Royal

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.

Challenges to DEI Restrictions Cause More Confusion

April 4, 2025
Last week, we wrote about the guidance issued by the EEOC regarding actions or policies that could be considered illegal DEI. (click here to read our post!) There has been some confusion regarding the guidance issued by the EEOC in its application. These additional factors feed into the uncertainty surrounding DEI practices: A federal court issued a limited temporary injunction against the U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) attempting to enforce “illegal DEI” measures. A partially federally funded nonprofit focused on supporting women in skilled trades immediately felt the effect of EO 14151 and EO 14173 when a partner canceled its subcontract, citing being in violation of both executive orders. “The Court concludes that the [executive order] is likely a coercive threat…selectively targeting speech regarding DEI, DEIA, and equity based on a belief that such programs are ‘immoral,’ i.e., disfavored by the government.”​ This injunction is not widespread, it applies to the nonprofit challenging the order and any grantee through which it holds a subcontract. However, the court additionally barred the DOL from enforcing the requirement that grantees certify they don’t operate any DEI-promoting programs—even outside of their grants. This applies nationwide to all DOL grantees.  Massachusetts attorneys have told Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly they are less concerned about the guidance issued on two counts: 1) the EEOC and the executive orders are unable to override established law and precedent. While the EEOC could seek investigation, which would bring undue costs to employers, it would be unlikely to lead to further legal action. 2) The guidance is much the same as it was before, but with more of a focus on practices during an employee’s term of employment. The EEOC has historically focused on hiring and firing practices. The EEOC’s acting chair publicly requested information from 20 law firms regarding their DEI-related employment practices going back to 2015. Andrea Lucas, EEOC head, stated in her letters to the 20 firms that the investigation is based on public statements the firms previously made regarding their diverse hiring practices. Take Aways Seek review of handbooks and company policies to ensure compliance before an investigation could take place. If you accept federal funding, do not expand any DEI programs until the guidelines are solidly established between the courts and the administration. Try to avoid a knee jerk reaction of immediately cutting all DEI programs as they may remain legal. Please reach out to The Royal Law Firm to help you navigate this ever-changing terrain. “An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” – Benjamin Franklin 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.

Medical Marijuana Use Protected from Adverse Action

April 2, 2025
A recent court decision in Pennsylvania offers clarification that employers cannot take adverse action for marijuana use against individuals who possess medical marijuana cards, at least under Pennsylvania’s Medical Marijuana Act. In this decision, an individual received a conditional job offer for a non-safety sensitive position, contingent on a drug test. The individual disclosed his state-certified use of medical marijuana to treat anxiety, depression and ADHD, assuring the employer that it wouldn’t affect job performance or safety. After a positive test for marijuana, the employer rescinded the offer, citing safety concerns. The individual sued the employer under the Pennsylvania Medical Marijuana Act (“MMA”) and disability discrimination under the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act (“PHRA”). The Court allowed the individual’s claim under the MMA to proceed, potentially creating substantial precedent for tolerance of individual medical marijuana use in non-safety sensitive positions. The Court specifically noted that MMA protects individuals not just from discrimination based on card holder status, but also for adverse actions based solely on lawful medical marijuana use. The Court otherwise dismissed the individual’s claims under the PHRA because the PHRA does not require employers to accommodate medical marijuana use, even if it is prescribed for a legitimate medical condition. While a Pennsylvania decision, this decision potentially has rippling implications that will affect Massachusetts employers and employers in states where medical marijuana use is allowed under state law, which is allowed in some manner in 44 states. Employer Takeaways Understand State-Specific Protections : Laws regarding medical marijuana use differ widely across states. In some areas, cardholder status is protected, while in others, it is not. Employers operating in multiple states must ensure their hiring and accommodation practices comply with the relevant laws in each state. Base Safety Concerns on Job-Specific Evidence : General or speculative safety concerns are insufficient, particularly in states with strict employee protections. Safety risks cited should be specific, evidence-based, and directly related to the essential functions of the job. Review Drug Testing and Accommodation Policies: Update your policies to reflect current state laws and clarify how your organization manages disclosures of medical marijuana use, especially during the hiring process .  If you have any queries regarding drug testing or other workplace accommodations following this ruling, it is prudent to contact legal counsel. 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: