Search form

Georgia Laws Endorse ‘On Call Scheduling’ Practice and Provide Limited Paid Sick Leave Protections

By Emily S. Borna, Eric R. Magnus and Justin R. Barnes
  • May 12, 2017

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal has signed into law a measure preempting any local wage laws or requirements that employers compensate employees for changes related to employee schedules. Act 221 (H.B. 243) continues Georgia’s tradition of promoting an employer-friendly environment, particularly for retail businesses and restaurants.

A second measure, Act 203 (S.B. 201), signed by the governor states that if an employer elects to provide its employees with paid sick leave, the employer must permit employees to use up to five days of the sick leave for the care of family members.

Both laws become effective on July 1, 2017.

On Call Scheduling

The new law protects businesses that want to use the practice of “on call” or “predictive” scheduling by barring local governments from requiring additional pay for scheduling changes. The effect of this is to protect the practice of “on call” and “predictive” scheduling.

Act 221 is Georgia’s most recent attempt to draw to the state businesses looking for a break from more restrictive state and local wage laws in other jurisdictions. Existing Georgia law bars cities and counties from adopting minimum wage rates higher than the federal minimum wage, currently $7.25 an hour, or requiring overtime pay not required by federal law. Existing Georgia law also bars any local government entity from requiring employers to offer employee benefits (including health insurance).

“On call scheduling” practices keep employees “on call.” Employers would inform employees, sometimes just hours before the scheduled work time, whether they must report to work. “Predictive scheduling” mandates usually include “predictive pay” provisions, which obligate employers to pay employees for shift changes and cancelled shifts. They also require payment to employees who were “on-call,” but not called into work on a given day.

These practices are common in the retail and restaurant industries. They allow employers the flexibility to adjust their staffing levels with short notice based on customer demand. Both are good examples of companies taking advantage of predictive modeling and analytic technology to forecast customer demand in real time to save labor costs.

They are controversial, however, because employees must keep themselves available to work, but are not paid for the shifts they ultimately are not required to work, with little notice. Employees may be forced to make last-minute adjustments in child care and transportation and may be kept from taking other work. In 2016, many state attorneys general began looking into the practice, resulting in a December 2016 agreement adopted by 21 national retailers agreeing not to use the practice of “on call scheduling” in those states. Those states include California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington, D.C. In addition, the cities of San Francisco and Seattle adopted laws requiring employers to pay employees when their shifts were changed or cancelled without sufficient notice.

With the new law, Governor Deal and the state legislature are ensuring that such laws are not planted in the Peach State. The law is a clear effort by Georgia to differentiate itself from other states that penalized or banned these practices, which are becoming more common in retail and restaurant settings.

Sick Leave

The new law requires employers that elect to offer paid sick leave to their employees to permit eligible employees to use up to five days of paid leave each year to care for immediate family members.

Act 203, however, has limited application. It does not apply:

  • to employees working less than 30 hours per week; or
  • to employers with fewer than 25 employees.

Significantly, Act 203 does not require employers to adopt any paid leave policies at all or to pay out unused paid leave time upon separation (continuing a “use-it-or-lose-it” approach). It also does not provide a private cause of action against employers that do not comply with the law.

Georgia employers with paid leave policies should adjust them accordingly. These and similar paid leave law measures are being adopted by other states feeling competitive pressure to provide protected paid leave to employees.

***

Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney with questions regarding these new Georgia laws or on creating compliant practices and avoiding costly litigation.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This Update is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended as legal advice nor does it create an attorney/client relationship between Jackson Lewis and any readers or recipients. Readers should consult counsel of their own choosing to discuss how these matters relate to their individual circumstances. Reproduction in whole or in part is prohibited without the express written consent of Jackson Lewis.

This Update may be considered attorney advertising in some states. Furthermore, prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Jackson Lewis P.C. represents management exclusively in workplace law and related litigation. Our attorneys are available to assist employers in their compliance efforts and to represent employers in matters before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. For more information, please contact the attorney(s) listed or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

July 20, 2017

Final New York Paid Family Leave Regulations Released: What Employers Need to Know

July 20, 2017

The Workers’ Compensation Board adopted the final regulations for New York’s new Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (PFL) on July 19, 2017. Final Regulations were issued previously by the Department of Financial Services on May 16, 2017. PFL will provide broad paid family leave benefits through the state’s existing Disability Benefits Law... Read More

July 19, 2017

Claim of Massachusetts Employee Fired for Medical Marijuana Use May Proceed, State High Court Rules

July 19, 2017

An employee fired after she tested positive for marijuana on a test administered in the hiring process should be able to proceed with her “handicap discrimination” claim under Massachusetts’ anti-discrimination statute, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled. Barbuto v. Advantage Sales & Marketing, LLC, SJC -12226 (July... Read More

July 18, 2017

Nevada Issues Official Notice for Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act for Immediate Posting

July 18, 2017

The Nevada Equal Rights Commission has issued an official Notice for the Nevada Pregnant Workers’ Fairness Act. Under the Act, most employers with at least 15 employees must immediately: post the Notice in the workplace in a conspicuous place at their business locations, in an area that is accessible to employees; provide all... Read More