substantially the same food and beverages, and operate under similar trade names. The employee performs work in the same workweek for both establishments as do other employees. The employee is also “clocked in” at one establishment while assigned to another. Managers in one establishment participate in disciplinary matters for the other establishment. Picking up additional hours at one establishment while working primarily at another puts the employee beyond 40 hours worked in the workweek. However, the employee was told they would not be eligible for overtime since the establishments were two different companies.
Under the FLSA, separately incorporated entities may be considered a single employer with respect to an employee, or employees, for purposes of compliance with the FLSA. Alternatively, even if two or more entities are considered separate employers, they can nonetheless be “joint employers” for purposes of liability for wages and overtime. When one employer employs a worker for one set of hours in a workweek, and another employer employs the same worker for a separate set of hours in the same workweek, that scenario may be, under appropriate circumstances, “horizontal” joint employment. This can occur where employers interchange or share employees.
Here, the WHD found evidence that there was horizontal joint employment: (1) they shared a kitchen and had similar food and beverage menus; (2) managers periodically supervise and manage both facilities; (3) the facilities have the same owners; (4) the employees can clock in at one establishment and be directed to work at the other; and (5) there are identical rates of pay. Employers with similar structures should be aware that corporate formalities are not enough to overcome the operational realities.
Tip Pooling and Front-of-House Employees
FLSA2025-03 addresses whether a restaurant employer may include “front-of-house” oyster shuckers in a traditional tip pool with servers for whom the employer takes a tip credit. This opinion letter addresses a seafood restaurant employer that requires servers to contribute to a tip pool that includes other employees that do not receive tips directly from customers. This includes front-of-house oyster shuckers at the oyster bar in the dining room. These oyster shuckers are also included in the tip pool. The back-of-house oyster shuckers work in the restaurant’s kitchen and are not a part of the tip pool. The employer also takes a tip credit towards its federal minimum wage obligation for the servers.
Employers are generally required to pay employees no less than the federal minimum wage. However, the FLSA permits an employer to satisfy a portion of its minimum wage obligation for tipped employees by taking a tip credit equal to the difference between the required direct wage (which must be at least $2.13 per hour) and the federal minimum wage. Only employees who customarily and regularly receive tips are considered when taking a tip credit. An employer taking a tip credit can require employees to participate in a tip pool only if the tip pool is limited to employees who customarily and regularly receive tips. Examples of included employees are waiters, bellhops, waitresses, countermen, busboys, and service bartenders. Examples of excluded employees are janitors, dishwashers, chefs, and laundry room attendants. The WHD has found, however, that counter person(s) who interact with and serve customers may participate in tip pools, like itamae-sushi chefs, teppanyaki chefs, sommeliers, and hibachi waiter-chefs.
The common thread in WHD’s guidance is that to be an individual who customarily and regularly receives tips, an employee must engage in service-related functions and have sufficient interaction with the customers who leave tips, a portion of which are subsequently contributed to a tip pool. In the case of the front-of-house oyster shuckers, they may be considered employees that customarily and regularly receive tips and can be included in the tip pool. Similar to sommeliers, they directly service the customers by sharing and detailing oyster offerings, make suggestions to customers regarding the oyster offerings, and field questions about the different options. They also prepare the oysters in plain view of the customers like an itamae-sushi or teppanyaki chef. The back-of-house oyster chefs do not meet these requirements and are properly excluded from the tip pool. This interpretation is consistent with prior WHD guidance defining occupations that “customarily and regularly” receive tips.
FLSA and FMLA
FLSA2025-02-A addresses how to calculate the number of hours of Family and Medical Leave Act leave available to correctional law enforcement employees who work a fixed “Pitman Schedule” requiring 12-hour shifts over a two-week cycle that includes mandatory overtime. In this opinion letter the WHD addressed the appropriate method for calculating intermittent or reduced schedule FMLA leave hours when employees work fixed schedules that include mandatory overtime hours and may volunteer for additional hours that are not part of the published weekly schedule. The employer’s published schedule mandates 84 hours of work every two weeks. Therefore, the employer calculates the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement as equivalent to 504 hours. This calculation excludes voluntary hours that are not part of the published hours.
The FMLA regulations provide that an employer may calculate an employee’s FMLA leave entitlement by converting fractions of a workweek of leave to their hourly equivalent in a manner that equitably reflects the employee’s total normally scheduled hours. These are generally the hours the employee would have worked but for the use of leave. It is common for employers to convert the entitlement to 480 hours of FMLA leave per leave year for employees who work a 40-hour workweek. However, it is the specific employee’s actual schedule that determines the conversion calculation. Similarly for intermittent leave, the leave use should not result in a reduction in the total amount of leave to which the employee is entitled beyond the amount of leave actually taken.
In this specific case, the conversion of the 12-workweek FMLA leave entitlement to a 504-hour leave entitlement is in accordance with the FMLA’s requirements. It properly includes normally scheduled hours while excluding voluntary additional hours. When deducting from the FMLA entitlement, mandatory overtime hours are included properly.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Sixth Circuit: Avoid Aggressive Tactics to Determine Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs for Religious Accommodations
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in KY, MI, OH, and TN
EFFECTIVE
September 29, 2025
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
On September 29, 2025, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled a married couple that challenged their employer’s process for granting a religious accommodation could proceed with their case alleging that they were subjected to an adverse employment action. Here, the employer was a national laboratory in Tennessee that required all employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination or face termination. The plaintiffs, a married Christian couple, believed that the vaccine mandate violated their religious beliefs opposing abortion because the COVID-19 vaccines were developed using cells extracted from aborted fetuses. However, those requesting a religious accommodation would have to go on unpaid leave or use vacation days until the end of the pandemic.
The plaintiffs sued for and received a temporary restraining order barring enforcement of the unpaid leave policy. During this period, the wife qualified for a medical accommodation. However, the husband was told he needed to sit for a panel interview during which the employer’s representatives would examine him about this religious beliefs. During this process, he was required to read and respond to a fact sheet that contained information about cell lines from aborted fetuses and quotes from faith leaders that differed from his beliefs. The plaintiffs sued for disparate treatment, failure to accommodate, and retaliation due to their objections to the vaccine mandate. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant employer, and the plaintiffs appealed.
While the court ultimately found the wife did not have standing and suffered no harm due to the fact she received a medical accommodation, the court did find the husband’s claims were held to too high of a standard by the district court. Under recent Supreme Court precedent in Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, an employee does not need to show that the discrimination caused a “materially adverse” impact beyond that they were forced to choose between faith and work. In order to prove his disparate treatment claim, the husband had to show only that he was treated worse than other employees and not that the harm incurred was significant. For the failure to accommodate claim, the husband only had to show that the harm is having to choose between violating his religious beliefs and violating workplace policies. Lastly, as to the retaliation claim, the court found that a reasonable juror could find that the interview process the husband had to endure “could well dissuade a reasonable worker from making” a request for accommodations. Ultimately, the court found that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to all of the husband’s claims and remanded it for a jury trial in accordance with its opinion regarding the burdens of proof for each separate claim.
This case reinforces that employers should not use aggressive tactics to determine whether an employee’s religious beliefs are sincerely held in order for a religious accommodation to be provided. Instead, employers should focus on whether the accommodation can be provided or whether it would constitute an undue hardship.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase
Alaska: Final Regulations Published for Paid Sick Leave Law
/in HR AlertsAPPLIES TO
All Employers with Employees in AK
EFFECTIVE
September 25, 2025
QUESTIONS?
Contact HR On-Call
(888) 378-2456
Discussion
The Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development has published final regulations and FAQs for the state’s new paid sick leave (PSL) law. Enacted by ballot measure in 2024, the PSL law went into effect on July 1, 2025, with the regulations taking effect as of September 25, 2025.
By way of background, all employers are covered under the PSL law, and most employees are eligible, with exceptions for government workers, youth and student workers, and employees exempt from minimum wage and overtime under Alaska state law. Under the PSL law, employers with fewer than 15 employees must allow them to accrue and use up to 40 hours of sick leave per year and employers with 15 or more employees must allow annual accrual and use of up to 56 hours of leave. Key aspects of the final regulations are summarized below.
Determining employer size. The regulations explain how employers should count employees to arrive at their size, which determines whether the employer must provide 40 or 56 hours of PSL per year. The regulations direct employers to use a full-time equivalent calculation for the previous calendar year by adding all hours worked by all employees during the calendar year and dividing this sum by the number of hours a full-time employee would work during the calendar year.
Front-loading leave. Notably absent from the PSL law was whether employers are permitted to front-load PSL for employees. The regulations confirm that employers may opt to front-load PSL at the beginning of the year, exempting employers from having to allow employees to carry over their accrued, unused leave at the end of the year.
Establishing an accrual year. The regulations stipulate that unless an employer front-loads PSL, they must establish a consecutive 52-week year during which PSL accrues. Employers that don’t establish an accrual year have a calendar year automatically established.
Cash-out policies. Employers may have a policy that allows (but does not require) employees to “cash out” unused, accrued paid time off and sick leave in place of carryover at the end of the year or at separation of employment. The regulations require the cash-out policy to be in writing and provided to employees. Employees must voluntarily sign off on the cash-out.
Rate of compensation. The regulations outline what methods should be used to determine compensation rates for piece work and workers with commissions, bonuses, noncash compensation and varied hourly rates.
Hours worked. The regulations define “hours worked” to exclude holidays, vacation and uncompensated, nonworking on-call hours, which are further defined.
Alternate employer policies. The PSL law allows employers to meet their PSL obligations with their own paid leave or paid time-off plans, as long as the plan meets the requirements of the law. The regulations further specify that employers must notify employees in writing that the alternate policy will be used to satisfy the PSL law. The regulations also state that leave provided beyond what the PSL statute mandates is not subject to the PSL law.
Employer notice obligations. The regulations require employers to include in employees’ pay statements the amount of PSL the employee has used in the accrual year as well as the employee’s PSL balance.
Employee notice obligations. Under the statute, employees must make a good-faith effort to provide advance notice of foreseeable PSL to their employer. They must also make a reasonable effort to schedule foreseeable paid sick leave in a manner that does not unduly disrupt the employer’s operations. The regulations add that employers may require up to 10 days’ notice of foreseeable leave if this requirement is in a policy provided to the employee. The policy may further require that employees not schedule medical appointments during peak business hours, when work is time-sensitive or when there is a mandatory meeting, if the employee’s absence would unduly disrupt business operations. Employees who were provided with the policy but who fail to follow it may be disciplined or have their PSL denied.
Verification of leave. The regulations provide that employers do not have to pay for sick leave if they have not received documentation they requested (as permitted by the law) to verify leave of more than three consecutive days. However, the regulations require employers to include the verification requirement in their written sick leave policy that is provided to employees.
Notification methods. Under the regulations, employers may satisfy their written notice obligations by providing the notices in person, by mail, by email, in a paycheck, in a printed or electronic handbook or manual, or in a workplace posting.
Action Items
Disclaimer: This document is designed to provide general information and guidance concerning employment-related issues. It is presented with the understanding that ManagEase is not engaged in rendering any legal opinions. If a legal opinion is needed, please contact the services of your own legal adviser. © 2025 ManagEase