by Ryan LaFlamme | Mar 27, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General, Labor and Employment, Unemployment
Districts should expect to see a rise in unemployment claims due to the current pandemic. Ohio received 187,000 claims during the week of March 15-21. Substitutes, in particular, are likely to make claims during this time.
Governor DeWine has issued an order (EO 2020-03D) to ease the process of obtaining unemployment benefits. Employees who are ordered to stay home or isolated by an employer or public health authority, whether infected or not, will qualify for benefits so long as the employee is otherwise eligible. The basic requirements for eligibility for benefits are that a claimant has worked a sufficient number of hours and has earned a sufficient amount of pay during a period referred to as the “base period.” The base period is the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters at the time the claim is filed. (Claims filed in March would be calculated on the four quarters beginning October 1, 2018, through September 30, 2019.) Individuals must have at least 20 weeks of employment and an average weekly wage of $269 during the base period of the claim.
ODJFS issued a mass-layoff number (2000180) that employees can use to expedite the handling of their claim. Employees subject to RIF due to COVID-19 can use this form and reference number. http://www.odjfs.state.oh.us/forms/num/JFS00671/pdf/.
Substitute employees may file claims for lack of work due to the ordered shutdown of the school to students. Outside of the context of a shutdown, districts may attempt to challenge lack of work claims by substitutes, due to the nature of the assignment not having guaranteed hours or days of work per year. Many substitutes pick and choose their own assignments. Those arguments will not be applicable, where, as here, there are no assignments for the substitute to choose from. Therefore, such employees are much more likely to receive benefits under these circumstances.
Additional benefits of the order are that certain benefit recipients will not be subject to the work search requirement during the period of the emergency. All claimants, however, will continue to be required to be “able and available for work,” in order to receive benefits.
Finally, penalties against employers for failing to provide reports or make payments during the emergency declaration period.
The merits of each claim are fact dependent and may be subject to challenge even in light of the order. Please do not hesitate to contact an attorney at Ennis Britton to discuss your particular claim.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Mar 19, 2020 | COVID-19 (Coronavirus), General
As we continue to receive updates and navigate the changing circumstances day-to-day, we would like to brief you about some of the questions we have been receiving from schools around the State:
Can we continue to pay hourly staff members if on extended closure?
R.C. 3319.081 provides that “All nonteaching employees…shall be paid for all time lost when the schools in which they are employed are closed owing to an epidemic or other public calamity. Nothing in this division shall be construed as requiring payment in excess of an employee’s regular wage rate or salary for any time worked while the school in which the employee is employed is officially closed for the reasons set forth in this division.”
Accordingly, those non-teaching employees covered by R.C. 3319.081 can and should be paid for “all time lost due to the closure of school” under the current circumstances.
R.C. 3319.08 provides the same rights for teaching employees. Keep in mind that neither statute provides a premium rate of pay. Only regular wages are required by the statutes. However, some collective bargaining agreements provide for premium pay for work performed during “calamity days.” Unions are likely to assert that premium pay should be provided for employees who report to work during the time that the schools are closed to students. You should consult with legal counsel about how to proceed if the union demands premium pay.
Can I require self-reporting of staff?
You can request staff self-report if they are ill, under self-quarantine, or mandated quarantine.
Employers must generally be careful in inquiring about medical conditions of employees. The ADA prohibits employee disability-related inquiries or medical examinations unless they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. One condition under which an employer may ask such questions is where the employee constitutes a “direct threat” to the health and safety of other employees. A “direct threat” is “a significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.
The EEOC has previously opined during the H1/N1 pandemic that where the CDC or state or local public health authorities determine that the illness is like seasonal influenza or the 2009 spring/summer H1N1 influenza, it would not pose a direct threat or justify disability-related inquiries (e.g., Do you have a compromised immune system?) and medical examinations (e.g., temperature readings). However, if the CDC or state or local health authorities determine that pandemic influenza is significantly more severe, it could pose a direct threat. COVID-19 appears to be more severe than previous influenza pandemics and outbreaks both in terms of the rate of infection and the number of deaths and critical cases. Therefore, you are permitted to make inquiries about symptoms and susceptibility and to require self-reporting of employees.
Can I require self-reporting of students?
Since students have been ordered home, it is likely not necessary to issue a directive to families at this time.
Can employees use sick leave if self-quarantined?
It is understandable that employees would request sick leave while under self-quarantine. The sick leave statute, R.C. 3319.141, provides that employees “may use sick leave for absence due to personal illness, pregnancy, injury, exposure to contagious disease which could be communicated to others, and for absence due to illness, injury, or death in the employee’s immediate family.” A strict reading of the statute could be interpreted to mean that the employee was actually exposed, and not just avoiding the possibility of being exposed. Therefore, sick leave could be denied to an employee who has not actually been exposed to the disease. Also note that FMLA is not available for employees who fear being exposed to a virus, as such fear does not constitute a serious health condition.
Additionally, employees not reporting to work due to the closure to students will receive pay for all time lost due to the closure as discussed above. Such employees would not need sick leave.
Employers are permitted to be more generous than the law permits so there is a basis to allow the use of sick leave in these circumstances. You should check your policy manual and the collective bargaining agreement to see if there is any language that differs from the statute. It is not clear whether the auditor follows a strict reading of the statute due to the unique nature of this situation. If you wish to grant sick leave for employees who wish to stay home as a matter of self-quarantine who are otherwise not exhibiting any symptoms, you should discuss it with your legal counsel before proceeding.
Can I discourage international travel … or ask about international travel?
You can both inquire about and discourage international travel, but any directives regarding those matters would not necessarily have a lot of weight from an enforcement standpoint. You can also inquire with families of whom you know have traveled internationally recently. However, in light of the closure of school to students, and its potential extension to the end of the school year, this is likely not necessary in most circumstances.
Employees returning from international travel may be subjected to mandatory quarantine. Under these circumstances, sick leave would be appropriate.
Can I restrict an employee who appears sick/has a fever or wants to wear a mask? I have an employee with a weak immune system, can they wear a mask?
R.C. 3313.71 provides the authority to send home an employee or student who is suffering from a communicable disease. The statute provides that the school physician is to order such employees to be sent home. There are not any court interpretations determining whether it must be a “school physician” which makes the call. However, the Board has the authority to protect the health and safety of persons coming on to its premises and can, therefore, exercise such authority in these circumstances. Employees should be permitted, within reason, to wear appropriate safety equipment such as masks and gloves if they desire to. You should not send an employee home simply because the employee wishes to wear a mask or because an employee is of an age that is more susceptible to the disease.
Keep in mind that discrimination laws regarding ADA accommodations are still in effect during this time. During a pandemic, especially one which constitutes a direct threat, as COVID-19 likely does, certain ADA protections are relaxed in order to balance public health and safety with individual rights.
During a pandemic such as this one, employers may:
- Send employees home if they display influenza-like symptoms;
- Inquire about the exact symptoms an employee is experiencing who reports feeling ill;
- Check employees’ temperatures (keep in mind that some people infected with COVID-19 may not have a fever);
- Inquire about potential exposure to persons returning from business or personal travel;
- If the employer has sufficient objective information from public health authorities to conclude that employees will face a direct threat if they contract COVID-19, the employer may ask an employee, without having exhibited any symptoms, whether the employee has a medical condition that the CDC says could make them especially vulnerable to influenza complications;
- Encourage remote working (where possible) as a prevention strategy; and
- Require the adoption of infection control practices at work including hand washing, handling practices, and wearing masks and gloves.
Remember that other ADA requirements are still in place. Accommodations that are already being provided unrelated to the pandemic must continue. For example, An accountant with low vision has a screen-reader on her office computer as a reasonable accommodation. In preparation for telework during a pandemic or other emergency event, the employer issues notebook computers to all similar employees. In accordance with the ADA, the employer must provide the employee with a notebook computer that has a screen-reader installed.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Nov 19, 2019 | Board Policy & Representation, General, School Management, Student Education and Discipline
A dispute over
the disclosure of student records has led to the Court of Appeals for Ohio’s
Second Circuit to analyze whether a student’s right to privacy in education
records extinguishes upon death.
Both federal
and state laws protect the confidentiality of student education records and
personally identifiable information. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act (“FERPA”) protects against the disclosure of education records without the
prior written consent of the parent or guardian of the student. Education records
are defined by the Act as “those records, files, documents, and other materials
which (i) contain information directly related to a student; and (ii) are
maintained by an educational agency or institution or by a person acting for
such agency or institution.” The right to consent to the disclosure of student
records transfers to a student upon reaching the age of 18, unless the student
remains a dependent of their parents.
R.C. 3319.321
also provides protection for student information. This statute is broader in
its scope, forbidding the disclosure of any personally identifiable student
information other than directory information.
The request at
issue surrounded a former student who committed a mass shooting in August of
2019, killing 9 people and injuring 27. The shooter was killed by law
enforcement officials at the scene. The Associated Press, among other media
outlets, made requests to the school for records of the shooter, particularly
discipline records. The school released only directory information, citing to
the privacy protections of FERPA and R.C. 3319.321.
The media
filed a lawsuit asking the Court to force the school to release the requested
records. The media alleged that while a student’s right to privacy protections
under the applicable laws transfers to the student into adulthood, there should
be an exception that the right to privacy in this regard ceases upon
death.
The Court
found the analysis inapplicable due to the school’s obligations under the laws
in addition to the individual’s privacy rights conferred by the laws. The two
are simply not comparable. The Court, noting that neither FERPA nor R.C.
3319.321 contains an exception for the death of a student, declined to create
one from the bench.
State
ex rel. Cable News Network, Inc. v. Bellbrook-Sugarcreek Local Schools,
2019-Ohio-4187
by Ryan LaFlamme | May 1, 2019 | General, Student Education and Discipline
A Federal District Judge recently ruled that a charter school dress code policy which required girls to wear skirts and prohibited girls from wearing pants or shorts, violates the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. Many challenges in the past have rested on First Amendment grounds regarding freedom of expression. However, this case was brought on a theory of gender discrimination.
The Plaintiffs argued that the girls suffered tangible disadvantages due to the policy. The court found that the Plaintiffs established that “the girls are subject to a specific clothing requirement that renders them unable to play as freely during recess, requires them to sit in an uncomfortable manner in the classroom, causes them to be overly focused on how they are sitting, distracts them from learning, and subjects them to cold temperatures on their legs.”
The Defendant, the Charter Day School, argued the dress code was designed to garner mutual respect between the boys and the girls, particularly in that the skirts represented visual cues to promote respect between the two sexes. Striking down the policy, the school argued, would remove those visual cues and hinder a sense of respect for the opposite sex. The Court noted that even if these were legitimate interests of the state, the school failed to show how the policy advanced such interests.
The Court further noted that school dress code policies have been upheld by numerous courts and that the state does have legitimate interests in the grooming and dress of students attending schools supported by the state. However, these interests must be addressed in a uniform, gender-neutral way that does not penalize a student simply for being one sex or the other.
by Ryan LaFlamme | Apr 25, 2019 | General, School Management
The Ohio Attorney General has released a formal opinion finding that the board of education of a joint vocational school district (JVS) has no authority to establish a sick leave donation program for non-teaching employees of the district who are not members of a collective bargaining unit.
The JVS explained its donation program to the Attorney General thusly:
“The sick leave donation program would allow non-teaching employees to donate unused sick leave accrued by those employees into a bank for the use of eligible employees. Upon application and approval, unused sick leave in the bank would be accessible to an eligible employee, meaning that an employee with a serious illness could exhaust his or her accrued sick leave and then access the donated sick leave in the bank, all accrued by other joint vocational school non-teaching employees. The board of education itself would not provide any additional sick leave. The donation program would consist only of donated leave accrued by other non-teaching employees. Nor would there be any cash payment or any other incentive to any employee to compensate them for donating the sick time to the donation program.”
The Attorney General reasoned that as political subdivisions of the state, school districts are creatures of statute and can only act as expressly authorized or as may be necessarily implied to carry out such express grants of authority. Sick leave is a benefit school boards are permitted to provide their employees by statute (R.C. 3319.141). That statute provides that employees may use sick leave for their own personal illness or for illness of a family member. Because the statute limits the purposes for which sick leave can be used, a school board has no authority to permit sick leave to be used for another purpose, i.e., for the illness of another person who is not a family member.
The opinion, of course, does not apply to employees who are members of a collective bargaining unit who have negotiated the establishment of a sick leave donation program through collective bargaining. This is because, generally, collective bargaining agreements can supersede the requirements of statute, except where prohibited by law.
Districts should be cautious in permitting sick leave donation outside of the confines of a collective bargaining agreement. This opinion could be used as a basis for a finding for recovery for sick leave that is improperly paid to an employee under an unlawful donation program.
