FMLA Just Got Messy: DOL Redefines “Normal Workweek” for Shift Workers

Employees with irregular or extended schedules (like correctional officers, nurses, EMTs, and other shift-based workers) have a new way to calculate Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) entitlements per a DOL Opinion Letter, FMLA2025-02-A (Sept. 30, 2025). In summary, under the Opinion Letter, FMLA hours are based on the actual “normal workweek,” not a standardized 40-hour figure, where mandatory overtime now counts, but voluntary overtime does not. As a result, an employee’s 12 weeks of FMLA leave must reflect that employee’s schedule, not a default 40-hour standard. For example, a correctional officer working 84 hours every two weeks (12-hour shifts, mandatory overtime included) is entitled to 504 hours of FMLA leave, not 480. Employers must also deduct leave on that same basis: hours actually missed from the normally scheduled workweek. To put it simply, if an employee skips required overtime because of FMLA leave, those hours count against their entitlement. But if they skip voluntary overtime, it doesn’t.

Simply, under the Opinion Letter, DOL drew a fuzzy (and litigable) line between “mandatory” and “voluntary.” These types of fuzzy lines result in litigation where an employee will claim that they were ‘pressured’ to pick up shifts or 'strongly suggested’ to take extra hours. Rather than clarifying the rules, the DOL has created a new battleground for disputes over scheduling language and payroll records. Employers are now left to prove, retroactively, that a shift was truly voluntary. Employers with shift differentials, rotating schedules, or recurring overtime must audit how they calculate FMLA entitlement and usage. HR systems that default to a 40-hour week are officially outdated. The DOL has made it clear that if your FMLA math doesn’t match your reality, you’re violating federal law.

The bottom line is that employers, especially in public safety and healthcare, need to redefine their policies before the lawsuits hit. Audit your “mandatory” overtime definitions, verify your FMLA tracking system, and get your documentation airtight. Because after this Opinion Letter, one miscounted hour could mean an FMLA interference claim.

Don’t wait for an FMLA lawsuit to expose your timekeeping gaps.

📞 Contact Lieb at Law, P.C. to audit your overtime policies, HR systems, and FMLA compliance before enforcement begins. Call Lieb at Law, P.C. 646-216-8009. 

*attorney advertising

FTC Issues New Rule Banning Non-Compete Clauses - Retroactive Effect Raises Due Process Concerns

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has just issued a Non-Compete Clause Rule banning all Non-Competes. 

This Final Rule provides that it is an unfair method of competition for persons to, among other things, enter into non-compete clauses. While this Final Rule does not include a salary threshold, it does allow for non-competes when a business is sold, and also allows existing non-competes to be enforced for senior executives.

So, existing non-competes for workers, who are not senior executives, are no longer enforceable (retroactively undoing contracts). Is that a violation of due process / impermissible taking for employers? Are constitutional challenges next?  

Yet, the most interesting paragraph of the Final Rule reads:

Non-solicitation agreements are generally not non-compete clauses under the final rule because, while they restrict who a worker may contact after they leave their job, they do not by their terms or necessarily in their effect prevent a worker from seeking or accepting other work or starting a business. However, non-solicitation agreements can satisfy the definition of non-compete clause in § 910.1 where they function to prevent a worker from seeking or accepting other work or starting a business after their employment ends. Whether a non-solicitation agreement—or a no-hire agreement or a no-business agreement, both of which were referenced by commenters, as discussed previously—meets this threshold is a fact-specific inquiry. The Commission further notes that—like all the restrictive employment agreements described in this Part III.D—non-solicitation agreements, no-hire, and no-business agreements are subject to section 5’s prohibition of unfair methods of competition, irrespective of whether they are covered by the final rule. 

Moving forward, non-competes are mostly gone, but non-solicitation agreements, no-hire, and no-business agreements are clearly also on the chopping block where the utilization of each could easily result in protected litigation as to whether they are covered by the Final Rule or generally by section 5's prohibition of unfair methods of competition.

You can read the FTC's press release here.

You can read the Final Non-Compete Clause Rule here.  

CLE - Proving and Calculating Front Pay and Back Pay in Employment Cases

Attorney Andrew Lieb is conducting a Continuing Legal Education course on Thursday, March 14, 2024 through the Connecticut Bar Association. 

Proving and Calculating Front Pay and Back Pay in Employment Cases (EDU240314)

About the Program

This course is designed to empower Connecticut Attorneys evaluating discrimination and whistleblower cases with the skills needed to calculate front and back pay. Attendees will delve into the intricacies of these calculations, exploring the underlying factors, and understanding the legal foundation established by case law and the rationale behind these formulas.

This course was created for both in-house and outside general counsel who need to provide an objective exposure analysis to their C-Suite counterparts when fielding discrimination claims. While this course is tailored for those with existing knowledge of the subject, it also serves as a valuable resource for referring attorneys to know what they have while undertaking an intake and giving initial advice to plaintiffs.

The course includes theory, math, and modeling with hypotheticals to walk participants through practical applications of the discussed concepts. To facilitate continued learning, participants will be provided with helpful links and reference materials, enabling them to further explore the subject matter beyond the course.

By the end of this CLE, Connecticut Attorneys will possess the skills and knowledge needed to confidently calculate front and back pay while having an invaluable resource for screening future employment law cases.

You Will Learn

• About the impact of the different factors that contribute to the calculation of front pay and back pay
• How to apply the different factors and how each impacts the calculations
• Helpful skills and knowledge needed to defend settlements with your C-Suite Team

Click Here to Register Here

To schedule a workplace training contact Lieb at Law, P.C.

No More Non-Competes VETOED

On December 22, 2023 Governor Hochul vetoed Bill A01278. This bill would have fundamentally altered New York State's Labor Law by prohibiting non-compete agreements and additional restrictive covenants in labor and employment contracts.

This bill would have addressed the usage of non-compete agreements in employment contracts. It defined critical terms and highlighted that employers, their representatives, or officers of corporations could not solicit, demand, or accept a non-compete agreement from a covered individual. However, it didn't prohibit employers from entering into agreements that protected trade secrets, client information, or client solicitation. 

The justification behind this legislation was grounded in the adverse impact of non-compete agreements on New York's labor market and economy. These agreements purportedly curtailed workers’ mobility, limiting their ability to explore better employment opportunities and potentially stifling competitive wages and benefits.

The federal government has shown interest in a nationwide ban on non-compete agreements. New York could have lead the charge in fostering a more open and competitive labor market by codifying this ban into state law. 

Now, non-competes live on and companies hiring those with non-competes should be worried about tortious interference with a contract claims being levied against them. 

To learn more about Bill A01278, click here. 

OSHA Guidance on COVID-19 Reporting Requirements for Employers

On September 30, 2020, the Occupational safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published additional frequently asked questions and answers (FAQs) regarding an employer’s reporting requirements for in-patient hospitalizations and fatalities for employees who contracted COVID at work.

The new FAQs require employers to report in-patient hospitalizations and fatalities for work-related, confirmed, cases of COVID-19.

For in-patient hospitalization, the specific rules are:

• Employers must report in-patient hospitalization within 24 hours of the work-related incident. A work-related incident means that the employee was exposed to COVID-19 in the workplace.
• The 24-hour reporting period starts when the employer:
• learns that an employee was in-patient hospitalized within 24 hours of a work-related incident; and
• determines afterward that the cause of the in-patient hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19.
• The above rules only apply to reporting but not to record keeping. Employers must still record work-related confirmed COVID-19 cases regardless of whether an employee was hospitalized.

For employees who died due to a work-related, confirmed, case of COVID-19, the specific rules are:

• Employers must report them within 30 days of the work-related incident or the employee’s exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace.
• The employer must report the fatality to OSHA within 8 hours of knowing or determining:
• that the employee died within 30 days of exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace; AND
• that the cause of the death was a work-related case of COVID-19.
• Similar to in-patient hospitalization, the above limitations only apply to reporting and not to record-keeping.

Employers are advised to consult counsel to ensure compliance and to roll out a tailored record keeping and reporting procedures compliant with OSHA’s requirements.