House Modifications to H.R. 6201, Families First Coronavirus Response Act


Late on Monday, March 16, 2020, the U.S. House of Representatives modified H.R. 6201, Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and substantially narrowed the employer leave requirements under Division C – Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act and Division E – Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. As of the time of this Alert, H.R. 6201 has not been taken for consideration by the Senate.

The major changes from the previous version of the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act are as follows:

  1. The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;

  2. The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;

  3. The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking medical diagnosis;

  4. The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine order, or the individual has been advised to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;

  5. The employee is caring for the employee’s son or daughter, if the child’s school or child care facility has been closed or the child’s care provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions; or

  6. The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by Health and Human Services in consultation with the Department of the Treasury and the Department of Labor.

The major changes from the previous version of the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act are as follows:

In addition to the above, there are three new features of both the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act under H.R. 6201:

Again, H.R. 6201 has passed the House but may still be further amended in the Senate, and no version of the “Families First Coronavirus Response Act” will be law until passed by Congress and signed by the president.

ATTACHMENTS


©2025 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
National Law Review, Volume X, Number 78