Three Texas Cities Join the Mandated Paid Sick Leave Movement

01 July 2019 Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Blog
Authors: Carrie Hoffman Taylor Eric White

Austin, San Antonio and now Dallas have joined an ever-growing number of American cities passing paid sick leave ordinances.  Though Austin was the first to adopt such an ordinance, in November 2018 Texas’ Third Court of Appeals deemed the ordinance unconstitutional and enjoined it from taking effect.

The San Antonio and Dallas ordinances are modeled after the Austin ordinance but are not impacted by the current injunction.  Many believed that during the 2019 session, the Texas legislature would enact a law prohibiting local governments from dictating business policies, most specifically these type of sick leave laws.  However, the legislature did not fully decide that proposal before adjourning.

Thus, unless the courts take action, San Antonio and Dallas employers with more than five employees must comply with their city’s respective sick leave ordinances starting on August 1, 2019.  While the requirements go into effect in August, penalties won’t be assessed for violations until April 1, 2020 (except if there is a violation of the anti-retaliation provisions).

How The Ordinances Work:

Both ordinances apply to all employees, including temporary workers (but not independent contractors), who provide at least 80 hours of service in a year within their respective cities.  Eligible employees get one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked in their respective cities, accruing in one-hour increments, unless the employer has a policy that accrues it in fractions of an hour. 

There is a yearly accrual cap of 64 hours (48 hours for employers who have 15 or fewer employees) of paid sick leave.  Unless the employer frontloads the entire sick leave allowance, unused sick leave carries over, subject to the accrual cap.  Generally, employers cannot enforce waiting periods for sick leave (e.g., 90-day probationary periods), but may continue using PTO policies (which are inclusive of sick leave), provided that employees earn at least the minimum amounts required under the statute.

Employees must be allowed to use the mandated sick leave (or the employer’s all-inclusive PTO leave) for a variety of circumstances, including:

  • their own illnesses (physical or mental); 
  • the employee’s need to carry for a family member’s illness (physical or mental); or 
  • the employee’s or the employee’s family member’s need to seek medical attention, seek relocation, obtain the services of a victim services organization, or participate in legal or court-ordered action related to an incident of victimization from domestic abuse, sexual assault, or stalking involving the employee or the employee’s family member.  

A family member includes an employee’s spouse, child, parent, any other individual related by blood, or any other individual whose close association to an employee is the equivalent of a family relationship.

Other Requirements: 

Employers can request "reasonable" verification of the need for leave but may not require an explanation of the nature of the illness, injury, or health condition.  Sick leave compensation must be at least equal to what the employee would have earned if he or she had actually worked (although not overtime, tips, or commissions).

Employers must provide employees an electronic or written statement showing the amount of paid sick leave that employees have available.  Employers must also inform employees about their rights and remedies and may eventually have to post a notice. The notice will be required only when the city provides an example, which neither Dallas nor San Antonio has yet done.  

Employer Considerations: 

Employers with employees within San Antonio and Dallas city limits should review their sick leave policies and procedures to ensure that they are able to comply with the respective ordinances by August 1, 2019.  

Employers with employees in Austin should continue to monitor the status of the injunction.  Our labor and employment group at Foley is ready to offer solutions and recommendations on addressing compliance with these ordinances and sick leave requirements generally.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services

Insights

California Statute Offers Dramatic Change to Independent Contractor, Franchise-Franchisee Relationships
20 September 2019
Legal News: Distribution & Franchise
AI Ouch! AI Job Interview Law Starting in 2020!
20 September 2019
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
RCE PTA Carve-Out Resumes After Interference
18 September 2019
PharmaPatents
The Ninth Circuit Expected to Rule that Doctors Can Be Wrong in the Winter v. Gardens False Claims Act Case
18 September 2019
Legal News: Government Enforcement Defense & Investigations
Lacktman, Ferrante Cited in mHealth Intelligence About Ryan Haight Act
19 September 2019
mHealth Intelligence
Vernaglia Comments on AHA v Azar Decision
18 September 2019
MedPage Today
Tinnen Discusses How Viewpoint Diversity Helps Businesses Thrive
18 September 2019
InsideTrack
Lach Comments on Launch of New Group
16 September 2019
BizTimes Milwaukee
MedTech Impact Expo & Conference
13-15 December 2019
Las Vegas, NV
Review of 2020 Medicare Changes for Telehealth
11 December 2019
Member Call
BRG Healthcare Leadership Conference
06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.
CTeL Telehealth Fall Summit 2019
04-06 December 2019
Washington, D.C.