New Guidance for Remote Work and Leave

March 13, 2023

In February 2023, the federal Department of Labor (DOL) issued new guidance about employees working remotely from home.


The DOL confirmed that the rules for compensating employees, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), for break time apply whether the employee is working onsite or remote. Break times of 20 minutes or less are treated as compensable time.  A longer break is not compensable time, so long as the employee is completely relieved from duties, which is defined as: (i) being “told in advance that they may leave the job and they will not have to commence work until a specified hour,” or (ii) that they may “freely choose the hour at which they resume working and the time is long enough for the employees to effectively use their own purposes.” The DOL also noted the FLSA’s requirement to provide reasonable break time for employees to express breast milk for their nursing child with a space that is “shielded from view” also applies to remote work. This means “ensuring that an employee is free from observation by any employer provided or required video system”. Such breaks are also compensable if the employee is not completely relieved from duties.


The DOL also discussed Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) eligibility requirements. An employer with at least 50 employees within a 75 mile radius of the worksite must provide FMLA benefits to employees who have worked 1,250 hours in the preceding 12 months. The DOL explained that for remote employees the pertinent worksite is not their residence but is “the office to which they report or from which their assignments are made.” 


The DOL also addressed whether an employer is required to allow an employee, with an FMLA-covered serious health condition, to use FMLA leave to shorten their workday where the regular schedule for the position would otherwise be more. The DOL stated that employees who are eligible for FMLA leave must be permitted to take it on a reduced schedule basis, and that an employer may not simply reduce their workday as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA thereby making them ineligible for group health insurance benefits. Eligible employees must be permitted to use FMLA leave until they have exhausted their leave, and if a reduced schedule does not result in the equivalent of 12 weeks of leave in a 12-month period, the employer is required to provide it indefinitely. Also, the hours of FMLA leave the employee is entitled must be based on the employee’s regularly scheduled workweek, and not on the reduced one, so an employee who is regularly scheduled 50-hours per week (not counting voluntary overtime) would be entitled to use 600 hours of FMLA leave in a 12-month period, to shorten their schedule to 40 hours per week. Lastly, the DOL found that if an employee, who requires a reduced schedule, exhausts their FMLA leave, the employer is obligated to consider continuing the reduction as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA, and an employee may offer, and an employee may voluntarily accept, a reduced schedule as a reasonable accommodation in lieu of taking FMLA leave.


As a result, more remote employees are likely to meet the FMLA’s eligibility requirements than employers may have previously assumed.  Employers with a remote workforce should check their wage and hour and FMLA policies to ensure compliance, as well as consider the applicability of the FMLA when an employee requests a reduced schedule as an accommodation.


If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

The Royal Law Firm recently welcomed Michael P. Lewis to its team!

July 14, 2025
Welcome Michael!