Update August 16th: Late yesterday, I received further confirmation that the provisions regarding FMLA were withdrawn entirely from the proposed Democrat-led budget bill. Moreover, the General Assembly early this morning voted on a Republican version of the budget implementer, which now goes on to Governor Malloy (who has indicated he will veto the bill). That version did not contain language on the FMLA changes either. So for now, employers can stand down. However, employers should continue to track the changes both this year and next. FMLA changes may make a return at some point.
Update at 2:06 p.m.: Since publishing this article, I’ve now heard from three people who work at or with the legislature that while they can’t find fault with my analysis of the proposed legislation as described below, the section on FMLA was intended to address a separate issue. As a result, it appears that the section on CTFMLA changes discussed below may be withdrawn this afternoon.
What the motives were for this language are far beyond the scope of this blog; this blog has always tried to provide an apolitical analysis of the law and legislation. For employers, just take note that the budget implementer bill language on FMLA is now likely to be withdrawn when the final bill is considered.
Late this morning, the proposed bill implementing the state’s budget (a so-called “budget implementer”) was finally released. And like years past, the bill contains some nuggets that are seemingly unrelated to a budget.
As the proposal is a monstrous 925 pages (download here), I’m still reviewing it but employers in Connecticut need to be aware immediately about some proposed changes to the state’s FMLA provisions. First, a caveat: This is still very much a work in progress so employers should keep a close eye and contact their legislators if interested.
- First, the bill would expand the scope of relationships covered to include siblings and grandparents/grandkids. Thus, if you needed to take time off to care for a grandparent, that would now be a covered leave.
- Second, the bill would revise the definition of employer to now include the state, municipalities, public schools and private schools which means the CTFMLA would now apply to all of them.
- But then things get even a bit more confusing. The bill changes the definition of “eligible employee” presumably to exclude state workers who are subject to collective bargaining. BUT the bill’s language is far more imprecise and would seemingly exclude ALL workers who are subject to collective bargaining (whether private or public). Specifically, the definition of “eligible employee” would now mean an employee “who is exempt from collective bargaining…” It does not have the qualifier that perhaps the drafters intended, though, given the speed in which this has been prepared, readers take caution.
- Next. and quite significantly, the bill would seemingly extend the leave parents get upon the birth of a child or for placement of a child for adoption of foster care. Specifically, it indicates (line 8472!) that:
Leave under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section may be extended up to sixteen workweeks beyond the expiration of such leave due under subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this section.
- Thus, Connecticut employers would seemingly need to provide up to 32 weeks (16 + 16 more) of unpaid leave for new parents.
- But the bill goes beyond that too — for leaves for birth, adoption placement, care of a family member or self or to serve as a organ or bone marrow donor, the bill expands the leave too. Specifically, in line 8529:
An eligible employee may extend his or her personal leave provided under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) for up to twenty-four workweeks after the expiration of any accrued paid vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave with proper medical certification.
- In addition, the bill goes on to add in line 8534, that for leaves for serious health conditions of self or family member, or for donor leaves:
The use of sick leave by an eligible employee for leave provided under subparagraph (C), (D) or (E) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed an incident or occurrence under an absence control policy.
The changes are coming fast and furious and it is possible that this proposed bill won’t get passed in its current form. It’s certainly far beyond the paid FMLA program that was originally under discussion by the legislature. These changes would be effective in two weeks — October 1, 2017 — which doesn’t given employers almost any time to revise their policies or train their employees.
And I must confess that I’m still a bit surprised by the breadth of this and scratch my head as to whether this language was intended to mean what it appears to say. I’d like to see a the office of legislative research recap this bill too.
In the meantime, I’m still reviewing the remainder of the bill for other changes relevant to private employers. (It’s 925 pages and 26452 lines long so bear with me.) Have you spotted anything else? Add it in the comments below.