Ten Days’ Paid Leave May Be Available for All Full-Time Workers

March 28, 2024

By: Trevor Brice, Esq.


For many Americans, the possible leave that can be taken under state and federal leave has been expanded and extended so that many employees are covered by state and federal leave laws. However, this coverage has not extended to all full-time U.S. employees. A new bill in Congress seeks to change this. On March 20, 2024, several House Democrats announced the introduction of the Protected Time Off (“PTO) Act to guarantee 10 paid days off from work each year for full-time workers.


The proposal ensures that all full-time employees will earn no less than two weeks of annual paid leave per year, in addition to any employer-provided or legal required paid sick or family leave, to be used for any reason at the employees’ standard pay rate. Employers must not interfere with or discriminate against workers who seek to take annual paid time off.


Possible Implications for Employers under the PTO Act


The PTO Act offers two weeks of paid time off to any full-time employee for any reason. This means that employers will have to offer this time off as long as employees provide two weeks’ notice, which is required under the law. Employers with surge seasons will be particularly affected by this act, because, as long as notice is provided, employers cannot deny the time off, unless the surge season qualifies as an emergency under the Act. An employer may place limited, reasonable restrictions regarding the scheduling of paid annual leave and may reject a scheduling request for such leave for a bona fide business reason, so long as the employer provides other reasonable alternative times for the employee to schedule such leave. However, the definition of reasonable alternative times would have to be tested in court, as it is not defined in the pending legislation.


Employees would begin to accrue paid leave as soon as their employment begins and employers must provide each employee with no less no less than 1 hour of paid annual leave for every 25 hours worked, for up to 80 total hours. Employees can start using PTO Act leave on the 60th day of their employment.


Employers will need to compensate employees at the same rate that they would have been paid had the employees not used leave. Further, employees are allowed to carry over up to 40 hours of leave year to year and can cash out any unused paid annual leave at the separation of employment. If employers violate the PTO Act, employers may be responsible for lost wages, interest, liquidated (double) damages, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. While an individual bringing a claim under the PTO Act may not scare employers, as it could be on the hook for up to four weeks of pay plus attorney’s fees and costs at maximum, a class action on behalf of multiple employees could certainly be something that employers fear.


Takeaways


The PTO Act, while introduced in the House, is not likely to advance and become law with bipartisan support. However, it is of note that legislators feel comfortable advancing legislation that would give paid leave to all full-time employees. In this sense, it is more likely that a lesser version of the PTO Act could be passed in the coming months and years, which could burden employers with more regulation related to paid leave. As always, if an employer has questions or concerns about the utilization of paid leave and the application of new potential laws like the PTO Act, it is prudent to seek legal counsel.


Trevor Brice is an attorney who specializes in labor and employment-law matters at the Royal Law Firm LLP, a woman-owned, women-managed corporate law firm that is certified as a women’s business enterprise with the Massachusetts Supplier Diversity Office, the National Assoc. of Minority and Women Owned Law Firms, and the Women’s Business Enterprise National Council.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!

Remote Workers and the WARN Act

July 9, 2025
Background: The e-commerce website Zulily liquidated in May 2023 and laid off its entire workforce by the end of 2023. While in-person workers at Zulily’s Seattle headquarters and fulfillment centers in Ohio and Nevada received 60 days’ notice or pay under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act, remote employees were not given any notice or pay. Four remote workers—two based in Washington and two based in Ohio—filed a class action lawsuit claiming that this was a violation of the WARN Act and state wage laws. The workers argued that because their roles were assigned to corporate offices or fulfillment centers, they should have been considered “affected employees” under the WARN Act when those sites closed. In a decision that could signal a significant shift in how the WARN Act applies to remote workers, the federal judge refused to dismiss the workers’ claims.  Key Legal Questions 1. Do Remote Workers Qualify for WARN Act Protections? The core of the dispute centers on whether remote workers can be considered part of a “single site of employment” that closed or experienced a mass layoff—terms that define whether the WARN Act’s notice requirements kick in. 2. Are WARN Act Damages Considered “Wages”? The Plaintiffs also brought state wage claims, arguing that the pay they would have received with proper WARN Act notice should be considered unpaid “wages” under Washington law and Ohio law. What the Court Decided: Judge Kymberly K. Evanson rejected the company’s motion to dismiss the case. Finding that Zulily’s argument that remote employees do not work at a single site with 50 or more workers and thus aren’t covered, was a factual question not suitable for early dismissal. Prior cases support the idea that even home-based employees may be “affected employees” if tied to a central worksite that shuts down. The court also found that if the WARN Act applies, then the Plaintiffs could plausibly claim that Zulily withheld “wages” owed under Washington and Ohio laws —opening the door to potential double damages and attorney fees. The Plaintiffs haven’t won their case; the court’s refusal to dismiss the claims allows them to move forward to discovery and potentially class certification. If they succeed, the case could set a precedent requiring companies to treat remote employees as part of larger employment sites for WARN Act purposes. With remote work here to stay, courts—and employers—will need to grapple with what "site of employment" really means in the 21st-century workforce. For employers, the message is clear: remote doesn't mean exempt. As the legal framework catches up with modern work arrangements, companies must tread carefully when making large-scale employment decisions. 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.