Is Maryland Going to be the Next State to Enact COVID-19 Workplace Standards?

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

Maryland may soon join Virginia and D.C. in establishing COVID-19 workplace safety requirements. The state’s House of Delegates and Senate recently passed the Maryland Essential Workers’ Protection Act, and it is awaiting approval from Governor Larry Hogan (even if Governor Hogan vetoes the Act, the legislature has the votes to override any such veto).

Under the new Act, each essential employer* must take certain actions related to occupational safety and health during an emergency. The requirements cover, not just for the current and ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but also for any situation in which extensive loss of life or serious disability is threatened imminently because of exposure to a deadly agent (e.g. anthrax, Ebola, radiation, or chemical or biological agent capable of causing extensive loss of life or serious disability).

* Essential employers under the Act are any persons or entities identified by the Governor or a federal agency as critical to remain in operation, who employ essential workers. Essential workers are those individuals who perform work during an emergency that cannot be performed remotely or are required to be completed at the work site, and that the employer determines to be essential or critical to its operation.

More specifically, during an emergency, essential employers must:

  • Provide working conditions that comply with applicable safety standards by the relevant state or federal agencies;
  • Provide necessary safety equipment recommended for usage during the emergency, at no cost to essential workers;
  • Adopt, maintain, and post written protocols to ensure essential workers’ access to the applicable safety standards in effect;
  • Take proactive steps to minimize the risk of transmission, including paying for testing for the communicable disease; and
  • Report test results to the Maryland Department of Health, redacting any personal identifying information to protect the identity of the essential workers.

Essential employers will also be required to provide paid public health emergency leave, if the state or federal government provides funding that can be used for this purpose. Public health emergency leave will be allowed for essential workers to:

  • Isolate if they have been diagnosed with, or are experiencing symptoms of, the communicable disease that is the subject of the emergency;
  • Seek or obtain a medical diagnosis, preventative care, or treatment because they have been diagnosed with or are exhibiting symptoms of the communicable disease that is the subject of the emergency; or
  • Care for a family member who is isolating because of a diagnosis or symptoms of the communicable disease that is the subject of the emergency.

This leave will be in addition to any other leave or benefit, including Earned Sick and Safe Leave (see here for a primer for employers to comply with the Maryland Sick and Safe Leave Act).

Essential employers will be allowed to ask essential workers who use public health emergency leave to provide documentation of the need to use the leave. The Act will not require essential employers to compensate essential workers for unused public health emergency leave when the essential worker leaves employment.

The Act also provides that each essential worker has the right to refuse to perform assigned tasks and may not be discharged or otherwise discriminated against for filing a complaint or exercising rights under the Act.

Given the veto-proof margin of the vote on the Act, Maryland employers should either develop and implement or modify and update their COVID-19 workplace safety policies now to be ready when the Act becomes law.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

The District of Columbia’s New COVID-19 Workplace Safety Requirements

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

In February, in a continued effort to protect workers in the District of Columbia and to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the D.C. Council passed the Workplace Safety During the COVID-19 Pandemic Emergency Declaration Resolution of 2021. The Workplace Safety Resolution repeals, updates, and expands the previous Protecting Businesses and Workers from COVID-19 Temporary Amendment Act of 2020 and the Protecting Businesses and Workers from COVID-19 Congressional Review Emergency Amendment Act of 2021.

Employer Policy Requirements

Previously, employers in the District had to comply with the Mayor’s mask orders, but not other orders pertinent and critical to workplace safety that address social distancing, personal protective equipment (PPE), or other such measures. Effective immediately, the Workplace Safety Resolution requires D.C. employers to adopt and implement social distancing and workplace protection policies to prevent the transmission of COVID-19 in the workplace.

While “workplace” means any physical structure or space where an employee performs work, it does not include the home or other location where an employee teleworks that is not subject to the employer’s control. For the Workplace Safety Resolution to apply, the employer must maintain control of the physical structure or space.

The Mayor may publish a notice of the relevant portions of the Workplace Safety Resolution, and if/when that happens, employers will have to post the notice in a conspicuous location in the workplace in English and any other language spoken by at least 10% of employees.

Employer Reporting Requirements

D.C.’s Workplace Safety Resolution requires employers to report instances of their employees contracting COVID-19 in the course of and within the scope of their employment, or whose contact with others in the course of and within the scope of their employment makes the contracting of COVID-19 probable, to the Mayor. Reports can be made here, and additional guidance on when to report can be found here.

Employers in D.C. may require their employees to report a positive test for COVID-19, but the Workplace Safety Resolution prohibits employers from disclosing the identity of their employees who test positive, except to the Department of Health (DOH) or as otherwise required by law.

Additionally, employers must cooperate with contact tracers, including by providing information about employees who were in close proximity to infected employees and by providing customer lists and contact information as requested.

Employee Protections

The Workplace Safety Resolution prohibits employers from retaliating or taking adverse employment actions against employees for:

  • Complying, or attempting to comply, with the requirements of a Mayor’s Order related to the public health emergency;
  • Reasonably attempting to prevent or stop a violation of a Mayor’s Order related to the public health emergency;
  • Submitting a complaint to the Mayor or the Attorney General about a violation of the Workplace Safety Resolution;
  • Raising reasonable concerns about workplace health and safety practices related to COVID-19; or
  • Testing positive for COVID-19, having close contact with someone with COVID-19 or experiencing symptoms, needing to quarantine in accordance with DOH or U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance, experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and awaiting a test result, or caring for someone who is sick with COVID-19 symptoms, provided that the employee did not physically report to the workplace within appropriate timeframe recommended by current DOH or CDC guidance.

Prohibited adverse employment actions include a threat, verbal warning, written warning, reduction of work hours, suspension, termination, discharge, demotion, harassment, material change in the terms or conditions of the employee’s employment, or any other action that is reasonably likely to deter the employee from receiving the protections of the Workplace Safety Resolution.

Additionally, employers may not prohibit or discourage employees from using PPE or require employees to sign an agreement or comply with a workplace policy that would limit or prevent their right to disclose information about the employer’s workplace health or safety practices or hazards related to COVID-19.

Enforcement and Penalties

Both D.C.’s Mayor and Attorney General may receive and investigate complaints against employers who violate the Workplace Safety Resolution, to institute administrative or civil actions on behalf of the District against employers, and assess civil penalties. The Mayor’s office may post on the District’s Coronavirus website the name of each business for which a violation was found and a statement of the penalty imposed.

The Mayor may impose civil fines up to $1,000 per violation per employee per day for each violation of the policy and reporting requirements, and up to $2,000 per violation of the prohibited retaliation protections. The Attorney General, upon prevailing in an action against an employer, may recover up to the maximum amount of the civil fines for such violation, as well as (1) attorneys’ fees and costs, (2) restitution for lost wages, for the benefit of the aggrieved employees, and (3) other equitable relief as is necessary and appropriate.

In addition to the Mayor and the Attorney General, the Workplace Safety Resolution creates a private cause of action for violations of the prohibited retaliation protections. This means that employees may bring their own lawsuit against their employer, and, if successful, will be entitled to recover (1) attorneys’ fees and costs, (2) restitution for lost wages, (3) other equitable relief as is appropriate, and (4) punitive damages, if the employer acted with wanton or reckless disregard for the safety of the affected employee. And, unlike other employee claims against employers, under the Workplace Safety Resolution, employees need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit.

PPE, Unemployment, and Workers’ Compensation

The Workplace Safety Resolution also addresses employer eligibility for grants for purchase or reimbursement of PPE, authorizes unemployment compensation for employees who voluntarily leave work due to an unsafe workplace condition, and extends workers’ compensation coverage to employees who contract COVID-19 in the course of and within the scope of their employment.

Takeaways

Employers in D.C. that have not already developed and implemented COVID-19 workplace protection policies need to do so without further delay. And, for those employers who already brought their policies, practices, and procedures into compliance with the prior workplace safety Acts, they now have to review and revise them to ensure compliance with the new Workplace Safety Resolution.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

Virginia Is First Again: COVID-19 Workplace Safety Rule Becomes Permanent

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

This past summer, Virginia became the first state to pass mandatory workplace standards for employers to control, prevent, and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 to and among employees and employers. Those emergency workplace safety standards were temporary and were set to expire later this month, on January 26, 2021. With the expiration date fast approaching, on January 13, 2021, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board enacted a new rule, effective January 27, 2021, extending the protections permanently. This new permanent rule, like the temporary emergency one, is the first of its kind in the country.

The requirements in the new permanent rule are mostly the same as before, and you can read more about those safety standards for different jobs (which are based on risk level of exposure), physical distancing mandates, reporting obligations, return to work procedures, training requirements, infectious disease preparedness and response plans, and penalties here and here. Two key changes in the new rule that are worth highlighting deal with employer reporting obligations and return to work procedures:

  • For reporting, previously, the emergency temporary rule required employers to contact the Virginia Department of Health within 24 hours of the discovery of a positive case of COVID-19. In the new permanent rule, the notification requirement was changed so that now employers only need to contact the Virginia Department of Health when their worksite has had two or more confirmed cases of COVID-19 of their own employees present at the place of employment within a 14-day period who have tested positive for COVID-19 during that period.
  • For returning to work, previously, the emergency temporary rule allowed for employees who were known or suspected to be infected with COVID-19 to return to work after 10 days from when the symptoms first appeared or after they received two consecutive negative tests. In the new permanent rule, the testing based strategy for returning to work was eliminated, and only the symptoms based strategy remained. Specifically, symptomatic employees known or suspected to be infected with COVID-19 cannot return to work until the following three conditions have been met: (1) being fever-free (less than 100.0° F) for at least 24 hours, without the use of fever-reducing medications; (2) improvement of respiratory symptoms, such as cough and shortness of breath; and (3) 10 days have passed since the symptoms first appeared. And, employees known to be infected with COVID-19 who never develop signs or symptoms are excluded from returning to work until 10 days after the date of their first positive RT-PCR test.

Despite significant opposition to the new permanent rule, ultimately the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board determined that the continuation of the workplace safety standards were still needed to prevent further COVID-19 outbreaks, including among workers who will choose not to be vaccinated once they are eligible. A discussion on employers considering mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policies can be found here.

While the new Rule is “permanent,” within 14 days after Governor Ralph Northam declares an end to the Commonwealth’s COVID-19 State of Emergency, the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board will have to notice a meeting (not actually have the meeting) to determine whether there is a continued need for the workplace safety standards.

Since Virginia’s workplace safety standards are not going anywhere soon, employers who have not already done so need to develop policies and procedures for employees to report COVID-19 symptoms and subsequently return to work, as well as implement training presentations and written infectious disease preparedness and response plan. And for those employers who previously brought their policies, practices, and procedures into compliance with the emergency temporary requirements, they now have to review and revise them to ensure compliance with the new rule.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

D.C. Passes Ban on Non-Compete Agreements

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

On December 15, 2020, the District of Columbia Council unanimously passed the Ban On Non-compete Agreements Amendment Act Of 2020. The Act generally prohibits the use of non-compete provisions in employment agreements and workplace policies. The Act will soon become law as D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser is likely to sign the Act and Congress is unlikely to pass a joint resolution of disapproval.

The ban on non-competes in the Act will apply to all employers in the District and nearly any employee working in the District regardless of how much they are earning. Employers will also have to provide written notice of the Act to all of their employees.

What is a non-compete agreement?

Under the Act, a “non-compete provision” is a written agreement between an employer operating in the District and any individual who performs work (or who an employer reasonably anticipates will perform work) in the District that prohibits the individual from: (1) being simultaneously or subsequently employed by another person, (2) performing work or providing services for pay for another person, or (3) operating the individual’s own business.

The Act does not apply to otherwise lawful provisions that restrict an individual from disclosing their employer’s confidential, proprietary, or sensitive information, client list, customer list, or trade secrets. The Act also does not apply to otherwise lawful provisions contained within or executed contemporaneously with an agreement between the buyer and seller of a business where the seller agrees not to compete with the buyer’s business.

The Act does not address solicitation of employees or customers, so employers should review non-solicitation agreements with counsel to ensure compliance.

What does the Act prohibit?

Under the Act, no employer in the District of Columbia may require or request that an employee performing work in the District (or who an employer reasonably anticipates will perform such work) sign an agreement that includes a non-compete provision. Additionally, no employer in D.C. may have a workplace policy that similarly prohibits an employee from: (1) being employed by another person, (2) performing work or providing services for pay for another person, or (3) operating the individual’s own business. Any such agreements entered into after the Act becomes law will be void and unenforceable in court.

The Act also prohibits employers from retaliating (or threatening to retaliate) against employees for: (1) refusing to agree to a non-compete provision, (2) failing to comply with a non-compete provision or workplace policy made unlawful by the Act, (3) asking, informing, or complaining to an employer, a coworker, a lawyer, or governmental entity about the existence, applicability, or validity of a non-compete provision or a workplace policy that the employee reasonably believes is prohibited by the Act, or (4) requesting information that the Act requires be provided from an employer.

Are there any exceptions?

The ban on non-competes in the Act do not apply to:

  1. The District of Columbia government or the United States government;
  2. Volunteers engaging in the activities of an educational, charitable, religious, or nonprofit organization;
  3. Lay members elected or appointed to office within the discipline of any religious organization and engaged in religious functions;
  4. Individuals employed as a casual babysitter in the residence of their employer; and
  5. Licensed physicians that perform work on behalf of an employer engaged primarily in the delivery of medical services earning at least $250,000 per year.*

* Employers seeking to have medical specialists sign a non-compete agreement must provide the document to the employee for review at least 14 days before executing the agreement along with written notice of the Act.

Are there notice requirements?

Employers must provide their employees with the following text: “No employer operating in the District of Columbia may request or require any employee working in the District of Columbia to agree to a non-compete policy or agreement, in accordance with the Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020.”

Employers must provide existing employees with this notice, in writing, within 90 days after the Act becomes law. Going forward, employers have seven days after an individual becomes an employee to provide the required written notice. And, employers have 14 days to provide the notice in response to a written request from an employee.

What are the penalties?

In addition to having a non-compete provision becoming void and unenforceable in court, employees who are asked to sign a non-compete agreement banned by the Act or who suffer retaliation from an employer for activities prohibited by the Act may file a complaint with the Mayor or take action in civil court.

The Mayor may assess administrative penalties of $350 to $1,000 for each violation, except that penalties for retaliation against employees shall be greater than $1,000. The Mayor and the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) may also require employers to submit records showing compliance with the Act upon demand at any reasonable time.

Employers that violate the Act shall be liable for relief payable to each employee of $500 to $1,000 for each violation, and at least $3,000 to each employee for subsequent violations. But, employers that attempt to enforce newly void or unenforceable non-compete provisions shall be liable for relief payable to each employee of at least $1,500, and at least $3,000 to each employee for subsequent violations. And, employers that retaliate against employees in violation of the Act shall be liable for relief payable to each employee of $1,000 to $2,500 for each violation, and at least $3,000 to each employee for subsequent violations.

How does the Act compare to Maryland and Virginia’s restrictions?

The original proposal of the legislation introduced in October 2019 prohibited the use of non-compete agreements for employees whose rate of pay was less than or equal to three times the minimum wage, similar to the restrictions in neighboring Virginia and Maryland, which have prohibited non-compete agreements for certain “low” wage earners. However, as discussed above, if the Act becomes law, it will expand the ban to nearly any employee in the District and become one of the Nation’s strictest laws concerning bans on non-compete agreements.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

Avoid Liability with Express Disclaimers in Employee Manuals and Handbooks

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

Last month, in Sanchez v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., the United States District Court for the District of Maryland reaffirmed the general rule that express disclaimers in employee manuals and handbooks will protect employers from creating unintended implied contracts under Maryland law.

This is a good reminder of the importance of including clear and conspicuous disclaimers, even as simple and overt as “this manual is not a contract,” because absent such language employee manuals and handbooks can create contractual obligations for employers.

Employee manual was not a contract under Maryland law

Employees supervised by Ms. Sanchez complained about her managerial style. They alleged that she touched employees inappropriately and that she intimidated and harassed them. Whole Foods placed Ms. Sanchez on administrative leave, investigated the allegations, concluded that she was not meeting the expectations of her role, and presented her with a Final Written Warning for “repeated inappropriate behavior.” Her offense constituted a “major infraction” under the employee manual.

After resuming her job, Whole Foods gave Ms. Sanchez an action plan for improving conditions within the team and performance in general. However, Ms. Sanchez failed to achieve the objectives set forth in the plan, and Whole Foods terminated her employment. In turn, Ms. Sanchez filed a lawsuit alleging, among other claims, that Whole Foods breached its contractual obligations arising from its employee handbook. Specifically, Ms. Sanchez argued that Whole Foods failed to follow its own progressive discipline policy contained in the employee handbook and that she was terminated without verbal counseling, written reprimand, or a legitimate final warning.

Whole Foods argued in response that the employee handbook that Ms. Sanchez relied on repeatedly states that employees are employed at-will and that the employee handbook creates no contractual rights or obligations. And, Whole Foods highlighted that it had its employees, including Ms. Sanchez, sign a similar disclaimer every time a policy in the employee handbook was updated. The Court agreed with Whole Foods (and the United States District Court for the District of Columbia’s similar 2018 opinion) that, based on the repeated express disclaimers, the employee handbook was not a contract under Maryland law.

Progressive discipline policies allow employers to use their discretion

Even though the Court found that no contract existed based on the employee manual, it addressed Ms. Sanchez’s other arguments. In response to one of Ms. Sanchez’s arguments, that Whole Foods’ corrective action policy contained in the employee handbook required progressive discipline before employees can be terminated, the Court noted that the policy gave Whole Foods the discretion and flexibility to use differing disciplinary procedures and to terminate employees without prior notice. The corrective policy defined different types of infractions, and carved out situations where counseling and warnings were not required.

Takeaways

Besides ensuring that their employee manuals and handbooks actually have an express disclaimer that nothing contained therein creates any contractual rights or obligations, employers should also:

  • Place an express disclaimer on the first page (or in the preface or introduction) to indicate that it applies to the employee manual or handbook;
  • Repeat the express disclaimer throughout the employee manual or handbook;
  • Make sure that the express disclaimer is prominently highlighted; and
  • Have employees sign and acknowledge the express disclaimer.

Because of the recent updates to Maryland’s employment laws (discussed throughout Employment Edge), now is the perfect time for employers to review their employee manuals and handbooks for the appropriate disclaimer language needed to avoid potential contractual liability.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

Virginia Ban on Non-Competes for “Low” Wage Employees

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

Along with a number of other employer friendly laws passed this summer (Values Act and Wage Theft Law), Virginia has joined Maryland in prohibiting non-compete agreements with certain “low” wage workers.

What is a non-compete agreement?

Under the new law, a “covenant not to compete” or non-compete agreement is an agreement between an employer and employee that restrains, prohibits, or otherwise restricts an individual’s ability, following the termination of the individual’s employment, to compete with his/her former employer.

Which employees are considered “low” wage earners?

Who is a “low” wage earner is a bit of a moving target. The new law defines a “low-wage employee” as an employee whose average weekly earnings during the previous 52 weeks (or if an employee worked fewer than 52 weeks, the average weekly earnings for the number of weeks that the employee worked) are less than the average weekly wage in the Commonwealth as determined by the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC). The VEC may issue a new average weekly wage as frequently as every quarter; recently the VEC calculated the average wage as $1,204 per week or $62,608 per year. This means that a non-compete that was enforceable when entered could violate the new law when employers attempt to enforce it if the employee now qualifies as a “low” wage earner.

Interns, students, apprentices, or trainees are all considered “low” wage earners. As are independent contractors making an hourly rate less than the median hourly wage for all jobs over the past year in the Commonwealth, as determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor, which was recently calculated at $20.30 per hour.

The new law does not cover employees that earn their salary predominantly through sales commissions, incentives, or bonuses.

What is prohibited by the new law?

Employers are prohibited from entering into, enforcing, and even threatening to enforce non-compete agreements with any “low” wage employee from July 1, 2020 going forward. This means that non-compete agreements that were entered into before July 1, 2020 are safe, but employers should consult counsel before enforcing or threatening to enforce those agreements.

By its terms, the new law does not apply to similar contracts, such as confidentiality or nondisclosure agreements, that protect employers’ trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information.

The new law leaves some grey area regarding when it applies to non-solicit agreements with customers, so employers should review client non-solicitation agreements with counsel to ensure compliance.

The new law does not address other types of employment restrictions, such as prohibitions against the solicitation of employees.

What are the penalties?

Employers are subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 for each violation of the new law, as well as private rights of action. In addition to lost compensation that can be awarded in a lawsuit, a “low” wage employee is entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorneys’ fees, from employers that enter into, enforce, or threaten to enforce a non-compliant non-compete agreement.

Are there other requirements for employers?

Employers must post a copy or summary of this new law with its other required posters. Failure to comply with the posting requirements will subject employers to a written warning for the first violation, a penalty of up to $250 for a second violation, and a penalty of up to $1,000 for a third and each subsequent violation.

Is D.C. next?

D.C. has introduced a similar ban on non-competes for low wage employees.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.

Are DMV Employers Required to Give Employees Time Off to Vote? It Depends.

Josh SchmandJosh Schmand

With Election Day around the corner on November 3, 2020, and early voting ongoing, employees may need time off from work to vote.

Federal law does not require employers to give employees time off from work to vote, but the local jurisdictions have varying voting leave requirements. Here’s what employers need to know about giving employees time off to vote in D.C., Maryland, and Virginia:

Time Off to Vote in D.C.

On April 27, 2020, the District of Columbia enacted the Leave to Vote Amendment Act of 2020, which went into effect on October 1, 2020, just in time for the 2020 election season. The Act gives all D.C. employees the right to at least two hours of paid leave off to vote.

This means that paid voting leave is only available to employees who are voting in person. The leave can be used for either an election held in the District if the employee is eligible to vote in the District or in an election held in the jurisdiction (such as Maryland or Virginia) in which the employee is eligible to vote.

Employers may ask employees to submit the request for paid leave a reasonable time in advance of the date the employee plans to vote and to specify the hours during which employees can take paid leave to vote, including requiring employees to vote early instead of on Election Day or to vote at the beginning or the end of a shift. Employers may not interfere with, restrain, or deny any attempt employees make to take paid leave to vote under the Leave to Vote Act or retaliate against employees for taking paid leave to vote.

The Leave to Vote Act requires employers to post notice of the voting leave requirements in a conspicuous location and on their websites. A notice suitable for posting in the workplace can be found here.

Voting Leave in Maryland

Every employer in Maryland must allow employees at least two hours of paid leave off to vote on Election Day in order to cast a ballot. Like in D.C., this means that paid voting leave is only available to employees who are voting in person.

All employees in Maryland are eligible for paid voting leave if they claim to be registered voters in Maryland and if they do not have two hours of continuous off-duty time during the time that the polls are open. Employees are not eligible for paid voting leave if they have two consecutive nonworking hours while the polls are open.

Employers may require that employees provide written proof that they voted or attempted to vote. The paid voting leave law does not specify whether employers may designate the hours during which employees may take paid leave to vote. The law also does not specify any obligations for employers to inform employees of their right to paid voting leave.

Election Officer Leave in Virginia

Virginia does not have voting leave laws requiring time off (paid or unpaid) for employees to vote.

However, Virginia employers should be aware that they are obligated to provide election officer leave. An election officer is a person appointed by an electoral board to serve at a polling place for any election.

Requests for election officer leave must be made reasonably in advance of Election Day, and the leave does not need to be paid. Employees that serve four or more hours (including travel time) as election officers on Election Day cannot be required to start a shift on or after 5 p.m. that day or before 3 a.m. the day after service.

Voting Leave Policies

The voting leave requirements outlined above are the minimums required by applicable laws, and employers, even those in Virginia, can always amend their policies to provide additional paid voting leave as necessary. Employers should review all requests for voting leave consistent with established policies and applicable laws.

At a minimum, employers should review and modify their leave policies now to ensure compliance with the amended D.C. Leave to Vote Act and to provide employees with their required voting leave.

For more information, contact Josh at 301-347-1273 or jcschmand@lerchearly.com.