risks Archives - BusinessWest

Sports Betting Is Legalized in Massachusetts, but the Benefits Are Uncertain

By Joseph Bednar September 29, 2022

At the Goal Line

With 35 other states having done so already, Massachusetts lawmakers were eager to pass a bill this summer legalizing sports betting, and Gov. Charlie Baker followed suit, signing it into law. Now comes the hard work by the Gaming Commission to establish a framework and scores of regulations — and the continuing research into a recreational activity that brings a still-uncertain level of economic benefit, alongside some well-established social risks.

The MGM Sports Lounge was designed to enhance the sports viewing — and eventually gambling — experience.

Rachel Volberg has been researching the effects of gambling for almost four decades, and since 2013, she’s been doing it at the behest of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission (MGC), which selected her team a decade ago to research the potential impacts of casinos.

“We’ve kept a pretty careful eye on things, but only a few U.S. states have any funding in their legislation to conduct research, so we know surprisingly little about the social and economic impacts of betting in the United States as a whole,” she told BusinessWest, and that’s even more true when it comes to legalized sports betting, which Massachusetts recently became the 36th state to legalize.

A research professor in the UMass Amherst School of Public Health and Health Sciences, for the past decade Volberg has been the principal investigator with Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling in Massachusetts (SEIGMA), whose latest report — the first of its kind in the nation — deals with the potential impact of legal sports gambling in the Bay State. And if the picture is still uncertain, it’s coming into focus.

“I think the biggest surprise for us was how little research had actually been done, particularly on the economic impacts — what does the industry look like once you legalize it, once it’s operational? What kinds of jobs, what kinds of revenues, and how are those jobs translating into economic benefits? There were literally only two or three economic studies we were able to identify, so there’s clearly a lot of work to be done in that area.”

What is emerging may not thrill proponents of sports gambling who support legalization on economic grounds. The study contends that direct economic impacts will depend on shifting spending from the illegal to legal market, and the impacts will not be entirely new since the majority of these already occur due to the illegal market. In addition, sports betting will primarily redistribute money already in the economy rather than attracting new money from outside Massachusetts.

“Sports betting is, by far, the number-one question I get asked on a daily basis, and it has been for years now. The entire team is looking forward to welcoming the first bet. When the time comes, we’ll be ready.”

“When you compare the tax revenue we anticipate being generated in Massachusetts by sports betting, the optimistic scenario is $60 million a year,” Volberg said, “which is not very large compared to the lottery, which in 2019 generated $1.1 billion in tax revenue, or casinos, which in 2019 generated about $168 million.”

That’s not nothing, of course, and state lawmakers overwhelmingly supported the bill to bring sports gambling out into the open, as did Gov. Charlie Baker, who signed the bill into law shortly after. It was the culmination of momentum that had been building since sports betting was legalized by a U.S. Supreme Court decision in 2018. Area legislators pointed out that, with every state in the Northeast having followed suit, Massachusetts was losing money to its neighbors.

“Legalizing sports wagering in Massachusetts will allow us to finally compete with neighboring states and will bring in new revenue and immense economic benefits,” state Sen. John Velis said in August.

The bill allows for 15 online licenses for companies like DraftKings and FanDuel, in addition to five retail licenses for the three casinos and two racetracks in Massachusetts. The bill also creates a commission to study additional licenses for smaller businesses, such as bars and restaurants.

The bill includes out-of-state collegiate betting but does not allow bets on Massachusetts college teams unless they are in the playoffs. The bill also includes a 20% tax on mobile bets and a 15% tax on retail bets, which would be paid by the operating company.

Rachel Volberg

“At this point, the most optimistic scenario for sports betting tax revenues in Massachusetts is about $60 million, and that’s assuming the legal operators are able to capture the great majority of the legal market. It also assumes it will attract people who haven’t bet on sports before there was a legitimate, legal provider.”

“Sports betting is, by far, the number-one question I get asked on a daily basis, and it has been for years now,” said Chris Kelley, president and chief operating officer of MGM Springfield, which built two sports viewing lounges last year partly in anticipation of legal sports betting (more on those later). “The entire team is looking forward to welcoming the first bet. When the time comes, we’ll be ready.”

Devil’s in the Details

With the legislation now law, the MGC will work out the details that will make legal sports betting a reality. It has already come up with a list of about 225 regulations that will need to be drafted.

“A great deal of work has already been done by our team in anticipation of sports wagering becoming legal in Massachusetts,” Gaming Commission Executive Director Karen Wells said last month. “This includes identifying over 200 potential regulations, adopting a framework to utilize industry-recognized technical standards, establishing an infrastructure to investigate and license applicants, initiating the hiring of a chief of Sports Wagering, and scheduling public meetings. Now that we have a law that defines our responsibilities as regulator, we will work with our stakeholders to swiftly stand up this new industry with a focus on integrity, player safety, and consumer protection.”

They’ll take a hard look at SEIGMA’s report in crafting that framework and its many elements, Gaming Commission Chair Cathy Judd-Stein said, noting that “this report will aid the MGC as we begin to regulate a sports-wagering industry in the Commonwealth with an uncompromising focus on integrity and player safety.”

Volberg added that “we were trying to give a very broad overview of what is known at this point about the social and economic impact of sports betting, and it’s the first nationwide effort to do that. It also summarizes what we know about sports betting in Massachusetts.”

She told BusinessWest that the ‘handle’ — a term that refers to all money bet, including rewagered winnings, creating a high level of churn — is not the same as the total revenue taken in by operators.

“It’s easy to lose sight of the fact that sports betting is run on very narrow margins, so the actual revenues the operator is able to generate are a very small number of what the handle numbers are,” she explained. “At this point, the most optimistic scenario for sports betting tax revenues in Massachusetts is about $60 million, and that’s assuming the legal operators are able to capture the great majority of the legal market. It also assumes it will attract people who haven’t bet on sports before there was a legitimate, legal provider.”

Because so little information about the impacts of sports betting is available, Volberg’s team mined data from their own surveys and studies that are part of the research ordered by the Massachusetts Legislature when lawmakers passed the Expanded Gaming Act in 2011. Meanwhile, a representative survey of 8,000 adults was completed in Massachusetts earlier this year and provides a snapshot of changes in gambling behavior, attitude, and problem-gambling prevalence since 2013-14.

“The National Council on Problem Gambling has seen a significant increase in sports-betting participation since 2018,” she told BusinessWest, noting that it has also reported an increase in people saying they had experiences with one or more impacts or harms.

“That suggests that an increase in sports betting has the potential to come with increased harm, which is not a surprise, but in Massachusetts, because the Gaming Commission already has familiarity with implementing measures to try to minimize and mitigate harm — because they already have that experience with casinos — we’re hopeful those harms can in fact be minimized,” Volberg added.

Cathy Judd-Stein

“This report will aid the MGC as we begin to regulate a sports-wagering industry in the Commonwealth with an uncompromising focus on integrity and player safety.”

Alisha Khoury-Boucher, a clinical supervisor at MiraVista Behavioral Health Center, agreed to an extent. “Gambling has been a concern for a long time, but we already have a casino close by, so we don’t see a major change with the people we serve from legalizing sports gambling; if they wanted to do those things, they were already doing those things. It’s the behavior more than the access.”

Still, she added, “in my opinion, where we may see more of a problem is with young people, college-age people, who may still be home with mom and dad and have more disposable income. We might see an increase there, but that’s to be determined.”

“Any time a new entertainment is starting up, it’s always going to be advertised toward young people,” Khoury-Boucher said, citing vaping as one example. “They weren’t looking for middle-aged people who’d been smoking for 25 years; they were looking at mid- to late adolescents. It’s kind of the same thing with sports gambling. If you’re a sports fan, you’re seeing advertising that looks like the old beer commercials — everyone’s happy, it’s exciting, it’s flashy. They’re targeting young people, and that’s potentially a problem.”

Indeed, SEIGMA’s study notes that sports betting occurs in all demographic groups but appeals most to young, well-educated men. It adds that problem gambling is higher among sports bettors primarily because they tend to be involved with a large number of other gambling activities, so legalizing sports betting in Massachusetts has the potential to increase rates of gambling harm and problem gambling.

To mitigate those concerns, SEIGMA is advising the Gaming Commission to require operators to provide player data to the MGC on a regular basis and to cooperate with researchers; to prohibit live, in-game sports betting, which is disproportionately utilized by problem gamblers; and to restrict advertising and celebrity endorsements, which tend to promote sports betting in young people, precipitate relapse in recovered gamblers, and counteract the effectiveness of messages advocating limited, lower-risk involvement.

Volberg noted that only four states have funded any kind of research about sports betting, while 12 have provided funding for problem-gambling services. This contrasts with Massachusetts, where 9% of the tax revenue raised from sports betting will go into the Public Health Trust Fund that supports research and services to mitigate gambling-related harms.

“We are in a unique position in Massachusetts to be able to monitor the impacts of sports betting as it becomes legal and make adjustments to its provision so as to maximize the benefits and minimize the harms.”

Sit Back and Watch

Those benefits, as noted, are uncertain, but operators are excited about the prospects.

For maximum economic impact, SEIGMA’s report recommends issuing licenses for online operators, and a variety of them, since most sports betting is done online. That lines up with the Gaming Commission’s plans.

“While it is likely that sports-book operators, including land-based and online operators, will benefit from sports-betting legalization in Massachusetts,” the study notes, “it is difficult to predict whether sports bettors will add legal sports betting to their repertoire or simply substitute betting on sports for spending on other types of gambling.”

Still, as the leader of the only casino in Western Mass., Kelley sees potential benefits not just for his facility, but for the region itself.

“Massachusetts residents are already driving across the border to Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and New York to place bets. Keeping the millions of tax dollars generated annually by sports wagering in the Commonwealth is a big deal,” he told BusinessWest. In addition, “sports betting at MGM Springfield will bring more foot traffic and visitors to downtown Springfield. We are thrilled at the prospect of not only having more people come and enjoy our property, but to experience all of the amazing businesses nearby.”

To enhance the viewing and gambling experience, the MGM Sports Lounge opened in August 2021, featuring more than 70 lounge seats and a 45-foot state-of-the-art HD viewing wall, inviting fans to watch multiple sporting events at once. A new VIP Sports Lounge also opened last August within TAP Sports Bar, offering a more intimate experience, including a state-of-the-art HD viewing wall.

“As a New England sports fan, I can tell you the MGM Springfield Sports Lounge is the best spot to watch the Patriots, the Red Sox, the Celtics, the Bruins, you name it,” Kelley said. “It’s also just a great place to gather with your friends for a fun night out. As soon as we get the green light, we are ready to incorporate the BetMGM platform into our property.”

Yes, the green light — it’s what many in the gaming industry in Massachusetts have been anticipating for a long time, hoping the benefits of legal sports betting exceed early projections — and outweigh the potential harms.

Joseph Bednar can be reached at [email protected]

Deciphering the ‘Crypto Market’

By Contributor February 17, 2022

Accounting and Tax Planning Special Coverage

What Are the Risks, Rewards, and Unknown Tax Implications?

By Brendan Cawley, EA and Ian Coddington, CPA

While cryptocurrency has been around since 2008, its popularity has soared over the past two years as people dove into new interests during the pandemic. Whether you used your time in lockdown to learn how to bake banana bread or mine Dogecoins, it’s important to note that the latter may have come with some tax implications.

If you dipped your toes in the virtual currency waters, you may now be wondering — how will my transactions during the year affect my tax return? Our goal here is to give some basic insight into the crypto market, decentralized finance (‘DeFi’), and how the transactions along your cryptocurrency journey can affect your tax return this year and beyond.

What Is Cryptocurrency?

The IRS currently views cryptocurrency as a type of virtual currency. Virtual currency, such as Bitcoin, Ether, Roblox and V-Bucks, to name a few examples, is a digital representation of value, rather than a representation of the U.S. dollar or a foreign currency (‘real currency’), that functions as a unit of account, a store of value, and a medium of exchange.

Brendan Cawley

Ian Coddington

Cryptocurrency uses cryptography to secure transactions that are digitally recorded on a distributed ledger, such as a blockchain. The blockchain technology allows participants to confirm transactions without the need for central clearing authority.

“The landscape of cryptocurrency and digital assets is evolving daily. The variety of investment options continues to expand, as does the number of investors.”

With that in mind, decentralized finance (DeFi) has quickly become the hottest trend in blockchain technology, but it comes with its own uniquely complicated and confusing tax situations. And if learning how to navigate cryptocurrency and DeFi wasn’t complex enough, you have to do so with very little IRS guidance.

What Is Decentralized Finance?

When you think of centralized finance, you might think of banks, such as Bank of America or JPMorgan, which traditionally offer savings, lending, and investment options for their customers. Services often come with fees and can result in delays to accessing or withdrawing funds.

By using blockchain technology, users can validate transactions from peer to peer within a matter of seconds. Transactions can take place all around the world across computer networks without the need of a central authority. This is where DeFi comes in, where users can engage in contracts for lending, borrowing, and other financial services at the click of a button. These contracts are created through algorithms, rather than underwritten by a loan officer. Additionally, fees associated with central banks and the delay in completing certain transactions are no longer an issue.

There are several popular DeFi platforms, such as UniSwap, PancakeSwap, Fantom, Aave, and SushiSwap, to name a few. These platforms offer different services to consumers: staking, liquidity pools, yield farming, along with traditional lending and borrowing. Investors who have gotten in at the initial stages have been seeing massive returns on their investments. Services such as yield farming and liquidity pools lock in cryptocurrency assets to facilitate blockchain transactions and pay participants rewards in the form of cryptocurrency. However, the IRS has not determined specific guidance on the treatment of specific transactions within the DeFi space.

Consumers and investors are tempted to participate in the Defi market by varying annual percentage yields (APY) of 3% to 15%, sometimes even more. This is a far cry from the 0.01% APY that you might get in your local bank’s saving account or the 1% APY in a certificate of deposit. The riskiness involved in these transactions, as well as the potential tax implications, might scare off some investors, but with a $114 billion market cap in 2022, there are plenty more who are ready to enter the DeFi space.

How Complicated Can It Get?

With the DeFi foundation laid, let’s color the conversation through a real-life example with some surprising complexities. When exploring the world of DeFi, it is unlikely you’ll venture far without hearing about OlympusDAO. What is OlympusDAO? It is a decentralized reserve currency protocol based on the OHM token.

Hopefully, this example will illustrate just how quickly crypto can get complicated.

“While some trends at the beginning of the pandemic, such as whipped coffee and banana bread, seemed to dim their lights, the cryptocurrency market is continuing to blaze new trails.”

Participants seek returns through staking and bonding strategies. ‘Stakers’ stake their OHM tokens into a pool with other like-minded individuals. Those OHM tokens are then put to work on the blockchain and earn rewards in the form of more OHM. Alternatively, those choosing to engage in the bonding strategy provide liquidity in the form of other crypto assets or DAI tokens to the Olympus Treasury. These assets are the necessary backing for new OHM minted and help to provide stability to the value of OHM. To compensate the participants for bonding, the protocol makes OHM available for purchase at a discount after a vesting period.

Now suppose the staking option sounds appetizing. You open your account, you ensure you have sufficient funds, and you navigate to a centralized exchange in search of OHM. Oh no … OHM is not currently traded on a centralized exchange. So what do you do? You take a deep breath and turn to Google.

Quickly, you will recognize that OHM can only be purchased through a decentralized exchange (DEX) and you need the appropriate cryptocurrency, Ethereum (ETH), to participate. You purchase ETH on the centralized exchange for USD, which is a non-taxable event. With the ETH in hand (in your crypto wallet), you navigate to a DEX such as SushiSwap and exchange ETH for OHM. This exchange is a capital event, and gain/loss should be calculated. The cost basis of the newly acquired OHM should consider this gain or loss. OHM can now be staked on OlympusDAO in exchange for sOHM (‘staked’ OHM).

When OHM becomes sOHM, there is an argument to say this is a property exchange and taxable again as capital gain/loss. The sOHM earns more sOHM over time, which is ordinary income upon receipt. Eventually, you might decide to cash out your sOHM. When sOHM is exchanged back to OHM, a taxable exchange has occurred again. Finally, you convert your new pool of OHM back to ETH, which, as you likely guessed, is taxable as capital gain/loss.

While this example is considered fairly simple and common, this journey alone noted five different taxable events. Keep in mind the software currently available often struggles to appropriately track the tax basis of your crypto property and ordinary income received through each of the steps. Furthermore, trading fees can be challenging to track. When preparing for the 2021 filing season, consider reaching out to a qualified CPA.

Now What?

The landscape of cryptocurrency and digital assets is evolving daily. The variety of investment options continues to expand, as does the number of investors. As you consider joining the cryptocurrency marketplace, there are a few things to keep in mind.

First and foremost, investors should consider investing in cryptocurrency-tracking software. Subscriptions vary in price and quality. Providers are racing to improve their systems and close the reporting gaps for DeFi, NFTs, and play-to-earn. Staying apprised of new developments in this space is key for taxpayers as the IRS increases oversight for cryptocurrency.

Starting in 2023, the IRS will require that 1099-Bs are issued to taxpayers who invest in cryptocurrency. These forms will capture the proceeds and cost basis from the cryptocurrency investments. Taxpayers should be mindful of tracking these items independently to ensure accuracy.

The IRS is already issuing an increased number of notices to taxpayers who are known or suspected to invest in cryptocurrency. These notices typically are numbered 6174, 6174-A, and 6173. Only notice 6173 requires a response, but each notice indicates that the IRS is watching the taxpayer for cryptocurrency investments. In addition, the IRS requires that Form 8300 be filed by a taxpayer who receives more than $10,000 in digital assets starting after Jan. 1, 2023. Failure to report these details could result in civil penalties or felony charges.

Finally, please remember that the IRS’s definition of cryptocurrency and digital assets could change dramatically in the coming years. In fact, as of this past week, there has been a new court case that resulted in a decision that contradicts the IRS’s previous position on staking rewards.

Additionally, while cryptocurrency is currently viewed as property, if the IRS recharacterizes these investments as securities, then that could result in significant tax implications. For example, cryptocurrency is currently not subject to wash-sale rules presently due to its classification as property. This is an ever-evolving environment and requires prudence.

While some trends at the beginning of the pandemic, such as whipped coffee and banana bread, seemed to dim their lights, the cryptocurrency market is continuing to blaze new trails. It’s important to work with a qualified tax preparer to navigate the complex tax situations that come with entering the cryptocurrency marketplace.

This material is not intended to serve as tax or finance advice. You should obtain any appropriate professional advice relevant to your particular circumstances by consulting an advisor.

Brendan Cawley, EA, is a tax supervisor with the Holyoke-based accounting firm Meyers Brothers Kalicka, P.C., and Ian Coddington, CPA, is a senior associate with MBK. Lauren Foley, MSA, and Anthony Romei, MBA, both associates with the firm, also contributed to this article.

Employers Need to Proceed Carefully to Avoid Costly Missteps

By Contributor May 26, 2020

Law Special Coverage

Calling Back Workers

By Mary Jo Kennedy, Esq. and Sarah Willey, Esq.

Mary Jo Kennedy

Sarah Willey

As businesses prepare for reopening, many employers are summoning laid-off and furloughed employees and notifying employees who have been working remotely to return to the physical workplace.

Some employers are anticipating that their reopening may be a gradual process. Employers may do a ‘soft reopening’ in order to test workplace-safety measures such as social distancing. Some businesses may find, as a result of new safety procedures, that their workplace no longer requires certain positions. As a result, employers may not need the same number of employees or positions they had back in early March.

However, recalling only a portion of a workforce does have its own risks. Employers should carefully consider who and how many workers to recall and when to have them return.

Once notified, workers’ responses to the callback may vary. Some employees will welcome the return to work as a sign that things are returning to ‘normal,’ while others may have mixed feelings as they may want or need to stay home until the pandemic is over. Employers must consider how to best respond to workers’ requests.

How do you select which employees to call back when calling back fewer than all?

First, identify the types of positions and the number of employees needed for each position to be recalled. There may be certain skill sets or knowledge base needed in order to ramp up business after the shutdown.

“If they have medical concerns regarding returning to work, they should discuss those concerns with their supervisor or human-resources team and encourage them to stay home or arrange an alternate work assignment.”

Second, businesses should consider any policy or past practice regarding recalling employees as there may be a legitimate business reason for not following them. Employers should evaluate their business rationale for the selection process and document the criteria used for selecting one employee over another. Selection criteria may appear neutral on the surface, but the effect of its application may inadvertently result in the elimination of all or a majority of a group of employees in a class protected under discrimination laws. As a result, selection criteria may need to be reconsidered in order to avoid possible discrimination claims.

Can you decide not to recall employees because of a concern regarding their health?

Employers may have a genuine concern that a group of employees may be susceptible to greater harm if infected with COVID-19. For example, an employer may be concerned about possible exposure to COVID-19 of an older employee, employees with known medical conditions, or a pregnant employee. Any selection decision based on a person’s age, perceived disability, or pregnancy will expose the employer to discrimination claims.

Employers should not take a paternalistic view of deciding what is best for its employees. Rather, an employer should let employees know that, if they have medical concerns regarding returning to work, they should discuss those concerns with their supervisor or human-resources team and encourage them to stay home or arrange an alternate work assignment.

What if you laid off some and furloughed other employees?

Employers should consider calling back furloughed employees before rehiring laid-off employees. Employers may have given furloughed employees written assurances that they would be called back and may have retained them on health insurance, indicators that the employer intended to have the furloughed employees return to work.

How do you communicate the call back?

Employers should communicate the offer to return to work in writing. The communication should detail the start date, full-time or part-time status, position, hours, work schedules, wages, location, and conditions of the job.

What if a business calls back laid-off or furloughed employees and the response is that an employee has found other employment?

If an employer is told that a laid-off or furloughed employee is not returning to work because the individual has found employment elsewhere, the employer should document the reason for not returning and then move to the next employee on the recall list. If your business participated in the Paycheck Protection Program, documenting the reason for the refusal is critical in order to meet the loan-forgiveness requirements.

Also, if accrued but unused vacation time has not previously been paid, it should be paid out to the employee immediately, and if the employee was on the employer’s health insurance, a COBRA notice should be sent to the employee.

What if a business calls back a laid-off or furloughed employee who is unable to return to work because of a lack of childcare?

With schools and daycare facilities currently closed, employees with school-aged children may not have childcare options. Under the CARES Act, individuals who are unable to work (including telework) and are the primary caregiver for a child whose school or childcare facility is closed or whose childcare provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 can receive Pandemic Unemployment Assistance.

In addition, the employee may be eligible for paid extended family and medical leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), under which eligible employees who are unable to work at their normal worksite or by means of telework are entitled to 12 weeks of paid extended family and medical leave (at two-thirds of their regular rate of pay) to care for a child whose school or place of care is closed (or childcare provider is unavailable) due to COVID-19-related reasons.

The FFCRA provides eligibility for paid extended family and medical leave to an employee who was laid off or otherwise terminated by the employer on or after March 1, 2020 and rehired or otherwise re-employed by the employer on or before Dec. 31, 2020, provided that the employee had been on the employer’s payroll for 30 or more of the 60 calendar days prior to the date the employee was laid off or otherwise terminated.

What if an employee has been working remotely during the shutdown and is unable to physically return to the worksite because of a lack of childcare?

While many remote employees have been able to work effectively at home during the forced shutdown, other remote employees may have struggled due their type of work not being conducive to telework. An employer may have valid concerns about an employee’s telework performance, such as the quality and quantity of the work, and should address with remote employees any performance issues.

An employer should discuss with an employee the possibility of flexible or reduced hours in a physical workplace or a modified remote-work schedule. If these options are not viable, an employee unable to return to their normal worksite may be eligible for unemployment.

What if an employee who has a medical condition increasing their risk of harm if exposed to COVID-19 wants to continue working remotely?

Addressing this issue requires consideration of federal and state reasonable-accommodation laws. If the medical diagnosis constitutes a disability under state or federal disability laws, the employee may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation. Given these unprecedented times, an employer may treat a medical condition that puts an individual at an increased risk of harm if exposed to COVID-19 as a disability. The employer should also explore with the employee other possible accommodations in addition to working remotely.

What if an employee can work but has a medical condition, adding increased risk of harm if exposed to COVID-19, but the employee’s job duties cannot be done remotely?

Dealing with employees whose work cannot be done remotely but are at an increased risk of harm if exposed to COVID-19 has unique concerns, and each situation should be considered on a case-by-case basis. If the employee was advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19 and the employer is subject to the FFCRA, the employee may be eligible for 80 hours of paid sick leave under FFCRA.

However, in this scenario, the FFCRA requires that the employee be “particularly vulnerable to COVID-19” and that following the advice of a healthcare provider to self-quarantine prevents the employee from being able to work, either at the employee’s workplace or by telework. Employers should obtain appropriate medical documentation substantiating the reasons for the self-quarantine.

In addition, if the medical diagnosis constitutes a serious medical condition or a disability, the employee may be entitled to either an unpaid leave of absence under the Family Medical Leave Act (if the employer has 50 or more employees and as such is a FMLA-covered employer) or a leave of absence as a reasonable accommodation for the disability.

What if an employee wants to continue to work remotely because the employee has an immediate family member who has a medical condition that puts that family member at increased risk of harm if exposed to COVID-19?

An eligible employee of a FMLA-covered employer can take a leave of absence to care for a family member with a serious medical condition. But if the family member does not need the employee’s care, the requirements for FMLA leave would not be met.

Under the American with Disabilities Act, employers are required to provide qualified disabled employees with a reasonable accommodation. When leave and accommodation laws do not apply, employees may ask employers to apply common decency to the situation and let them return to the physical workplace at a later time.

These are challenging issues for employers, who must balance the need to protect employees from COVID-19 with the need to maintain a workforce to keep the business open.

Employers should be cautious when navigating the various leave and disability laws in order to avoid lawsuits. Before denying employees’ leaves or other reasonable-accommodation requests, employers should engage with employees in order to assess the validity and reasonableness of the requests and should document the steps taken.

Mary Jo Kennedy is a partner and chair of the employment group at Bulkley Richardson, and Sarah Willey is counsel and member of the employment group at Bulkley Richardson.

Sports Betting Is Legalized in Massachusetts, but the Benefits Are Uncertain