Insights

Deutsch Kerrigan Article /

Family First Coronavirus Response Act, H.R. 6201 (“FFCRA”)

March 18, 2020

Kelly E. Theard, Sean P. Mount, Melissa M. Lessell and Raymond C. Lewis

share this page

On March 18, 2020, President Trump signed The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, H.R., 6201 (“Act”).  The bill becomes law on April 2, 2020, and is aimed at addressing the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.  This is the second of what is expected to be a series of bills that aim to stimulate economic growth and ensure proper medical treatment and nutrition for those affected by COVID-19.   The impact on businesses and employees covered by this new law is significant.   The new law provides paid sick leave for certain employees through December 31, 2020 for leave related to COVID-19, requires insurers and governmental payors cover all costs of COVID-19 testing and expands food assistance and unemployment benefits. The following summarizes a few of the key elements, and is not intended as an all-inclusive list of the provisions included in the Act.  

1) EMERGENCY FAMILY MEDICAL LEAVE ACT

The Act significantly expands the application of the 1993 Family Medical Leave Act (FLMA).  Pursuant to the Act, eligible employees are entitled to   The Act is applicable to any employer with fewer than 500 employees.  For those employers, any employee who has been employed for 30 days or more is entitled to take 12 weeks leave for a “qualifying need related to the public health emergency.”  A “qualified need related to a public health emergency means the employee is unable to work or telework due to a need for leave to care for a child under 18 years of age if the child’s school is closed or unavailable due to a public health emergency with respect to COVID-19.   An employee is eligible only if they have been employed for at least 30 days.   The Act provides that the first ten (10) days can be unpaid unless the employee chooses to use his/her paid time off.  After the first ten days, the employee receives two-thirds of their regular rate, capped at $200 per day and $ 10,000 in the aggregate per employee. Part-time employees will be entitled to two-thirds of their paid sick leave in the amount equal to the average amount of hours they work for the six months prior to taking Emergency FMLA, capped at $200 per day. The FMLA expansion generally requires that the employee be restored to their position upon return from FMLA leave; however the restoration obligation will not apply to any employer with fewer than 25 employees if certain conditions are met, which are set forth in the Act. 

The Secretary of Labor may exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees if the imposition of such requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business.

2) EMERGENCY PAID SICK LEAVE ACT

The Act also includes a provision that requires the employer to pay sick leave.   To the extent an employee is unable to work or telework for a series of reasons identified in the Act, an employer with fewer than 500 employees must provide that employee with paid sick time.  An eligible employee must be unable to work or telework due to one of the following reasons:

  • the employee is subject to a federal, state, or local quarantine/isolation order related to COVID-19;
  • the employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to COVID-19 concerns;
  • the employee is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis;
  • the employee is caring for an individual who is under a governmental quarantine or healthcare provider isolation order;
  • the employee is caring for a child if school or childcare is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions; or
  • the employee is experiencing any other substantially similar conditions specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services and other governmental officials.

Full-time employees shall be entitled to 80 hours of paid sick leave, while part-time employees will be entitled to paid sick leave based upon their average two-week work expectancy. This paid sick leave shall not carry over to any other years.  Importantly, the employer may not require an employee to use other paid leave before the employee uses this paid sick leave. The paid sick time shall not exceed $511 per day as long as the employee is subject to quarantine, isolation, or is seeking medical treatment for COVID-19. In the event the employee is caring for an individual under such an order or caring for a child whose childcare is unavailable, the paid sick time shall not exceed $200 per day (or $2,000 in the aggregate).

Additionally, the Department of Labor has the authority to exempt small businesses with fewer than 50 employees from the COVID-19 leave requirements when those requirements would jeopardize the viability of the business as a going concern.

3) EMPLOYER TAX CREDITS FOR PAID FAMILY LEAVE & SICK LEAVE

In an effort to assist the employer, an employer is allowed a payroll tax credit for paid family leave or paid sick leave in an attempt to reimburse the employer for the newly mandated paid leave. Employers will be able to recover some costs associated with the paid emergency family and medical leave and emergency sick leave through tax credits; however, these credits will not provide the immediate relief that many employers may need during these cash crunch weeks and months ahead.

This summary is not an exclusive list of relevant provisions contained in the Act, and we recommend you discuss with an Employment lawyer, CPA and/or Tax Specialist how these provisions may apply to your business as well as any other provision that may affect your business.


COVID-19 Response Resource Team:

KELLY E. THEARD

504 593 0667
ktheard@deutschkerrigan.com

SEAN P. MOUNT

504 593 0653
smount@deutschkerrigan.com


MELISSA M. LESSELL

504 593 0689
mlessell@deutschkerrigan.com


RAYMOND C. LEWIS

504 593 0697
rlewis@deutschkerrigan.com

Firm Highlights

  • Experience

    Burnell Joseph v. Atalco Gramercy, LLC et al., No. 3:23-cv-505, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana

    Bob Kerrigan and Jose Ruiz successfully secured summary judgment dismissal for their client, Velan, Inc., in a complex intentional tort and products liability act involving catastrophic injury. The plaintiff, a precipitation batch tank operator working at the Atalco alumina refinery in Gramercy, Louisiana, suffered severe and debilitating chemical burn injuries to his face, eyes, and body when he was sprayed with caustic liquor while working underneath a tank at the refinery. He claimed that the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank was leaking, which allowed the tank to become filled with liquor after it had been previously verified as empty. He filed suit against Velan, Inc., the manufacturer of the valve that controlled the flow of liquor into the tank, alleging that the valve was unreasonable dangerous in accordance with the Louisiana Products Liability Act. He also filed an intentional tort claim against his employer, Atalco Gramercy, LLC, alleging that Atalco knew the valve was leaking and continued to force employees to work underneath the tank. He claimed that under these conditions, an incident such as his was substantially certain to occur. Following the close of discovery, Velan moved for summary judgment dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims was appropriate because: (1) the plaintiff’s injuries were a result of Atalco’s misuse of the valve; (2) the plaintiff lacked the expert testimony needed to prove his theory of liability under the Louisiana Product’s Liability Act; (3) the Velan valve at issue was not unreasonably dangerous as defined by the Louisiana Products Liability Act; and (4) the plaintiff was unable to prove proximate causation needed to establish his case of liability against Velan. The Hon. Brian Jackson found that under the undisputed facts presented by Velan, summary judgment was appropriate and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against it, with prejudice.
  • Insight

    No Mercy for Employers in Louisiana Supreme Court’s Recent Magill Decision

    In its recent per curiam opinion, Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska[1], the Louisiana Supreme Court has foreclosed a routine defense strategy to shield employers from direct negligence claims. The high court has extended their 2022 decision in Martin v. Thomas[2], and now allows plaintiffs to pursue direct negligence claims against an employer despite the employer’s stipulation that its employee was in the course-and-scope of employment and caused the accident. Essentially, employers who fail to implement better employment practices will permit plaintiffs to ramp up potential exposure with evidence, if such exists, that heretofore they were routinely barred from introducing at trial. The Supreme Court’s Magill holding should encourage employers to update where needed their policies and procedures pertaining to hiring, training, supervising, and entrusting duties and property to employees, not only for the safety of their employees and customers in this state, but also eliminate employer’s exposure to direct negligence claims. Prior to Martin, a litigation strategy had taken shape where employers stipulated to 1) an employee being in course-and-scope of employment at the time of the accident, 2) that the employee was at fault for the accident being caused, or 3) both. By stipulating these facts, employers were largely able to exclude evidence of any direct negligence on part of the employer and/or narrow the scope of trial to only a contest of the plaintiff’s injuries. The Supreme Court in Martin held that despite an employer admitting their employee was in course and scope when the accident occurred, plaintiffs could pursue direct negligence claims against the employer—as the issue of liability had not been admitted. Accordingly, employers found success by admitting both course and scope and liability—as seen in the Western District of Louisiana’s holding in Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona[3]. In Ferguson, the defendants stipulated that their employee was acting in course-and-scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. Due to the employer’s stipulation of fault, Judge Wicks of the Western District of Louisiana held that Martin did not apply and that plaintiffs could not pursue direct negligence claims. In Magill, the Louisiana Supreme Court provided scarce reasoning for their decision. The high court simply affirmed the District Court’s expansion of the holding in Martin and that the employer’s reliance on the Western District’s Ferguson holding was a misapplication of Louisiana law. The Supreme Court also cited the decision in Tardo v. Farrell.[4] where the Fifth Circuit held that even if an employer and employee stipulate to course and scope and fault, those admissions do not eliminate direct-negligence claims because those claims remain separate issues for the trier of fact. The Fifth Circuit notably stated, “the societal decisions as to who actually pays does not change the manner of assessing fault to all parties as required by law.” This statement raises concern, as plaintiffs may now attempt to challenge employer stipulations that historically narrowed trials. The Supreme Court did not explain its reliance on Tardo, so future litigation will likely clarify the decision’s full impact. Under Magill, plaintiffs are permitted to pursue direct negligence claims against the employer despite the employer admitting that their employee was acting in course and scope at the time of the accident and their employee was 100% at fault for the accident being caused. The full effect of the Supreme Court’s decision remains to be seen. In praxis, Magill will permit plaintiffs to put on evidence of direct negligence by an employer in front of a jury who cannot assign fault—as fault has already been stipulated to by the defendants. Employers now face the practical risk that plaintiffs will encourage juries to increase damages as a form of punishment against an employer that admits fault but contests the nature and extent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Employers should use this moment to rigorously review and strengthen policies and procedures related to hiring and training in order to limit exposure when plaintiffs assert direct-negligence claims.  [1] Magill v. Werner Enterprises, Inc. of Nebraska, 2025-00892 (La. 11/12/25) [2] Martin v. Thomas, 21-01490 (La. 6/29/22), 346 So.3d 238 [3] Ferguson v. Swift Transp. Co. of Arizona, 17-1570, 2023 WL 173413 (W.D. La. Jan. 12, 2023) [4] Tardo v. Ferrell, 25-123 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/28/25), 2025 WL 1516837 (unpublished).
  • News

    44 Deutsch Kerrigan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® in 2027 Edition, Including Two “Lawyer of the Year” Honorees

    Deutsch Kerrigan proudly announces that 44 of our attorneys have been recognized by their peers in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. This year, 34 Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were named to The Best Lawyers in America®, with an additional 10 attorneys recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. In addition, John Jerry Glas and Kelly E. Theard were each named “Lawyer of the Year” in their respective practice areas—an honor awarded to only one attorney per practice area in each region. John Jerry Glas — Transportation Law, New Orleans Kelly E. Theard — Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants, New Orleans Below is the full list of Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys recognized in the 2027 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® and Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. 2027 The Best Lawyers in America® Thirty-four Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of The Best Lawyers in America®: New Orleans, Louisiana Jennifer Adams Litigation - Environmental Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Francis J. Barry, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Keith J. Bergeron Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Terrence L. Brennan Arbitration Construction Law Litigation - Construction Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Bertrand M. Cass, Jr. Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Beverly Aloisio DeLaune Commercial Litigation Legal Malpractice Law - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Catherine Filippi Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants John Jerry Glas Insurance Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law David Groome, Jr. Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants William C. Harrison, Jr. Aviation Law Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Carl "Chip" Hellmers Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Karen Holland Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Duris L. Holmes Banking and Finance Law Bankruptcy and Creditor Debtor Rights / Insolvency and Reorganization Law Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Litigation - Bankruptcy Joshua G. Keller Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Ryan D. Kelley Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Robert E. Kerrigan, Jr. Commercial Litigation Litigation - Environmental Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Charles E. Leche Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Frederic Theodore Le Clercq Employment Law - Management Labor Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Admiralty and Maritime Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Melissa M. Lessell Commercial Litigation Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Raymond C. Lewis Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Walter P. Maestri Admiralty and Maritime Law Energy Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Joseph L. McReynolds Appellate Practice Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Anne E. Medo Commercial Litigation Richard B. Montgomery III Commercial Transactions / UCC Law Litigation - Real Estate Real Estate Law Securitization and Structured Finance Law Sean P. Mount Commercial Litigation Insurance Law Litigation - Construction Litigation - Insurance Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Talbot M. Quinn Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Joanne Rinardo Employment Law - Management Litigation - Labor and Employment Kermit L. Roux III Family Law Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Brian S. Schaps Construction Law Litigation - Construction A. Wendel Stout III Litigation - Environmental Mass Tort Litigation / Class Actions - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Kelly E. Theard Construction Law Litigation - Construction Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants Marc J. Yellin Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Gulfport, Mississippi Richard Tubertini Business Organizations (including LLCs and Partnerships) Commercial Litigation Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants R. Douglas Vaughn Health Care Law Insurance Law Litigation - Insurance Medical Malpractice Law - Defendants Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Product Liability Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law - Defendants 2027 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America Ten Deutsch Kerrigan attorneys were recognized in the 2027 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America. New Orleans, LA Gregory J. Angelico Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Chance Carter Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Colin Casciato Commercial Litigation   Peter-Raymond Graffeo Construction Law   Ethan King Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants   Jose Ruiz Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Transportation Law   Justine Ware Insurance Law   Casey Wendling Professional Malpractice Law Gulfport, Mississippi Peyton Farve Insurance Law Transportation Law   Keeton Thach Insurance Law Personal Injury Litigation - Defendants Professional Malpractice Law