A "BACKWATER POSITION" AFTER FMLA LEAVE? SORRY, ALL THINGS ARE NOT EQUAL (OR EQUIVALENT)

Posted On June 02, 2021  

by Gail Cohen, Esq. - Assistant General Counsel, Employment and Litigation

& Marti Cardi, Esq. - Vice President, Product Compliance

June 02, 2021

 

The Family and Medical Leave Act requires employers to reinstate an employee to the same, or an equivalent, position following an approved leave. Often this means employers are left to wrestle with the question of what constitutes an “equivalent position” under the FMLA. A recent case from federal district court in Wisconsin, Simon v. Cooperative Educational Service Agency, 2021 WL 2024921 (May 21, 2021) provides some helpful guidance.

Sarah Simon held the position of “alternative program lead teacher” for Cooperative Education (“CESA”) at REACH Academy, a school for elementary students with emotional and/or behavioral disabilities. Her duties included far more than teaching curriculum to the students in her classroom. They also involved management of paraprofessionals working under her supervision, and developing and implementing integrated education plans (“IEPs”) for her students.

Ms. Simon suffered a concussion from a physical altercation with one of her students. She left work to go to the Emergency Room and informed HR about her need for time off as a result. She was placed on worker’s compensation leave and cleared to return to full time duty after about a month. While she was on leave, her employer concluded restoring and returning her to her prior job constituted an “unreasonable risk.” She was instead placed in a position as a special education teacher at a different school, but at her same salary and benefits – until being informed that her contract would not be renewed. Simon sued, alleging CESA had failed to reinstate her to an equivalent position.

The case went to trial on that question. You know the employer is going to lose when early in the opinion the court observes that the employer “not only refused to return her to her previous position, but instead parked her in a backwater position with materially fewer responsibilities … Simon deserved better and the law demanded better.” Yikes.

The FMLA provides that, upon return from leave, an employee is entitled to be restored to the position she held prior to leave, or to an equivalent position which is “virtually identical to the employee’s former position,” with equivalent employment benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. The test for equivalency is strict: the new position must involve “the same or substantially similar duties and responsibilities, which must entail substantially equivalent skill, effort, responsibility, and authority.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(a).

This employer thought that as long as Ms. Simon was earning the same salary, that was enough to be equivalent; but the regulations bear out that jobs are about more than just pay. In Ms. Simon’s case, the move to the special education role eliminated management responsibilities she had for the paraprofessionals with whom she worked, along with many significant duties in which she clearly took great pride and for which she was vested with authority and discretion. In Simon the court held that a new position with less prestige and visibility, or a loss of management responsibilities – even at the same pay – is not an equivalent position.

Pings for Employers:

  • “Unreasonable risk?” It is truly cringe-worthy to hear an employer make the assumption that an employee who was injured at work constituted an “unreasonable risk.” The court opinion never explains what CESA perceived this risk to be, or why reinstatement to a different position lessened that supposed risk. This consideration is irrelevant in the FMLA world, however, because the FMLA does not allow an employer to deny job restoration because of a fear of risk.
  • Same position is your best bet. When an employee is returning from leave, your best bet is to restore her to the same job she held prior to taking FMLA. If that is not available for legitimate business reasons or otherwise, look for one that is truly equivalent and comparable, not only in terms of pay and benefits but the other practical, meaningful aspects of work that employers should never forget. When an employee is “reinstated” following FMLA leave to a position that is less prestigious or has less responsibility, you are at risk for a lawsuit.
  • An ADA lesson on the side. It appears that Ms. Simon recovered quickly enough that her condition did not rise to the level of an ADA-protected disability. However, let’s consider some ADA rules that otherwise would have applied: Under the ADA, the employer’s obligation is to restore an employee to the SAME position following leave as an accommodation. An employer’s failure to reinstate the employee to the same position is justified only if it would pose an undue hardship on the business – a tough standard to meet. We touched on that topic in a prior blog post.
  • And a BONUS ADA lesson! Finally, the ADA does not permit an employer to refuse to reinstate an employee after accommodation leave due to a fear of “increased risk” unless the employee poses a direct threat to herself or others. The EEOC addressed this issue in the workers’ compensation context in its Enforcement Guidance on WC and the ADA at Question 14. Suffice it to say that, if you are going to consider an employee a risk after she is injured in your workplace, you had better have some objective support, medical or otherwise, to back up that position!

Matrix Can Help!

Matrix offers integrated FMLA/leave of absence, ADA, and integrated disability management services.[MC1] For more information about our solutions, please contact your Matrix or Reliance Standard account manager, or reach us at ping@matrixcos.com.


 [MC1]

"CAN YOU HELP ME DESIGN A PFML PLAN THAT SATISFIES ALL STATE REQUIREMENTS?" PART III IN OUR PAID FAMILY LEAVE TRILOGY

Posted On May 10, 2021  

by Marti Cardi, Esq. - Vice President, Product Compliance

May 10, 2021

 

This is the third of a 3-part series on paid family and medical leave (PFML). Here are the prior posts:

  • This is the third of a 3-part series on paid family and medical leave (PFML). Here are the prior posts:
  • The FAMILY Act – Federal Paid Family and Medical Leave Coming Your Way? (Part II)

For those of you who stick with us through this post, we have a reward at the end – and you don't even have to send in your box tops to get it!

 

“Hey guys, can you help me design a PFML plan that will satisfy ALL the state requirements?”

We get this question a lot. The answer is, uh, no. Nor would you really want that! While there are some common features that make up a baseline PFML offering, every state that has a paid disability and/or paid family leave law – and I mean every state – puts its own special stamp on the scope of the benefits provided. Cover all of those universally and you may not have any workers left on the job site!

Ok, that’s maybe a bit of an exaggeration, but not as much as you might think. Let’s consider:

For an employer to comply with every state law in which it has employees, a universal plan will have to meet the provisions most favorable to the employee in any such state. That means the best benefits required by any state plan and the lowest cost or burden. Let’s take that apart to see what it means, element by element.

  1. You can never cover them all with one plan. This is because some state programs are administered only by a state agency, i.e. private plans are not allowed. So, for example, in Rhode Island and District of Columbia employers have no choice but to adhere to the state benefits scheme. One option, though, would be to layer on more benefits to bring your RI and DC employees up to par with all your other U.S. employees.
  2. Concurrency with FMLA and Stacking. “Stacking” means the ability of an employee to take leaves for the same reason – bonding, for example – sequentially rather than concurrently, thus stretching out the amount of time on leave. As you may recall, FMLA is never an employee’s choice – if leave is taken for a covered reason and an eligible employee has FMLA entitlement available, the employer must designate the leave as FMLA. Ideally, if an employee takes leave that is covered by FMLA and also covered by a state paid leave law we want both laws to apply at the same time. And in some states this works. In Massachusetts, for example, the employee’s leave is automatically covered by and applied to Mass PFML entitlements under the state plan (or a private plan) even if the employee doesn’t request such coverage. In New York, the employer can elect to have concurrent FMLA / NY PFL coverage by giving appropriate notice to the employee. But cruise on up to the Pacific Northwest: In Washington, it is the employee’s choice whether to take WA PFML at the same time as FMLA. So, an employee could choose to take 12 weeks of unpaid FMLA for bonding (but maybe get some pay through use of PTO) and then take another 12 weeks of WA PFML paid leave for bonding. Another, more reasonable, example of this rule would be if the employee needs time off now for surgery and takes FMLA, but saves the WA PFML entitlement to bond with an expected new child, or for an upcoming need to care for a family member with a serious health condition.

    Think of the implication in building a universal paid leave plan: To provide the better benefit – a Washington employee’s ability to defer usage of the state paid and job-protected leave to a later time – the universal plan would need to allow every employee to defer usage of the state leave benefit in all cases. Think of the stacking going on when employees grow savvy to this idea!

  3. All leave reasons, all family members, for the longest durations. Here’s the next consideration: A universally compliant plan would need to provide paid, job-protected leave for every leave reason offered by any state and, for leave to care for a family member, all family relationships covered by any state, and for the longest durations available. Here’s what it would look like:
    • Leave reasons: Employee’s health condition, care of family member, bonding, military exigencies, care of injured servicemember, safe leave, organ/bone marrow donation, bereavement . . . and any other leave reason added by amendment or through a new state PFML law.
    • Family members: Parent, spouse, domestic partner, child (any age), sibling, grandparent, grandchild, and all the permutations of these relationships such as step, foster, and in-law. Then there’s legal guardian or ward, in loco parentis, and the recent expansion to what we call “like a family member” – meaning anyone the employee considers to be like a family member, regardless of whether there is a blood or legal relationship. Sound squishy? Here’s an example: my grade school best friend’s mother who looked after me every day after school while my mom was at work and I was at her house, doing homework and playing with my friend. That might be stretching it, but not much under some of the laws.
    • Durations: Up to 52 weeks for your employee’s own serious health condition, and up to 12 weeks for family leave or other reasons.

     

  4. Costs & benefits. Here’s where the rubber meets the road. If you choose to withhold contributions from employee paychecks to pay for these leave benefits, under a universal plan you could withhold no more than the lowest rate allowed in any state. That’s 0.2% of the employee’s wages (Colorado, contributions effective in 2023). But you have to provide the highest benefit, which is California’s $1357/week in 2021 for both disability and family leave. California allows withholding 1.2% of employee’s wages to cover that – 6 times more than Colorado allows. So I’m just not sure the math works out, unless as an employer you are financially very fit and intending to carry a big portion of the cost of the program.

Other stuff. There are many other features you would have to factor in to have a universally compliant PFML plan, such as intermittent time in one hour or smaller increments (even for bonding); very limited information you can require of the employee to support the leave; and more. And give this some thought: More states are almost certainly on their way to passing PFML laws. Who knows what special twist the next one will have? Get ready to sharpen your pencils to figure out the additional cost of more family relationships (although they probably can’t get any broader than “everyone,” longer leaves, lower employee contributions, higher benefits . . . What about your employees in states that don’t yet have a statutory paid medical or family leave benefit? Or employees in jurisdictions where a private plan is not allowed? Do you really want to offer these broad, unilateral benefits to all employees?

Here’s your reward! Congratulations! You’ve made it through this analysis of One Plan to Rule Them All. I promised a reward and here it is: Statutory Disability and Paid Family Leave Laws. This link will take you to a document that summarizes in detail all of the state-mandated paid benefit and leave programs, complete with employee eligibility, leave reasons, contribution rates, and much more. This site is maintained in real time by Matrix and Reliance Standard so it is always up to date. We hope you will find it useful and keep it on your Favorites list. Just remember, it will be updated frequently as developments warrant, so always best to go to the site rather than print it out (who does that anymore, anyway?).

Matrix can help!

I am guessing by now you can see that even if a universal plan could be designed, it would not be a sustainable paid leave program. So how do you ensure compliance with all of the conflicting and overlapping leave laws? One easy solution is to engage Matrix and Reliance Standard to handle it all for you – from state voluntary paid leave and benefits plans to unpaid but job protected leaves such as the FMLA and state equivalents. Throw in your company leave policies and we’ve got you covered! For more information reach us at ping@matrixcos.com or contact your Matrix or Reliance Standard representative.

 

PAID FAMILY & MEDICAL LEAVE UPDATES: A FREE WEBINAR

Posted On May 03, 2021  

by Marti Cardi, Esq. - Vice President, Product Compliance

May 03, 2021

 

If you’re a regular reader you know here at Matrix-Radar we spend a lot of time talking about Paid Family and Medical Leave. It’s not ‘cause we love it so much – honest! It’s because, week to week, there’s always something to talk about!

If you’re ready for a valuable State of the State (and sometimes federal) PFML, you’ll want to join me and my colleague Kevin Cranston, Director of Product and Strategy for Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company, this Thursday for an important update on the PFML landscape as it exists today – and where it might be going.

Moderated by Tim Suchecki, the webinar is free, and you can register here: https://bit.ly/3gpQLIk. I hope to see you Thursday, May 6 at 2 PM Eastern.

WORKERS' COMP AND FMLA – A CLASH OF TITANS OR FRIENDS HOLDING HANDS?

Posted On April 20, 2021  

by Marti Cardi, Esq. - Vice President, Product Compliance

& Armando Rodriguez, JD - Compliance Attorney, Compliance And Legal Department

April 20, 2021

 

Pop Quiz: Your employee is injured on the job. Is he covered by

  1. workers’ compensation
  2. the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), or
  3. the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

For those of you waiting for “D. Could be all of the above”, well done!

***

A recent decision by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals tells of an employer who failed the quiz by applying only workers’ comp following an employee’s workplace injury. Reversing a lower court decision in favor of the employer, the appellate court observed that the FMLA does not set up a “clash of Titans” between itself and workers’ compensation. An employer’s obligations under the FMLA are not excused simply because the employer provides workers’ compensation benefits. Back to the lower court for a jury trial – a place you rarely want to be.

What happened?

On September 15, 2016, Noorjahan Ramji, an 11-year employee of Hospital Housekeeping Systems, LLC, (HHS) tripped on the leg of a table and fell, injuring her right knee. Ramji was off work for 11 days and had various doctor’s appointments. Although HHS immediately initiated a workers’ compensation claim for Ramji, they did not inform her about her rights under the FMLA to take up to 12 weeks of job-protected FMLA leave. Instead, HHS required Ramji to use her sick leave until she returned to work in a light duty position.

Per HHS’s internal policy, Pamela Merriweather, HHS’s FMLA administrator, accompanied Ramji to all medical appointments. Ramji was treated with a cortisone shot, referred to 6-8 weeks of physical therapy, and released to return to work on light duty. On a follow-up appointment a month later Ramji exhibited a full range of motion and stated that the initial cortisone shot had resolved her knee pain. Her physician found that Ramji had reached maximum medical improvement with a zero percent disability rating, and released her to return to full duty work.

Ramji attempted to return to work that same day, only to be informed that her return was contingent upon successful completion of an essential-functions test comprised of various physical tasks. Ramji had trouble with several of the tasks such as deep knee squats (it hurts my knees just thinking about it!), and asked Merriweather if she could use accrued sick and vacation leave to give herself additional recovery time.  On the following Monday, October 24, Merriweather told Ramji she was being terminated for failing to complete 5 tasks on the essential-functions test. Ramji again asked to use unused sick and vacation leave, but Merriweather denied the request and fired Ramji.

Hospital Housekeeping’s Defense

HHS asserted three basic defenses:

First, it claimed it was not on notice that Ramji needed or was entitled to FMLA leave.  The appellate court addressed this defense with a thorough review of all the information HHS had about Ramji’s condition. (Umm…the company HR administrator was present during each medical appointment!)  Even though at one point the physician released Ramji to return to work with no restrictions, this was without full understanding of Ramji’s job duties or knowledge of the impending essential-functions test she would have to undergo. Ramji’s several days of missed work and medical treatment, her inability to pass the essential duties test – witnessed by Merriweather – and her requests for time off to heal from her injury were more than plenty to alert HHS that the FMLA was in play.

Second, HHS asserted it was excused from compliance with the FMLA because it provided Ramji with workers’ compensation benefits. The court rejected this argument, citing the FMLA regulations that specify a workers’ compensation absence and FMLA leave may run concurrently. (See 29 C.F.R. § 825.702(d)(2) “An employee may be on a workers’ compensation absence due to an on-the-job injury or illness which also qualifies as a serious health condition under FMLA. The workers’ compensation absence and FMLA leave may run concurrently . . .”).

Third, HHS argued unsuccessfully that Ramji’s acceptance of a light-duty position relieved it of its FMLA obligations. However, the FMLA regulations explicitly provide that “[i]f FMLA entitles an employee to leave, an employer may not, in lieu of FMLA leave entitlement, require an employee to take a job with a reasonable accommodation.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.702(d)(1) (emphasis added).

Moreover, an employer may offer – but an employee is not required to accept – a light-duty position in lieu of taking leave. In such case the employee may no longer qualify for workers’ compensation pay benefits, but the employee is entitled to continue on unpaid FMLA leave until either the employee is able to return to the same or an equivalent position or until she has exhausted the 12-week FMLA leave entitlement. § 852.702(d)(2).

Based on these regulations, the court held that Ramji was entitled to decline the light-duty job offer but she never had the opportunity to decide between taking a light-duty position or taking unpaid FMLA leave. HHS made that choice for her by offering only a light-duty assignment.

One additional point not addressed by the court: HHS didn’t offer Ramji extended light duty after she failed the essential-functions test; they fired her!

What about the ADA?

Ramji did not assert an ADA claim. At the time of her termination she had only had her knee injury for about 5 weeks. Although there is no specific duration a condition must exist to constitute an ADA-protected impairment, 5 weeks with an expectation of near-term recovery might not be enough.

In fact, though, it took Ramji several months to heal fully. Had HHS given her FMLA leave or the option of continued light duty rather than firing her, the duration of her medical condition and its limitations might have crossed over into ADA territory. Dodged a bullet on that one, HHS!

PINGS FOR EMPLOYERS

So how do you navigate these multiple minefields?

  • First, remember that an employee is entitled to the protection of each and every law that might apply to her situation. The FMLA, state workers’ compensation, and the ADA are 3 distinct legal rights that often overlap and intersect, as evidenced by this case. None of them cancels another out.
  • Analyze the employee’s situation and the various laws to determine which ones apply. The employee will be entitled to the best benefits available under each of the applicable laws. So, for example, workers’ compensation to provide pay benefits and medical expenses, the FMLA to provide job protection during any related absences, and the ADA to provide extended leave if needed or workplace accommodations upon return to work.
  • Train, train, train! Make sure your supervisors know enough about these laws to spot when one or more might apply and know the proper channels for directing the employee and seeking further assistance. (As this case shows, even your benefits folks might need refresher training!)
  • When in doubt, notify the employee of the proper reporting processes and encourage the employee to file a claim. Reporting or filing a claim doesn’t necessarily mean the employee will get the benefits and protections of a given law, but you will have given the employee proper notice of rights and a fair opportunity to exercise those rights.
  • For FMLA, remember also to provide the employee with the notice of rights and responsibilities and the eligibility notice within 5 days of your knowledge of the claim. Here is the Department of Labor’s handy dandy Form WH-381 just for this purpose! (Or, you can always engage Matrix to do that for you! That’s kind of our jam.)

Matrix can help!

Matrix offers integrated leave of absence, ADA, and workers’ compensation claims management services. For more information about our solutions, please contact your Matrix or Reliance Standard account manager, or reach us at ping@matrixcos.com.

THE FAMILY ACT -- FEDERAL PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE COMING YOUR WAY? (PAID FAMILY AND MEDICAL LEAVE – PART II)

Posted On April 12, 2021  

by Marti Cardi, Esq. - Vice President, Product Compliance

April 12, 2021

 

In the legislative system, conflicting leave laws are considered especially heinous . . . [DHUNK DHUNK]

OK, so paid family and medical leave is not as riveting as stories ripped from the headlines. Or is it? I mean, these are actual headlines, aren’t they? Or am I just a Superfan?

This is the second of a 3-part series on paid family and medical leave (PFML). Part I addressed whether a federal paid leave law would solve the confusion and conflict created by multiple state paid family and medical leave laws.

Watch this space for Part III: Can you help me design a single PFML plan that will satisfy all state requirements?

 

We last left our heroes, those beleaguered leave and benefits administrators in your Human Resources Department, hoping that the feds would act to solve the multi-state PFML morass. In that episode, we explained why a federal paid leave law would not be the panacea we would like. Now let’s look at what is currently proposed at the federal level, and consider what paid leave and absence management would be like with that law thrown into the mix.

You will no doubt remember (who wouldn’t?) that New York Senator Kristen Gillibrand and Connecticut Representative Rosa DeLauro have introduced companion federal paid family and medical leave bills every legislative session since 2014. This year is no exception: SB 248 and HB 804, respectively.

The bills are referred to as the Family and Medical Insurance Leave Act, or the FAMILY Act, but don’t let the name fool you. There is no job protected leave associated with the FAMILY Act and, for reasons discussed below, the use of FAMILY Act benefits will not always coincide with coverage under the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) we’ve come to know and love.

Here are the key features (but don’t expect the minute details yet – the legislation is particularly obtuse in many respects):

  • Entitlement. The total amount of paid leave is 60 “caregiving” days in a 365-day benefit period, following an unpaid waiting period of 5 caregiving days. §4(a); §2(10); §2(5). A caregiving day means any date the employee is engaged in an activity that qualifies him or her for paid leave (see next bullet point). §2(1). This is similar to the FMLA’s 12 workweeks but will not correspond in many cases because:
    • The 5-day waiting period means FMLA will start for an eligible employee before the countdown for 60 caregiving days.
    • The 365-day benefit period is calculated on a measured-forward basis tied to a certain date in relation to the paid leave (and that date is one of the obtuse parts of the law). §4(c)(1) and (2). The benefit period will never coincide with an FMLA leave year, which as we know can be measured in one of four ways: calendar year, fixed 12-month period, measured forward from first date of leave, or rolling back from first date of leave.
    • Because the paid benefit entitlement is measured in caregiving days, it appears the benefits are available only in full-day increments, not in increments of an hour or less as with the FMLA. As a result, an employee could take intermittent FMLA leave and not touch any or most of his FAMILY Act entitlement.
    • Now think about continuous leave for anyone with a work schedule other than 5 days per week. For example, if an employee works 3 12-hour shifts per week and takes continuous leave for 12 calendar weeks, the employee will exhaust her FMLA entitlement but have only used 36 caregiving days, leaving 24 more caregiving days available.
  • Benefit reasons. Pay benefits are available for “qualified caregiving,” which includes most of the same reasons as leave under the FMLA: the employee’s own serious health condition (SHC); caring for a family member with a SHC; birth and bonding with a new child; placement of a child for adoption or foster care and bonding; and qualifying military exigencies. Leave specifically to care for an ill or injured servicemember is excluded from benefits, but depending on the employee’s relationship to the servicemember, such leave will often qualify as care of a family member with a SHC. §2(6).
  • Covered family relationships. Care for a family member with a SHC includes the FMLA relationships of parent, child, or spouse, but also includes a domestic partner and the child of a domestic partner. §2(6) and §4(j). Leave taken during receipt of benefits for these two relationships will not count toward an employee’s FMLA leave usage.
  • Employee eligibility. Eligible employees include anyone who is insured for disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act at the time of the application for benefits; and has earned income from employment during the 12 months prior to the month in which an application for benefits is filed. §4(a)(1)-(2). That’s clear as mud, isn’t it? Does that mean earned income in each of the prior 12 months, or at any time during the prior 12 months? I haven’t studied the SSA eligibility requirements yet, but they are . . . unlikely? . . . to coincide with eligibility for FMLA leave (12 months of service, 1250 hours worked in the past 12 months, and engaged at a worksite with 50 employees within 75 miles).
  • Benefit amounts. Monthly benefits are determined according to a formula that I, quite frankly, have not figured out yet. Here, you have a crack at it: “Benefits are the greater of . . . the lesser of 1⁄18 of the wages [in the highest of the last 3 years] . . . or the minimum benefit amount . . . multiplied by the quotient (not greater than 1) obtained by dividing the number of caregiving days of the individual in such month by 20.” Or something like that. §4(b).

    I can tell you this much: during the first calendar year of the program the maximum benefit is $4,000 per month and the minimum benefit is $580 per month; amounts are adjusted annually based on the national average wage index. The benefit amount per day of Qualified Caregiving is the employee’s monthly benefit divided by 20 (apparently, regardless of how many work days there actually are in the month).  §4(b). 

  • Funding. The benefits available under the FAMILY Act are funded by contributions from the employee and employer each of 0.2% of the employee’s wages, limited by the Social Security cap. §6(a) and (b).

So now, let’s revisit the prior topic, “If only the feds would act!” Whaddaya think? Is this bill the answer to the multi-state PFML morass?

Remember, this discussion doesn’t even begin to address the conflicts between the FAMILY Act and existing state PFML laws, such as differing leave reasons, family relationships, durations, employee eligibility, and so on.

 

SO WILL THESE BILLS PASS?

 


Well, let me see. They, or something very much like them, have been introduced for 5 U.S. legislative sessions now. This year, we have President Biden who has spoken in favor of paid leave in a variety of contexts. But we have a 50-50 split in the Senate and big, important bills coming and gone. Would enough Dems hold the line to pass something like this? In COVID Year II? Then again, the legislative session is 2 years long, so these bills are likely to linger into 2022 if they don’t pass in 2021. The political climate might be more amenable then. Maybe.

Hey, I guess this is as exciting as a Law and Order episode! I’m headed to Hulu for a brain break!

MATRIX CAN HELP!

We are committed to watching and understanding all things PFML – state and federal. Stay tuned for our periodic blog posts as developments warrant, and watch of our next installment of the Multi-state Morass.