Royal

New Guidance for Remote Work and Leave

March 13, 2023

In February 2023, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) issued new guidance about employees working remotely from home.


The DOL confirmed that the rules for compensating employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for break time apply whether the employee is working onsite or remote. Break times of 20 minutes or less are treated as compensable time.  A longer break is not compensable time, so long as the employee is completely relieved from duties, which is defined as: (i) being “told in advance that they may leave the job and they will not have to commence work until a specified hour,” or (ii) that they may “freely choose the hour at which they resume working and the time is long enough for the employees to effectively use their own purposes.” The DOL also noted the FLSA’s requirement to provide reasonable break time for employees to express breast milk for their nursing child with a space that is “shielded from view” also applies to remote work. This means “ensuring that an employee is free from observation by any employer provided or required video system”. Such breaks are also compensable if the employee is not completely relieved from duties.


The DOL also discussed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) eligibility requirements. An employer with at least 50 employees within a 75 mile radius of the worksite must provide FMLA benefits to employees who have worked 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months. The DOL explained that for remote employees the pertinent worksite is not their residence but is “the office to which they report or from which their assignments are made.” 


The DOL also addressed whether an employer is required to allow an employee, with an FMLA-covered serious health condition, to use FMLA leave to shorten their workday where the regular schedule for the position would otherwise be more. The DOL stated that employees who are eligible for FMLA leave must be permitted to take it on a reduced schedule basis, and that an employer may not simply reduce their workday as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA thereby making them ineligible for group health insurance benefits. Eligible employees must be permitted to use FMLA leave until they have exhausted their leave, and if a reduced schedule does not result in the equivalent of 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period, the employer is required to provide it indefinitely. Also, the hours of FMLA leave the employee is entitled must be based on the employee’s regularly scheduled workweek, and not on the reduced one, so an employee who is regularly scheduled 50-hours per week (not counting voluntary overtime) would be entitled to use 600 hours of FMLA leave in a 12-month period, to shorten their schedule to 40 hours per week. Lastly, the DOL found that if an employee, who requires a reduced schedule, exhausts their FMLA leave, the employer is obligated to consider continuing the reduction as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and an employee may offer, and an employee may voluntarily accept, a reduced schedule as a reasonable accommodation in lieu of taking FMLA leave.


As a result, more remote employees are likely to meet the FMLA’s eligibility requirements than employers may have previously assumed.  Employers with a remote workforce should check their wage and hour and FMLA policies to ensure compliance, as well as consider the applicability of the FMLA when an employee requests a reduced schedule as an accommodation.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

February 26, 2025
Recent executive orders issued by the executive branch have raised questions for many employers, especially relating to DEI policies. While it was initially interpreted that the executive orders regarding the presence of DEI policies only applied to federal agencies and companies that receive federal funds, a recent investigation by the Department of Education has raised questions about whether privately funded organizations and companies could face prosecution.  In Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (as known as MIAA), a program not directly funded by the federal government, is being investigated by the Department of Education for an alleged violation of Title IX in allowing transgender individuals to participate in women’s sports. While MIAA’s policy is loosely related to DEI protocols, this investigation seems to declare that support of DEI-type programs and policies by private companies can be prosecuted akin to this investigation. It is investigations such as these that has led to a movement called “rainbow-hushing,” in which companies drop or quietly rebrand their diversity, equity and inclusion programs to avoid prosecution. While confusion and contradictions between anti-discrimination laws and the new wave of executive orders issued by the executive branch remain abound, it is prudent practice to seek legal counsel to avoid prosecution under the new executive orders, akin to MIAA. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.
Share by: