FFCRA Complaints for the Week of October 9: Child Care Leave Remains a Hot Button Issue

As experts suspected, the fall and colder weather has meant more people indoors, which has led to significant new outbreaks, especially across the US and Europe. In preparation for this scenario, many school districts across the country started the school year online. However, employers have not been as forgiving with parents who are requesting or taking leave granted to them under the FFCRA to deal with child care needs. Thus, last week saw another round of complaints centered on the theme of employees terminated for requesting, or taking, leave under FFCRA to care for their children.  As winter brings the potential of even more school closures, and FFCRA expires on December 31, 2020, we may see an increase in these cases.  We have highlighted three cases below.

1. Toro V. Acme Barricades, L.C., No. 6:20-cv-1867 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 9, 2020): Plaintiff sued his employer for interference and retaliation under FFCRA.  Plaintiff requested to stay home to care for his child and because he has a health condition that puts him at a greater health risk if he contracts COVID-19.  Plaintiff’s employer instructed him to take a week of vacation time, but his physician recommended that he take three additional days off.  Plaintiff’s employer refused to give him more time off and instead terminated him.   
2. Rizzo V. Springdale Automotive, Llc, No. 3:20-cv-689 (W.D. Ky. Oct. 9, 2020): Plaintiff, manager of six automobile service centers, sued his employer for interference and retaliation under FFCRA.  Plaintiff’s employer did not “believe” in the Coronavirus and failed to provide employees with hand sanitizer or disinfectant and did not think the company should have to provide disinfectant and other safety measures.  Plaintiff’s son had to be admitted to the children’s hospital and placed in COVID isolation.  Plaintiff’s employer said they would reduce his salary while he was out with his son.  Plaintiff was informed the next day that his son would need to remain in quarantine for at least three months due to his high risk status and his susceptibility to sickness.  Plaintiff requested 10 weeks of FMLA, which was granted, but Defendant said the first two weeks would be unpaid.  Prior to the end of his leave, Plaintiff sought to use vacation pay for additional leave, but was subsequently terminated.  
3. Castaneda V. Bradzoil, Inc., No. 1:20-cv-1039 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 9, 2020): Plaintiff sued his employer for interfering with his right to paid leave and terminating his employment under FFCRA.  Plaintiff has three children who required supervision at home while their schools instituted remote learning.  His employer told him to “not bother” requesting leave, but he filed a claim with HR anyways.  The following day, he was terminated.