My understanding of that exemption is that
-employee claims payment based on qualifying reason.
-employer denies payment because of the (poorly defined) exemption you note.
-employee challenges this later to DOL(?)
-employer must then defend this, convincingly (likely bearing the costs of counsel to do so).
-if losing, must additionally pay penalty & interest.
I employ 12 people, and I need all 12 people for my business to operate. We are listed as an essential business so we are still open. I made work voluntary if you do not want to come to work you do not have to but we are open regular business hours for any employees who wish to come to work. We do not have the option of working remotely, out current hardware doesn't support ti and I can't spend $25k+ to change it all over for a few weeks.
Now I have 3 employees who right away think they are now going to get a 2 week fully paid vacation and then 10 weeks of vacation after.
If they choose to not come into work then they are not available to claim #1.
None are able to claim #2 and if they do I have no problem asking for proof.
If they claim #3 I will ask for proof.
Being under 50 employees I should be exempt from 5102(a)(5), no way I could operate my business and afford to pay someone for a potential 10 weeks off.
Being under 50 employees I should be exempt from 102(a)(1)(f), no way I could operate my business and afford to pay someone for a potential 10 weeks off.
On top of that I should be exempt from holding their job under 104(a)(1) because I meet all requirements under paragraph 2:
A - the employee takes leave
B - The position cannot stay vacant for 10-12 weeks and therefore would not exist
C - I can't put them in another matching position because we are too small to create new positions
D - We won;t have a related position open up within a year