New FLSA Exemption Rules Finally Arrive

The U.S Labor Department (USDOL) has finally released the anxiously awaited revised regulations affecting certain kinds of employees who may be treated as exempt from the federal Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) overtime and minimum-wage requirements. These will be published officially on May 23, 2016.

If you currently consider any of your employees to be exempt “white collar” employees, you might have to make some sweeping changes.

Summary of Changes

In brief, the following changes will be made in USDOL’s definitions of executive, administrative, professional, computer-employee, and highly compensated exemptions under the FLSA’s Section 13(a)(1):

• The minimum salary threshold is increasing to $913 per week, which annualizes to $47,476 (up from $455 per week, or $23,660 per year). USDOL says that this figure is set at the 40th percentile of data representing what it calls “earnings of full-time salaried workers” in the lowest-wage Census region (currently the South).

• This amount will now be “updated” every three years (meaning that it will likely increase with  each “update”), beginning on January 1, 2020. USDOL will announce these changes 150 days in advance.

• Employers will be able to satisfy up to 10% of this new threshold through nondiscretionary bonuses and other incentive payments, including commissions, provided that the payments are made at least quarterly. This crediting will not be permitted as to the salaries paid to employees treated as exempt “highly compensated” ones.

• The total-annual-compensation threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption will increase from $100,000 to $134,004 (which will also be “updated” every three years). USDOL says that this figure is set at the 90th percentile of data representing what it calls “earnings of full-time salaried workers” nationally.

These rules will become effective on December 1, 2016, which is considerably later than had been thought. Unless this is postponed somehow, you must do by this time what is necessary to continue to rely upon one or more of these exemptions (or another exemption) as to each affected employee, or you must forgo exempt status as to any employee who no longer satisfies all of the requirements.

The Bottom Line

Essentially, USDOL is doubling the current salary threshold. This is likely intended to both reduce the  proportion of exempt workers sharply while increasing the compensation of many who will remain exempt, rather than engaging in the fundamentally definition process called for under the FLSA. Manipulating exemption requirements to “give employees a raise” has never been an  authorized or legitimate pursuit.

For the first time in the exemptions’ more-than-75-year history, USDOL will publish what amounts to an automatic “update” to the minimum salary threshold. This departs from the prior USDOL practice of engaging in what should instead ultimately be a qualitative evaluation that also takes into account a variety of non-numerical considerations.

USDOL did not change any of the exemptions’ requirements as they relate to the kinds or amounts of work necessary to sustain exempt status (commonly known as the “duties test”). Of course, USDOL had asked for comments directed to whether there should be a strict more-than-50% requirement for exempt work. The agency apparently decided that this was not necessary in light of the fact that “the number of workers for whom employers must apply the duties test is reduced” by virtue of the salary increase alone.

What Should You Do Now?

Some in Congress are still considering action aimed at stopping these changes, and it is possible that lawsuits will be filed with the same goal. While one or more of these challenges may be successful, you should assume for the time being that the new requirements will take effect as scheduled.

Right now, you should be:

• analyzing whether the requirements for the “white collar” exemptions you have been relying upon are met
• evaluating what might be changed about one or more jobs so that the incumbents may be treated as exempt in the future
• considering the possible application of alternative FLSA exemptions, and
• developing FLSA-compliant pay plans for employees who have been treated as exempt but who no longer will be.

USDOL has provided extensive commentary explaining its rationale for the revised provisions. We are continuing to study the final regulations and accompanying discussion carefully and will provide updates/changes as published.

DOL Issues New FMLA Poster and Publishes Guide to Help Employers Administer FMLA

In late April, the Department of Labor (DOL) announced that it soon will issue a new general FMLA Notice that can be used interchangeably with their current FMLA posting.  In issuing this new directive, they also unveiled a new guide to help employers navigate and administer the FMLA.

Here’s the scoop:

New DOL Poster

Under the FMLA, an FMLA-covered employer must post a copy of the General FMLA Notice in each location where it has any employees (even if there are no FMLA-eligible employees at that location). According to the FMLA rules, the notice must be posted “prominently where it can be readily seen by employees and applicants for employment.”

The DOL has announced that it will release a new General FMLA Notice for employers to post in their workplaces.  According to the DOL, the new poster won’t necessarily include a whole bunch of new information.  Rather, the information in the notice will be reorganized so that it’s more reader friendly.

The DOL’s Branch Chief for FMLA, Helen Applewhaite, confirmed that employers would be allowed to post either the current poster or the new version.  In other words, employers will not be required to change the current poster. 

New Employer FMLA Guide

In 2012, the DOL issued a guide to employees to help them navigate their rights under the FMLA. Several years later, DOL now has issued a companion guide for employers.  According to the DOL, the Employer’s Guide to the Family and Medical Leave Act (pdf) is designed to “provide essential information about the FMLA, including information about employers’ obligations under the law and the options available to employers in administering leave under the FMLA.”

The new guide was unveiled by the DOL at an annual FMLA/ADA Compliance conference sponsored by the Disability Management Employer Coalition (DMEC). Generally speaking, the new guide covers FMLA administration from beginning to end, and it follows a typical leave process — from leave request through medical certification and return to work.

While the guide helps explain the FMLA regulations in a user-friendly manner, the guide primarily is meant to answer common questions about the FMLA, so it leaves unanswered leave issues that continue to frustrate employers in their administration of the FMLA.  However, the guide is likely to have some benefit to employers when administering the FMLA.  For instance, the guide:

1. Follows the FMLA regulations and the course of a typical leave request in a relative orderly manner.
2. Contains easy to follow flowcharts so that employers can better understand the typical FMLA process, including a “Road Map to the FMLA” that provides an overview of the FMLA process.  
3. Includes “Did You Know?” sections to give employers a heads-up on some of the lesser-known provisions and nuances of the FMLA regulations.
4. Highlights user-friendly charts and explanation of the medical certification process, including what information is required in certifications.
5. Provides a helpful overview of military family leave, which often can be a bit overwhelming to employers attempting to navigate this portion of the FMLA.

New Scam Targeting HR & Payroll

A number of employers have recently fallen victim to a phishing scam that tricks them into disclosing highly sensitive employee information to unknown third parties. Make sure to warn your Human Resources and Payroll Departments to be on the alert so that your company doesn’t get added to the ranks of those swindled.

The Latest Scam

In the wake of tax season, multiple businesses have reported receiving spoofing emails, usually sent to Payroll and Human Resources departments / personnel. The emails appear to be requests from in-house high-level company executives, including in some instances the CEO, requesting that employee W-2 tax forms be transmitted to them for various administrative purposes. In reality, these emails are phishing expeditions sent by outside data thieves, who use cloned company email addresses with authentic-looking company logos, colors, and signatures.

If the recipients are deceived into thinking the emails are legitimate company correspondence, they will comply with the request and end up delivering W-2 forms to the scam artists. These forms contain a treasure trove of employee personal data, including Social Security numbers and other personally identifiable information. The successful hackers often use the data obtained from this phishing scam to file fraudulent tax returns on behalf of company employees.

You May Have Been Hacked And Don’t Even Know It

The IRS has reported a 400% increase in phishing and computer malware incidents this tax-filing season, and many companies that have been compromised still don’t realize it. In the coming weeks, as your employees attempt to file tax returns, you may learn that they are unable to file because someone else has already submitted a tax return on their behalf. The source of this data breach may be your company.

What You Should Do

You should immediately warn your employees about the risks associated with this new scam. You should specifically train your Payroll, Human Resources, and any other group of employees with access to personal identifiable information to be on the lookout for these phishing attempts or other red flags, such as requests for information not typically requested, or requests from individuals with whom the employees do not typically directly communicate. You should also take active security steps to ensure that personal data is only transmitted using secure methods.

If you believe your company is a victim of this scam, you may have a legal obligation to follow applicable data breach notification requirements. Besides determining your legal responsibilities, which vary from state to state, you should consider encouraging your employees to monitor their credit reports and take all of the usual measures to prevent identity theft. You should also suggest they file their tax returns as soon as possible in an effort to avoid the filing of fraudulent tax returns on their behalf.

Expired Form I-9 Still in Effect

The current version of the Form I-9, the most fundamental tool used to determine if applicants are eligible to work in the U.S., expired on March 31. Until further notice, though, employers should keep using the expired form until the recently proposed “smart” I-9 is in effect, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Dave Basham, a senior analyst in the verification division at USCIS, has been answering the following question a lot recently: “What will happen on March 31, 2016, when the Form I-9 expires?” Basham says: “Employers should continue to use the current version of the form as it continues to be effective even after the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] control number expiration date March 31, 2016, has passed.”

On March 28, 2016, USCIS published a second round of proposed changes to the form in the Federal Register, giving the public 30 days to comment. Once the comment period ends April 27 and comments are considered, USCIS may make further changes before sending the proposal to OMB, which will need to review and approve it. The form will be available for download at www.uscis.gov upon being approved.

“Employers must continue to use the current version of Form I-9 until the proposed version is approved and posted on the USCIS website,” said Amy Peck, an immigration attorney in the Omaha, Neb., office of Jackson Lewis.

The proposed, revised form is designed to address frequent points of confusion that arise for both employees and employers.

The proposed changes specifically aim to help employers reduce technical errors for which they may be fined, and include:

• Validations on certain fields to ensure information is entered correctly. The form will validate the correct number of digits for a Social Security number or an expiration date on an identity document, for example, Fay said.
• Additional spaces to enter multiple preparers and translators.
• Drop-down lists and calendars.
• Embedded instructions for completing each field.
• Buttons that will allow users to access the instructions electronically, print the form and clear the form to start over.
• A dedicated area to enter additional information that employers are currently required to notate in the margins of the form.
• A quick-response matrix barcode, or QR code, that generates once the form is printed that can be used to streamline audit processes.
• The requirement that workers provide only other last names used in Section 1, rather than all other names used.
• The removal of the requirement that immigrants authorized to work provide both their Form I-94 number and foreign passport information in Section 1.
• Separating instructions from the form. Employers are still required to present the instructions to the employee completing the form, however.
• The addition of a supplement in cases where more than one preparer or translator is used to complete Section 1.

The proposed changes will have far-reaching impact because all employers are required to complete and maintain the Form I-9 for each employee hired to verify their identity and authorization to work in the United States.

HHS Announces New Health Plan Out of Pocket Limits for 2017

On March 1, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the finalized 2017 health plan out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums.   Applicable to non-grandfathered health plans, the OOP limits for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 are $7,150 for single coverage and $14,300  for family coverage, up from $6,850 single/$13,700 family in 2016. The OOP maximum includes the annual deductible and any in-network cost-sharing  obligations members have after the deductible is met.  Premiums,  pre-authorization penalties, and OOP expenses associated with out-of-network benefits are not required to be included in the OOP maximums.

In addition to the new OOP maximum limits, employers offering high deductible health plans need to be particularly mindful of the embedded OOP maximum requirement. Beginning in 2016, all  non-grandfathered health plans, whether self-funded or fully insured, must apply  an embedded OOP maximum to each individual enrolled in family coverage if the plan’s family OOP maximum exceeds the ACA’s OOP limit for self-only coverage  ($7,150 for 2017).  The ACA-required embedded OOP maximum is a new and  often confusing concept for employers offering a high deductible health plan  (HDHP). Prior to ACA, HDHPs commonly imposed one overall family OOP limit  on family coverage (called an aggregate OOP) without an underlying individual  OOP maximum for each covered family member.  Now, HDHPs must comply with  the IRS deductible and OOP parameters for self-only and family coverage in  addition to ACA’s OOP embedded single limit requirement.     

The IRS is expected to announce the 2017 HDHP  deductible and OOP limits in May 2016.

Limiting Employee Hours To Avoid ACA Could Violate ERISA

In a first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court recently upheld the right of employees to sue their employer for allegedly cutting employee hours to less than 30 hours per week to avoid offering health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a defense Motion to Dismiss in a case where a group of workers allege that Dave & Buster’s (a national restaurant and entertainment chain) “right-sized” its workforce for the purpose of avoiding healthcare costs.

Although this case is in the very early stages of litigation and is far from being decided, you should monitor this for developments to determine whether you need to take action to deter potential copycat lawsuits. 

Reducing Workforce Hours In Response To ACA

The ACA requires employers who employ 50 or more “full-time equivalents” to offer affordable minimum-value coverage to full-time employees and their dependents or pay a penalty if any of their full-time employees receive federal premium assistance to purchase individual coverage in the Health Insurance Marketplace. This requirement is also known as the “Employer Mandate”.  

One of the initial concerns by ACA critics is that many employers would respond to the Employer Mandate by reducing full-time employee hours to avoid the coverage obligation and associated penalties, increasing the number of part-time workers in the national economy. This is because the ACA does not require an employer to offer affordable, minimum-value coverage to employees generally working less than 30 hours per week.  

Although the initial economic data analyzing the national workforce suggests that the predictions of wide-scale reduction in employee hours have not materialized, some employers have increased their reliance on part-time employees as an ACA strategy to manage the costs of the Employer Mandate.

Could That Reduction Violate ERISA?

Although an employer who reduces employee hours would not violate any specific provision of the ACA, there is an open question as to whether such an action would violate another federal law. As alleged by employees of Dave & Buster’s, such a reduction creates a cause of action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). A group of employees filed a class action lawsuit against the restaurant chain last year making such an argument.

Section 510 of ERISA prohibits discrimination and retaliation against plan participants and beneficiaries with respect to their rights to benefits. More specifically, ERISA Section 510 prohibits employers from interfering “with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” Because many employment decisions affect the right to present or future benefits, courts generally require that plaintiffs show specific employer intent to interfere with benefits if they want to successfully assert a cause of action under ERISA Section 510.  

Round One Goes To Employees

Dave & Buster’s moved to dismiss the class action lawsuit, arguing that the complaint failed to demonstrate that it reduced work hours with the specific intent to deny employees the right to group health insurance. However, the district court disagreed and recently denied the employer’s motion, clearing the case for further litigation.

The court found that the class of plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence in support of their claim that their participation in the health insurance plan was discontinued because the employer acted with “unlawful purpose” in realigning its workforce to avoid ACA-related costs. In this regard, the employees claimed that the company held meetings during which managers explained that the ACA would cost millions of dollars, and that employee hours were being reduced to avoid that cost.

What Should Employers Do Now?

The lawsuit against Dave & Buster’s is the first case to address whether a transition to a substantially part-time workforce in response to the Employer Mandate constitutes a violation of ERISA Section 510. The case is far from over and we do not know when it will be resolved. 

However, if you are considering reducing your employee hours, you should carefully consider how such reductions are communicated to your workforce. Employers often have varied reasons for reducing employee hours, and many of those reasons have legitimate business purposes. It is vital that any communications made to your employees about such reductions describe the underlying rationale with clarity. 

Be Prepared To Respond To Employer Notices Of ACA-Subsidized Employees

Beginning in Spring 2016, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Exchanges/Marketplaces will begin to send notices to employers whose employees have received government-subsidized health insurance through the Exchanges. The ACA created the “Employer Notice Program” to give employers the opportunity to contest a potential penalty for employees receiving subsidized health insurance via an Exchange.

What are the Potential Penalties?

The notices will identify any employees who received an advance premium tax credit (APTC). If a full-time employee of an applicable large employer (ALE) receives a premium tax credit for coverage through the Exchanges in 2016, the ALE will be liable for the employer shared responsibility payment. The penalty if an employer doesn’t offer full-time equivalent employees (FTEs) affordable minimum value essential coverage is $2,160 per FTE (minus the first 30) in 2016. If an employer offers coverage, but it is not considered affordable, the penalty is the lesser of $3,240 per subsidized FTE in 2016 or the above penalty. Penalties for future years will be indexed for inflation and posted on the IRS website. The Employer Notice Program does provide an opportunity for an ALE to file an appeal if employees claimed subsidies they were not entitled to.

Who Will Receive Notices?

The first batch of notices will be sent in Spring 2016 and additional notices will be sent throughout the year.  For 2016, the notices are expected to be sent to employers if the employee received an APTC for at least one month in 2016 and the employee provided the Exchange with the complete employer address.

Last September, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued FAQs regarding the Employer Notice Program. The FAQs respond to several questions regarding how employers should respond if they receive a notice that an employee received premium tax credits and cost sharing reductions through the ACA’s Exchanges.

Appeal Process

Employers will have an opportunity to appeal the employer notice by proving they offered the employee access to affordable minimum value employer-sponsored coverage, therefore making the employee ineligible for APTC. An employer has 90 days from the date of the notice to appeal.  If the employer’s appeal is successful, the Exchange will send a notice to the employee suggesting the employee update their Exchange application to reflect that he or she has access or is enrolled in other coverage.  The notice to the employee will further explain that failure to provide an update to their application may result in a tax liability.

An employer appeal request form is available on the Healthcare.gov website. For more details about the Employer Notice Program or the employer appeal request form visit www.healthcare.gov.

Advice

Although CMS has provided these guidelines to apply only to the Federal Exchange, it is likely that the state-based Exchanges will have similar notification programs.

Employers should prepare in advance by developing a process for handling the Exchange notices, including appealing any incorrect information that an employee may have provided to the Exchange.  Advance preparation will enable you to respond to the notice promptly and help to avoid potential employer penalties.

Employers May Soon Be Forced To Reveal Pay Information By Gender

Businesses With 100 Or More Workers Would Be Subject To Proposed New Law Aimed At Combating Gender Discrimination

The federal government announced at the end of January 2016 its intent to gather additional pay information from larger employers, forcing all businesses with over 100 workers to provide detailed information about their pay practices in an effort to address gender discrimination. If the President’s plan moves forward as expected, employers will be subject to a heightened pay transparency standard by the end of this calendar year.

What Has Been Proposed?

The Obama Administration has proposed executive action through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to require certain businesses to provide detailed information about how much each of their employees is earning. Affected employers must break down pay information by gender, as well as race and ethnicity, after the law goes into effect in order to make it very easy to identify pay gaps.

Who Will Be Impacted?

This executive action will apply to all businesses that employ 100 or more workers. According to the White House, the proposal would cover more than 63 million Americans.

How Will Employers Report The Information?

Currently all employers with 100 or more workers already complete the EEO-1 form on an annual basis, providing demographic information to the government about race, gender, and ethnicity. Once the new revisions take effect, the EEO-1 form will also require that salary and pay information be included.

Why Has The Government Proposed This Change?

The federal government has specifically stated that the goal of this additional data-gathering is to identify businesses that might have pay gaps, and then target those employers who are discriminating on account of gender. It is no coincidence that this plan was announced on the seventh anniversary of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, a federal law that overturned a Supreme Court decision and made it easier for employees to bring equal pay claims.

In other words, once this new law takes hold, the EEOC will have greater ease in identifying disparities and areas of potential pay discrimination to determine where it will take enforcement action.

When Will Employers Be Subject To The New Law?

If the proposal proceeds as scheduled, the draft revisions would be available for inspection and public comment between February 1, 2016 and April 1, 2016. The EEOC Chair has stated that she anticipates the rulemaking process to be completed by September 2016, when the new rules would officially go into effect. If this holds true, employers will have to submit their pay data for the first time in September 2017.

What Should Employers Do Now?

In light of these developments, affected companies should make it a priority to review current pay systems and identify and address any areas of pay disparity. It is critical to take steps now to minimize increased scrutiny once the data begins to be reported next year.

By conducting your own gender-specific audit of pay practices, you will be able to determine whether any pay gaps exist that might catch the eye of the federal government when you turn over this information next year. You will have time to determine whether any disparities that may exist can be justified by legitimate and non-discriminatory explanations, or whether you will need to take corrective action to address troublesome pay gaps.

Seven Questions Employees Will Ask About the ACA 1095s

You did it! Your 1095 forms are ready and going out to employees. Now what?

You guessed it: Employee confusion. You’re going to get some questions. If you’re the one in charge of providing the answers, remember a great offense is the best defense. You’ll want to answer the most common questions before they’re even asked.

We’ve put together a list of some basic things employees will want to know, along with sample answers. Tailor these Q&As as needed for your organization. and then send them out to employees using every channel you can (mail, e-mail, employee meetings, company website, social media, posters). Tell employees how to get more detailed information if they need it.

Employee questions about the 1095s:

1.    What is this form I’m receiving?
A 1095 form is a little bit like a W-2 form. Your employer (and/or insurer) sends one copy to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and one copy to you. A W-2 form reports your annual earnings. A 1095 form reports your health care coverage throughout the year.

2.    Who is sending it to me, when, and how?
Your employer and/or health insurance company should send one to you either by mail or in person. They may send the form to you electronically if you gave them permission to do so. You should receive it by March 31, 2016. (Starting in 2017, you should receive it each year by January 31, just like your W-2.)

3.    Why are you sending it to me?
The 1095 forms will show that you and your family members either did or did not have health coverage with our organization during each month of the past year. Because of the Affordable Care Act, every person must obtain health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.

4.    What am I supposed to do with this form?
Keep it for your tax records. You don’t actually need this form in order to file your taxes, but when you do file, you’ll have to tell the IRS whether or not you had health insurance for each month of 2015. The Form 1095-B or 1095-C shows if you had health insurance through your employer. Since you don’t actually need this form to file your taxes, you don’t have to wait to receive it if you already know what months you did or didn’t have health insurance in 2015. When you do get the form, keep it with your other 2015 tax information in case you should need it in the future to help prove you had health insurance.

5.    What if I get more than one 1095 form?
Someone who had health insurance through more than one employer during the year may receive a 1095-B or 1095-C from each employer. Some employees may receive a Form 1095-A and/or 1095-B reporting specific health coverage details. Just keep these—you do not need to send them in with your 2015 taxes.

6.    What if I did not get a Form 1095-B or a 1095-C?
If you believe you should have received one but did not, contact the Benefits Department by phone or e-mail at this number or address.

7.    I have more questions—who do I contact?
Please contact _____ at ____. You can also go to our (company) website and find more detailed questions and answers. An IRS website called Questions and Answers about Health Care Information Forms for Individuals (Forms 1095-A, 1095-B, and 1095-C) covers most of what you need to know.

PTO Use May Be Required During Inclement Weather

It doesn’t usually sit well with employees, but they can be required to use their accrued paid time off (PTO) during inclement weather events, wage and hour attorneys say.

“Unless there is a state law restriction or a written policy to the contrary, employers may require employees to use their PTO to cover absences,” said Paul DeCamp, an attorney with Jackson Lewis in Reston, Va., and a former administrator of the Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division.

Relevant Policies

It’s important for an employer to have an inclement weather policy spelling out the rules that apply to exempt and nonexempt employees when the employer is open during inclement weather vs. when it is closed.

The rules for nonexempt employees are straightforward—they are paid only for the time worked. If the employer closes for some of a workweek due to inclement weather, it must pay an exempt worker their usual salary if the employee performs any work during the workweek, even if remotely.

A PTO policy might specifically reference the employer’s ability to require the use of PTO by employees to cover weather-related absences. If an employer closes the office and requires the use of PTO to cover the day, the impact on morale is likely to be negative—more so than if the office is open but the employer allows employees who can’t make it in to use a PTO day.  If the employer decides in advance to shut down and it turns out that the expected inclement weather does not materialize, employees who are forced to use PTO on a day they could have made it in will almost certainly react negatively.

It is important that employees understand the expectations about working away from work ahead of time, along with employees being required to accurately report all time worked. Employers should also have policies about how employees can challenge the accuracy of paychecks and the consequences for not making timely challenges.

Courts have held that employees who claim to have worked off-the-clock but who have not notified the employer about that worked time are not entitled to pay for that time.

If an employer stays open despite inclement weather and an exempt employee chooses not to work, that is a personal decision and the day may be docked without jeopardizing the exempt status.

Safety Considerations

A written policy is an opportunity for an employer to underscore the importance of employees’ safety when determining closures or whether employees should attempt to report to work in inclement conditions.

Employers sometimes ask whether they may discipline employees for choosing to stay home during inclement weather. The employer does not want to allow employees to hinder operations or to force a closure, but the last thing an employer wants to see is a situation where a supervisor orders an employee to come to work in a snowstorm and the employee gets into a car accident. Employers should think very carefully before disciplining in this situation and to err on the side of employee and public safety.

PTO Deficits

One of the most common questions employers have during inclement weather is if they can force employees with insufficient PTO balances to go into a negative balance situation, or, in other words, whether they can advance the employee extra PTO and then recoup that advance over time.

Generally, an employer can do that, assuming the practice complies with state law and the employer’s written policies.

Another frequent issue that arises is how to treat PTO deficits upon an employee’s separation from employment. State law will dictate whether and when employers may deduct the negative PTO balance from the final pay of nonexempt employees.

For salaried exempt employees, whether the employer can deduct that balance from final pay depends on whether the employer could have deducted it from the employee’s pay at the time of the absence—the missed time that gave rise to the PTO deficit.