Tag Archive for: coronavirus

EEOC issues guidance on federal anti-discrimination laws and employees who are caregivers outside work

The EEOC has issued a guidance explaining that employees who act as “caregivers” for their family and friends may be protected by existing anti-discrimination laws. The EEOC does not define the phrase “caregiver” and, therefore, presumably intends it in a general dictionary sense. In other words, readers should note the EEOC is not using that phrase in this guidance to mean medical or other professional caregivers. The EEOC notes that being a caregiver is not itself protected by federal anti-discrimination laws like Title VII, the ADA and the ADEA. Rather, the EEOC cautions, caregivers often fall into those laws’ other existing protected classes.

Caregiver discrimination violates federal employment discrimination laws when it is based on an applicant’s or employee’s sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 or older), disability, or genetic information (such as family medical history).  Caregiver discrimination also is unlawful if it is based on an applicant’s or employee’s association with an individual with a disability, within the meaning of the ADA, or on the race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristic of the individual for whom care is provided.  Finally, caregiver discrimination violates these laws if it is based on intersections among these characteristics (for example, discrimination against Black female caregivers based on racial and gender stereotypes, or discrimination against Christian female caregivers based on religious and gender stereotypes).

The EEOC explains it has issued this guidance because many caregivers are facing challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly impacted employees’ work and personal obligations, creating concurrent and, at times, competing job and caregiving demands.  Abrupt changes in work locations, schedules, or employment status required millions of Americans with caregiving responsibilities for children, spouses, partners, older relatives, individuals with disabilities, or other individuals to quickly adjust to vastly changed circumstances.

Even as the pandemic evolves, the challenge of juggling work and caregiving obligations remains.  Some workplaces, classrooms, and care facilities may operate on hybrid schedules, request or require employees to work extra shifts, or close with short notice.  Employees may need to quarantine unexpectedly if they or household members are potentially exposed to or infected with COVID-19.  Some employees who live in households with persons who are immunocompromised, children too young to be vaccinated against COVID-19, or other vulnerable individuals may be reluctant to return to the workplace.

The EEOC discusses a number of ways it believes that an employee’s off-duty caregiver activities and obligations can implicate each of the existing protected classes under federal anti-discrimination laws.

/0 Comments/by

OSHA withdraws its large-employer vaccine mandate

OSHA has withdrawn its large-employer vaccine mandate, which was the OSHA ETS that was recently stayed by the Supreme Court. In doing so, OSHA left the ETS as a proposed rule, on which it has invited public comment, in other words, left it as a draft that it is considering making final subject to input from the public. As a proposed rule, the OSHA ETS does not carry the force and effect of law. Also in withdrawing its rule, OSHA noted that states may adopt their own rules and that OSHA’s withdrawal of its now-frozen rule does not require states, such as California, to withdraw their own state ETS rules.

/0 Comments/by

Do employers face exposure for claims by non-employees for coronavirus contracted from employees?

The California Court of Appeals recently held that an employer can be sued by the estate of a non-employee spouse who passed away from COVID-19 allegedly contracted from his employee-wife who allegedly contracted it at workplace due to the alleged negligence of her employer.

Plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Ek, defendants’ employee, contracted COVID-19 at work because of defendants’ failure to implement adequate safety measures. They claim that Mr. Ek subsequently caught the disease from Mrs. Ek while she convalesced at home. He died from the disease a month later.

The court held the claim by the non-employee’s estate — in other words, the employee and their childrene — was not barred by exclusivity provisions of workers compensation.

Assuming arguendo that Mrs. Ek’s workplace infection constitutes an injury for purposes of the WCA, we reject defendants’ efforts to apply the derivative injury doctrine to any injury causally linked to an employee injury.

As the court opinion itself notes in its detailed analysis, this is not the only court or even the first to address this issue. The courts are currently split on this issue.

Even if not barred by workers compensation, it is noted this kind of claim remains a challenge for plaintiffs who must next prove that the employer was in fact negligent in its efforts to protect its employees, that it owed a duty to non-employees not to be negligent, that the non-employee contracted COVID-19 from the workplace exposure and not simply as part of the on-going pandemic from any number of possible sources we all face everyday now, and that the employer’s negligence was in turn not only a cause but the proximate cause of the non-employee’s death.

/0 Comments/by

Biden vaccine mandate for federal workers blocked nationwide

In a continuing blow to President Biden’s vaccine mandates, the President’s federal-worker vaccine mandate has also just been blocked nationwide.

/0 Comments/by

Supreme Court re-freezes OSHA ETS implementing President Biden’s large-employer mandate but allows his healthcare mandate

In a pair of decisions released today, the Supreme Court (1) re-froze OSHA’s ETS that implemented President Biden’s large-employer mandate but (2) allowed the regulations to take effect that implemented President Biden’s healthcare vaccine mandate.

Why the different outcomes? In short, a majority of the Supreme Court held it depended on whether Congress had clearly authorized each agency to implement its regulations. In the healthcare case, the majority held, yes, the language of the Congressional statute at-issue had expressly authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement such a mandate:

Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose conditions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that “the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” 42 U. S. C. §1395x(e)(9).* COVID–19 is a highly contagious, dangerous, and—especially for Medicare and Medicaid patients—deadly disease. The Secretary of Health and Human  Services determined that a COVID–19 vaccine mandate will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients. 86 Fed. Reg. 61557–61558. He accordingly concluded that a vaccine mandate is “necessary to promote and protect patient health and safety” in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Id., at 61613. The rule thus fits neatly within the language of the statute. After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients  is consistent with the fundamental principle of the medical profession: first, do no harm. It would be the “very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID–19.” Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 19 F. 4th 1271, 1288 (CA11 2021).

However, a majority of the Supreme Court held that Congress had not similarly authorized OSHA to implement such a mandate. In particular, the majority noted that coronavirus is a pandemic, affecting individuals everywhere, it is not unique to workplaces. The majority found no statutory language that would authorize OSHA to implement a vaccine mandate simply because some exposure, even a significant exposure, may be found in workplaces.

Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

The majority noted OSHA could adopt narrower regulations implementing vaccine mandates for jobs that might have coronavirus-specific risks, such as “particularly crowded or cramped” workplaces.

The Supreme Court’s decisions left a very important question of administrative law to be resolved in further cases. A fraction of the majority, led by Justice Gorsuch, wrote a concurrence to the majority’s OSHA opinion in which he addressed two doctrines of administrative law: (1) The major questions doctrine that says so-called “major questions” of public policy must be reserved for decision by legislatures and cannot be resolved by bureaucratic agency fiat and (2) the nondelegation doctrine that basically prohibits Congress from delegating to agencies its sovereign authority over issues like that. Justice Gorsuch’s concurring opinion characterized the majority’s decision as having applied the major questions doctrine, and while the majority’s opinion is arguably consistent with that doctrine, it is noted that the majority did not expressly articulate it. Therefore, an open question remains whether a majority of the Supreme Court would adopt or at least apply with vigor these two doctrines.

Notwithstanding that question, the majority decisions in today’s cases are clear indicators to the lower courts that the Supreme Court believes the OSHA ETS is unlawful and the healthcare rule lawful. While both will continue to be litigated, it would seem unlikely that lower courts will revive the OSHA ETS after today’s rulings.

Employers are reminded of the status of other vaccine mandates, including the following:

  • President Biden’s government-contractor vaccine mandate remains frozen.
  • Although the government contractor mandate is frozen, President Biden’s order that various federal buildings, bases and properties implement their own vax-or-test rules  arguably remains in effect. A number of federal properties around the country have begun implementing the requirement.
  • Likewise a number of private businesses and landowners have adopted their own mandate vaccines or vax-or-test rules. Companies wishing to do so are reminded to review potentially contrary state laws.
/1 Comment/by

Employers await word from SCOTUS re OSHA rule mandating vaccine for large employers

With OSHA having said it will wait at least until January 10, 2022 to enforce its rule implementing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for large employers and even then that it will do so with consideration for confusion surrounding the rule’s status and wait another month before enforcing the vaccine-or-test mandate, the Supreme Court is now poised to rule on the constitutionality of that and other of President Biden’s mandates. It has been reported that in total some 27 states have already signed on to various of the challenges, not to mention multiple amici such as business and religious organizations. The Supreme Court just ordered briefing in response to the requests for stay is due no later than December 30, 2021, and that the stay requests will be heard for oral argument on January 7, 2021. This may portend a Supreme Court ruling between close of oral arguments January 7, 2021, and before OSHA’s intended enforcement start-up January 10, 2021.

Having said that, the challengers have also asked for stays from the Sixth Circuit itself and administrative stays from the Supreme Court (a different procedural form of stay than that which will be heard January 7), so it is possible that stays could come from either source sooner, especially so that issues are frozen and preserved for proper consideration by the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court rules on stays, will it also resolve the mandates’/OSHA rule’s constitutionality and legal enforceability? At this point, underlying litigation of the mandates is in its infancy across the country. None of the substantive issues in those cases have yet reached the Supreme Court. However, various of the challengers are asking the Court to, not just freeze the mandates but also to, bypass normal judicial procedures and immediately take their cases on appeal (accept certiorari).

/0 Comments/by

CDC updates isolation guidelines

The CDC has updated its isolation guidelines with a shorter 5-day instead of 10-day period for people who (1) are fully vaccinated, (2) have been exposed and (3) have a positive COVID-19 test result (4) but no symptoms. Unfortunately the CDC’s website has now become splintered with various guidances in various places that haven’t yet been updated consistently, nor has the latest CDC guidance yet been promulgated into other agency guidances, including OSHA’s COVID-19 site. For now, the CDC’s new 5-day guidance is available here, as well as a flow-chart in which the CDC explains isolation protocols, including minimum days, for various people depending on status of vaccination, exposure, test result and symptoms.

/0 Comments/by

3-judge panel of Sixth Circuit lifts freeze on OSHA vaccine mandate for large companies

A 3-judge panel of the Sixth Circuit has lifted the freeze on OSHA’s large company vaccine mandate (50 employees or more). The 3-judge panel decision was fully fractured, in that one judge wrote an opinion, in which a second concurred, making it technically the majority opinion; the third judge in the panel then wrote a scorching dissent that argued for the freeze’s immediate reinstatement. The dissent concluded with a call for individuals to act — by becoming vaccinated — not OSHA.

(OSHA) cannot even regulate for the sake of the vaccinated; they are not in “grave danger.” Instead, the mandate is aimed directly at protecting the unvaccinated from their own choices. Vaccines are freely available, and unvaccinated people may choose to protect themselves at any time. And because the Secretary likely lacks congressional authority to force them to protect themselves, the remaining stay factors cannot tip the balance.

The decision is now likely to face both a request for reconsideration by the entire bench of judges who constitute Sixth Circuit — of whom a majority are Republican appointees — and then a request for immediate review by the Supreme Court — where again it will face a majority of Republican appointees. Indeed challengers in the litigation have already filed motions with the Supreme Court requesting the immediate reinstatement of the freeze.

Recognizing that there isn’t now sufficient time for large companies to implement the mandate by the original deadlines  and possibly even recognizing that its own rule is not likely to withstand the next two tiers of review, or is at least likely to face another freeze sooner than later, OSHA has announced it will delay enforcement of its own rules by approximately one month.

To account for any uncertainty created by the stay, OSHA is exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the ETS. To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard. OSHA will work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.

Employers should certainly continue to consider how they can implement the mandate if required but remember that at least some states have already passed laws that make voluntary implementation challenging if not violations of those states’ laws. Given the nature of both the full bench of the Sixth Circuit and the Supreme Court justices, it is not at all unlikely this — unfortunately — now extremely political issue will trigger another freeze of OSHA’s rule in the coming weeks.
/0 Comments/by

EEOC cautions some cases of COVID-19 may cause a disability protected by law

While most cases of COVID-19 resolve without complication, the EEOC cautions in a new Section “N” added to its on-going COVID-19 guidance, that some cases may be more severe and cause a “disability” that is protected by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

The EEOC advises that anyone who experiences only no symptoms or mild symptoms, including symptoms comparable to a cold or flu, will not be considered “disabled.” Rather that person will have suffered a “transitory and minor” illness that is not a “disability.”

However, a person may experience a protected “disability” if they suffer “ongoing but intermittent” symptoms that “substantially limit” major life activities like “neurological and brain function, concentrating, and/or thinking,” or if they receive supplemental oxygen for breathing difficulties, or if they suffer “heart palpitations, chest pain, shortness of breath, and related effects to to the virus that last, or are expected to last, for several months and that “substantially limit” major life activities such as “cardiovascular function and circulatory function.” Likewise “intestinal pain, vomiting, and nausea” that lasts “for many months, even if intermittently” may constitute a “disability” if it substantially limits major life activities. (See. Section N.4). The EEOC explains its guidance is intended to confirm that at least some cases of so-called “long COVID” (more commonly called long-haul COVID) can constitute a “disability.”  Likewise even if the person does not experience long-haul COVID, they may nonetheless suffer a protected “disability” if the COVID-19 triggers a different condition (such as diabetes) that is itself a protected disability.

The EEOC cautions that employees may also be protected if “regarded as” so disabled even if they do not have an actual disability of this type, for example, if their employer fires them because it believes their symptoms will continue along such lines. See Section N. 7.  And the EEOC cautions they may also be protected if the company has a “record of” them having such a condition even if they do not actually have such a condition and are not “regard as” having such a condition.

/0 Comments/by

President Biden’s government-contractor vaccine mandate blocked by nationwide freeze

Following on the heels of a recent ruling that froze President Biden’s government-contractor vaccine mandate in just a few states, the District Court for the Southern District of Georgia has issued a nationwide freeze against that mandate. The mandate would have imposed vaccination requirements on certain federal government contractors and their employees.

This nationwide freeze mirrors another blocking the OSHA rule that would have implemented President Biden’s vaccine mandate for large employers.

Employers are reminded that either or both freezes are part of on-going litigation and could be lifted at any time.

/0 Comments/by

Federal District Court for the District of Eastern Kentucky freezes President Biden’s government contractor mandate

Following up on the recent court ruling freezing President Biden’s large-employer vaccine mandate, the federal District Court for the Eastern Disteict of Kentucky has frozen the President’a government-contractor vaccine mandate. The ruling applies in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. It is not unlikely that other courts will likewise freeze the government-contractor vaccine mandate in other areas of the country.

/0 Comments/by

Sixth Circuit wins lottery for litigation involving OSHA rule implementing President Biden’s large-employer vaccine mandate

The Sixth Circuit won today’s lottery for litigation involving OSHA rule implementing President Biden’s large-employer vaccine mandate. The Sixth Circuit is generally considered a more conservative bench, signaling the probability it may affirm the Fifth Circuit’s freeze on that rule. The Sixth Circuit is staffed by 20 Republican-appointed judges and 6 Democratic-appointments, with a third of its active judges approximately having been appointed by President Trump.

/0 Comments/by

CCRD reminds Colorado employers, again, that 80-hour pandemic leave continues to remain in effect

In September, the CCRD reminded Colorado employers that the 80 hours of pandemic leave required by Colorado state law remains in effect until at least November 15, 2021, because the federal emergency declaration is still in effect. Now, the CCRD has, in an email to employers dated October 28, 2021, noted that the federal declaration has been extended, so Colorado’s requirement will remain in effect at least until February 13, 2022.

/0 Comments/by

NLRB General Counsel warns, if OSHA rule re vaccine-or-test becomes active again, unionized employers will have duty to give notice and opportunity to bargain over discretionary aspects of the rule

The NLRB issued Memorandum OM 22-03 opining that, if OSHA’s vaccine-or-test rule implementing President Biden’s mandate for employers of 100 or more is ever unfreezed by the courts, then employers with unionized workplaces will have a duty to give their unions notice and an opportunity to bargain. While companies cannot be required to negotiate over whether to comply or any nondiscretionary aspects of the rule, they will be required to give notice and an opportunity to bargain over discretionary aspects of the rule.

Although the General Counsel does not offer advisory opinions and each case stands on its own facts, the General Counsel’s position is that covered employers would have decisional bargaining obligations regarding aspects of the ETS that affect terms and conditions of employment—to the extent the ETS provides employers with choices regarding implementation.

Many aspects of OSHA’s now-frozen rule remain unclear, but this seems to include the items specifically mentioned by OSHA in its rule and its preface as being subject to potential collective bargaining:

  • Whether the employer will adopt a mandatory vaccine-or-test policy or OSHA’s permitted alternative policy that would permit employees to opt out of vaccines and instead wear masks and be tested.
  • Whether to adopt one kind of policy for unionized workers even though another was adopted for non-union workers.
  • Whether employees will bear some or all of the costs of vaccines, masks, tests, etc.
  • How much paid leave will be provided to be vaccinated.
  • How much paid leave will be provided to recover.
  • How much paid leave, if any, will be provided for time off when employees who test positive are removed from work.
  • Whether any additional safety measures will be taken related to COVID-19 in the workplace.

Employers of 100 or more with unionized workplaces will need to continue to monitor developments in the courts and be prepared to provide notice and an opportunity to bargain if the OSHA rule is ever unfreezed by the courts.

/0 Comments/by

White House announces extension of deadline for government contractors to implement vaccine mandate

When it announced the release of OSHA’s ETS implementing the President’s vaccine mandate for employers of 100 or more, the White House announced the deadline for government contractors to mandate that employees would need to be vaccinated would be extended from December 8, 2021 to January 18, 2022. Note: That will the deadline for employees to be “fully vaccinated,” meaning the deadline to actually receive their full-final vaccine injection will be 14 days earlier January 4, 2022.

Because the extension of this deadline was implemented by way of an announcement from the White House, not through OSHA’s ETS itself, the Fifth Circuit’s freezing of the ETS would not seem to affect this extension.

However, it is noted that the Federal Safer Work Place Task Force has yet to update its own documentation to reflect this new extension, and it was announced only in that relatively informal announcement from the White House; therefore, it is arguably possible that the White House may, especially after the ETS was frozen, wish to pull back on this delay. Employers should stay tuned to developments at the federal level.

/0 Comments/by

Fifth Circuit freezes new OSHA vaccine rule

Within 24 hours after OSHA issued its new ETS implementing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for employers of 100 or more, one federal court — the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals — has already frozen its implementation. Without further explanation, the Fifth Circuit noted that the ETS raises “grave statutory and constitutional issues.” President Biden’s other vaccine mandates including the government-contractor mandate are not affected by this ruling.

/0 Comments/by

OSHA’s vaccine mandate rules

On 11/5/2021, OSHA issued its ETS (Emergency Temporary Standard) implementing President Biden’s vaccine mandate for employers of 100 or more. (OSHA published a separate ETS for healthcare settings, not addressed in this alert.)

OSHA’s information page regarding the new ETS is here. It includes a 28-minute webinar by OSHA, a FAQ sheet by OSHA, a fact sheet by OSHA, a general summary by OSHA, as well as a summary by OSHA of the reporting requirements.

Effective Date, Compliance Dates, Litigation

The ETS was effective as a statement of federal law immediately on its publication 11/5/2021. General compliance is required by 12/5/2021, to include the policy requirements, mask mandate, recordkeeping and reporting. The sole exception is that mandating vaccines/tests in lieu of vaccination will be required no later than 1/4/2022. Someone who receives their full-final injection on or after 12/21/2021 will not have to be tested in the 2 weeks thereafter as they wait to become fully vaccinated.

OSHA expects the ETS will remain in effect for 6 months after 11/5/2021, though OSHA cautions it may shorten or extend the ETS’ duration.

Because the ETS’ effective date as law was immediate on its publication 11/5/2021, litigation over it commenced almost immediately that same day. At the time of this posting, more than half of the states have filed a variety of lawsuits seeking to invalidate the ETS. Unless a court rules otherwise, though, employers should continue to work towards compliance.

Coverage

When considering coverage, the ETS reaches only some employers, and at those employers, only some employees.

Covered Employers

Employers of 100 or more “at any time the (ETS) standard is in effect” are covered by this ETS. The 100 is counted company-wide, not by location. When counting the 100, all employees are covered, whether full-time or part-time. Employees are counted by the head not FTE; in other words, two part-time employees each working half-time (20 hours per week) do not count as 1 even though together they constitute 1 FTE, rather they count as 2. True independent contractors do not count towards the 100, unless the company is a joint employer. In its preface to the ETS, OSHA offers the following examples (quoting list by OSHA):

  • If an employer has 75 part-time employees and 25 full-time employees, the employer would be within the scope of this ETS because it has 100 employees.
  • If an employer has 150 employees, 100 of whom work from their homes full-time and 50 of whom work in the office at least part of the time, the employer would be within the scope of this ETS because it has more than 100 employees.
  • If an employer has 102 employees and only 3 ever report to an office location, that employer would be covered.
  • If an employer has 150 employees, and 100 of them perform maintenance work in customers’ homes, primarily working from their company vehicles (i.e., mobile workplaces), and rarely or never report to the main office, that employer would also fall within the scope.
  • If an employer has 200 employees, all of whom are vaccinated, that employer would be covered.
  • If an employer has 125 employees, and 115 of them work exclusively outdoors, that employer would be covered.
  • If a single corporation has 50 small locations (e.g., kiosks, concession stands) with at least 100 total employees in its combined locations, that employer would be covered even if some of the locations have no more than one or two employees assigned to work there.
  • If a host employer has 80 permanent employees and 30 temporary employees supplied by a staffing agency, the host employer would not count the staffing  agency employees for coverage purposes and therefore would not be covered. (So long as the staffing agency has at least 100 employees, however, the staffing agency would be responsible for ensuring compliance with the ETS for the jointly employed workers.)
  • If a host employer has 110 permanent employees and 10 temporary employees from a small staffing agency (with fewer than 100 employees of its own), the host employer is covered under this ETS and the staffing agency is not.
  • If a host employer has 110 permanent employees and 10 employees from a large staffing agency (with more than 100 employees of its own), both the host employer and the staffing agency are covered under this standard, and traditional joint employer principles apply.
  • Generally, in a traditional franchisor-franchisee relationship, if the franchisor has more than 100 employees but each individual franchisee has fewer than 100 employees, the franchisor would be covered by this ETS but the individual franchises would not be covered.

Covered Employees

All employees of a covered employer are covered by the ETS, except:

  • Employees working in workplaces covered by President Biden’s Government Contractor mandate. Such employees will be protected exclusively by the Government Contractor mandate.
  • Employees working in healthcare settings covered by OSHA’s Healthcare ETS.
  • Employees who do not report to a workplace where others are present.
  • Employees who work from home while they are working from home. However, if the employee “switches back and forth” working between home and in a workplace where others are present, then the employee becomes covered by the ETS while in the workplace. For example, that individual would have to comply with the following vaccination/testing/mask requirements while in the workplace.
  • Employees who work “exclusively” outdoors. However, if an individual spends more than “de minimis” time with others while not outdoors for work, then the ETS would apply. OSHA gives as examples of covered workers outdoor-workers individuals who carpool at the beginning and end of the shift, who share a vehicle while at work, who spend time in a jobsite trailer while at work. OSHA says “de minimis” time in a shared space with appropriate protects does not render the outdoor-worker covered, and gives as an example a worker who uses a properly ventillated multi-stall bathroom.

Requirements

Once a company is a covered employer with a covered employee, the requirements are manifold, including the following:

  • The company must issue a written policy(-ies) that
    • Either,
      • mandates vaccination for all current and new employees, permitting only the following exemptions:
        • Individuals for whom vaccination is medically contraindicated,
        • Individuals for whom it is medically necessary to delay vaccination,
        • Individuals who qualify for religious or disability accommodations.
        • And for each such individual, the company must require by written policy that they submit instead to weekly testing in lieu of vaccination.
        • And, mandates the wearing of masks in the workplace by unvaccinated individuals, whether or not exempted from the vaccine requirement. In other words, even when exempt from the vaccine mandate by reason of a federal required accommodation or one of the other permitted exemptions above, that exempt individual is only exempt from vaccination. They must undergo weekly testing instead. Also they must wear masks in the workplace even if unvaccinated individuals need not.
      • Or permits vaccination as above so that the worker need not wear a mask, but allows employees who choose not to be vaccinated to undergo weekly tests and wear masks instead without having to be vaccinated. Again though an individual who is permitted not to be vaccinated must not only be tested but also wear a mask even when vaccinated individuals are not required to be masked.
      • Employers may choose either approach.
    • Mandates compliance with other CDC workplace requirements, particularly regarding social distancing.
    • Mandates disclosure to the company of each individual’s vaccination status. The ETS specifies what documentation is sufficient to include the standard vaccine card that we have become familiar with, but it generally does not include, except in limited circumstances, self-attestation. Proof of so-called “natural immunity,” in other words documentation of a prior infection that produced antibodies, is not sufficient.
      • Employers who have already obtained and retained proof of vaccination status may be exempt under certain conditions specified in the ETS, from having to re-request vaccination status.
    • Provides paid time off (or sick leave) to be vaccinated then to recover.
    • Requires individuals to promptly notify the company of a positive test.
    • Informs individuals of certain facts regarding COVID-19 and vaccines.
    • Warns violations will result in discipline up to and including discharge.
  • The company must generate a roster of employees reflecting vaccination status.
  • The company must remove individuals from the workplace when they contract/test positive for COVID-19.
  • The company must meet certain recordkeeping requirements.
    • This includes keeping all vaccination and testing records as confidential medical records.
  • The company must meet certain reporting requirements arising out of workplace-related COVID-19 exposures.

As noted above, the testing mandate is delayed until 1/4/2022, companies will need to comply with the other requirements by 12/5/2021, including by adopting the required policy(-ies), requiring masks, generating the required roster, removing infected individuals for the required periods, and complying with the recordkeeping and reporting requirements.

Sample Policies

OSHA has provided a sample policy mandating vaccination and a sample policy mandating masks and testing in lieu of vaccines.

Either-Or

As noted, employers have a general requirement to implement a policy that mandates vaccination. However, employers may opt instead for a policy that mandates vaccination but permits instead testing/masks/etc. in lieu of vaccination. That decision is left to the company’s discretion, and a company can choose one approach or the other, or the company can choose one approach for one workplace, one group of workers in that workplace, one group of workers in one portion of the workplace, etc. In other words a company has the right to adopt the vaccine-mandate approach for all its workers as OSHA urges, or to mix-and-match as the company determines. Again though, in all situations where a person is not required to be vaccinated, they must be required to wear a mask, test weekly, etc.

OSHA recognizes there may be employers who develop and implement partial mandatory vaccination policies, i.e., that apply to only a portion of their workforce. An example might be a retail corporation employer who has a mixture of staff working at the corporate headquarters, performing intermittent telework from home, and working in stores serving customers. In this type of situation, the employer may choose to require vaccination of only some subset of its employees (e.g., those working in stores), and to treat vaccination as optional for others (e.g., those who work from headquarters or who perform intermittent telework). This approach would comply with the standard so long as the employer complies in full with paragraph (d)(1) and (d)(2) for the respective groups.

Testing

Employees who are allowed not to be vaccinated must undergo weekly testing. This is true whether they are allowed not to be vaccinated due to a religious accommodation, disability accommodation, or as part of the employer’s decision to permit testing in lieu of vaccination. Such individuals must provide the documentation of each negative test within 7 days. The type of testing is specified. No test will be sufficient if it is both self-administered and self-read.

Employees may be required to locate their own tests, have their own tests administered, on their own time and at their own cost. OSHA acknowledges this will be a significant burden but expressly states that it crafted the rule to incentivize workers not to elect testing in lieu of vaccination.

As mentioned above, requiring employers to pay for workplace protections makes it more likely that employees will take advantage of that protection, and in this ETS, OSHA intends to strongly encourage employees to choose vaccination, not regular COVID-19 testing. Because employees who choose to remain unvaccinated will generally be required to pay for their own COVID-19 testing, this standard creates a financial incentive for those employees to become fully vaccinated and avoid that cost.

Tests that show the person has so-called “natural immunity,” in other words, tests that for example confirm an unvaccinated person has antibodies from prior infection are not sufficient to meet the requirement for weekly testing, nor do they exempt the person from the need for vaccination.

Some exceptions exist. For example a worker who has tested positive for COVID-19 cannot be required to provide such weekly tests thereafter for 90 days.

OSHA reminds employers that other laws may apply, so that when an employer who chooses for example to permit the worker to undergo testing during work hours or in the workplace (or even to be vaccinated during work hours or in the workplace), then that employer may have subjected itself to a requirement under wage-hour laws, such as FLSA, to pay for such time.

Masks

The kind of mask, face covering, etc., that is permitted is specifically laid out by OSHA in its ETS. It does not include the more informal kinds of coverings we’ve become used to seeing such as neck buffs. It also does not include an otherwise acceptable mask when worn with the nose or mouth exposed. Employers must ensure that workers who are required to wear masks actually wear them such that they cover the person’s nose and mouth.

Employers need not provide masks to unvaccinated individuals. Employers need not pay for masks. Employers need not form-fit masks.

Unvaccinated individuals need not wear a face covering for the limited time it takes to eat or drink or while alone in a room with proper physical protections, such as closed door, ventilation, etc.

Employees may choose to wear more protective types of masks, such as respirators, if they choose; likewise, fully vaccinated individuals must be allowed to wear masks and face coverings if they would like, even though their vaccination status relieves them of the need to do so.

Paid Time-Off (PTO) or Sick Leave

A reasonable amount of paid time-off (PTO) or sick leave must be provided to be vaccinated and to recover.

To be vaccinated, the time off cannot be substituted with other paid time-off (PTO, vacation or sick leave that the employee might have. It must be fresh paid time off on top of whatever other time off the employee might have accrued. However, it can be capped at 4 hours, even if in a given location it will take the worker longer.

Paid time off to recover after the vaccine can be provided in the form of already-accrued PTO/vacation/sick leave, unless the individual has no such time available, in which case, even if the individual had such a policy available to them but has just used it all, additional fresh time must be provided for recovery. The ETS does not have a formal cap for recovery time, but in its preface, OSHA says it presumes no more than 2 days is reasonable.

Employers need not pay employees who have already been vaccinated for such times. The paid time off provisions are not retroactive.

Employers need not pay other costs related to vaccination, even travel costs for employees in remote locations.

Removal from the Workplace Following Positive Test

As noted, the company’s policy must require workers to promptly report a positive COVID-19 test. This is true whether the test was conducted as part of the weekly test-in-lieu-of-vaccine requirement or otherwise. For example, a non-symptomatic worker who experiences a positive test as part of their personal travel plans (who has to be tested for example prior to boarding a flight to a foreign country for vacation) would have to report the positive.

Any individual who has COVID-19, including as confirmed by a positive test, must be removed from the workplace. Under certain conditions they might be allowed to work not around anyone else, such as from home.

Employees may not be allowed to return to work until:

  • A negative nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) that follows a positive antigen test.
  • The employee completes then-current CDC guidelines for isolation, which at this time are:
    • If the employee has no symptoms, 10 days following their positive test,
    • Or, if the employee has had symptoms, the later of 10 days following the onset of symptoms, 24 hours without a fever (unmedicated) and improving other symptoms (not necessarily including loss of taste or smell, which can last much longer),
    • Or, if the employee is released to return to work by a licensed healthcare provider.

Employers are not required — unless otherwise required — to pay for time away from work, though employees may of course use such time as they may have, including PTO/vacation/sick leave. OSHA notes that nothing in the ETS prohibits employees from claiming such time under workers comp laws if the employee can otherwise establish an entitlement to a work-related exposure workers comp claim.

Preemption of State and Local Laws, State OSHA Plans

This ETS is implemented as a law with what is called field preemption. Therefore, it preempts all less-strict or contrary state and local laws. It specifically preempts therefore state laws that conflict with the Biden vaccine mandates, prohibit vaccine passports in the workplace, and prohibit vaccination inquiries in the workplace. OSHA expressly notes this its ETS invalidates laws in at least Arkansa, Arizona, Florida, Montana, and Texas.

States that have their own state OSHA plans and their own state OSHA-type agencies are now required to develop and implement their own variations of the ETS, which must be no less protectful than OSHA’s. State plans must be approved by OSHA itself.

Production of Required Records

Employers must be prepared to produce its policies and roster within 4 hours of request by OSHA, and within end of next business day of a request by an employee or their representative (generally, their union). That roster should reflect employees broken down by their workplaces. Upon request by the Secretary of Labor, all other documents related to this ETS must be provided no later than end of next business day.

Cost of Compliance?

In perhaps the greatest understatement of all time, OSHA anticipates the cost of complying with its ETS, per covered employer, on average across all industries, will be $11,298, for a total nationwide cost of $2,981,347,368. In other words, even at an inconceivable unrealistic low of $11,298 per company, OSHA concedes its ETS is likely to cost $2.9-billion.

Those numbers do not include costs incurred by employees, for example, for testing in lieu of vaccination, which may cost on average $100 per test and as noted above are required weekly for such individuals. In other words, an individual who seeks an exemption from the vaccine mandate due to religious reasons may be coming out of their own pocket to pay more than $2,500 for testing over the course of the ETS’ expected 6-month lifespan, with additional expenditures to ensure they are always wearing a clean and compliant mask while at work.  As noted above, though, OSHA has explicitly said its choice was entirely to disincentivize employees from availing themselves of any option other than vaccination.

Work From Home After The Pandemic?

In an interesting aside, in its preface to the ETS, OSHA reviews recent surveys trying to predict how common work-from-home is likely to be after the pandemic. OSHA looks in particular at one report predicting that, after the pandemic, 22% of full work days post-pandemic will be worked from home, up from 5% pre-pandemic.

/0 Comments/by

States start suing federal government over President Biden’s vaccine mandates

As expected, states have not only begun passing new laws as well as their own executive orders to oppose President Biden’s vaccine mandates but are now suing the federal government. The following ten states just filed one lawsuit in Missouri: Arkansas, Alaska, Missouri, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. Seven states filed a separate lawsuit in Georgia: Georgia, Alabama, Idaho, Kansas, South Carolina, Utah and West Virginia. And Texas filed its own lawsuit in Texas, as Florida has in Florida.

So far the lawsuits focus on the President’s mandate for government contractors, which the White House perhaps not coincidentally simultaneously has begun to potentially soften.

The OSHA rule to implement the President’s mandate for employers of 100 or more  was expected to be issued as early as this week; however, it is now being widely reported that business groups are asking the White House to consider holding off until after the holidays as implementation during the holidays is, they contend, not feasible.

Employers are reminded that President Biden’s mandates remain Executive Orders (unless frozen or otherwise impacted by one of these lawsuits).

/0 Comments/by

White House walks back a few possible steps from its government-contractor mandate

In one of his recent vaccine mandates, President Biden ordered all government contractors to have their personnel vaccinated by December 8, 2021, with permission arguably given later for exemptions for religious and disability accommodations. The federal government’s Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued guidance affirming and fleshing out the mandate for government contractors. The mandate has by now been formally implemented into many government contracts pursuant to FAR 52.223-99, DFARS 252.223-7999, etc.

On October 27, 2021, White House Coronavirus Response Coordinaor Jeff Zients is widely reported as having walked back the mandate at least to some extent by saying December 8 was not a strict deadline — or in his reported words, not a “cliff” — and that the Whie House would permit some “flexibility.”

The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force then issued FAQs on its webpage that bring the December 8 deadline into question. To be sure, the FAQs warn, December 8 remains the deadline set in the President’s Executive Order, and a company’s failure to ensure that its covered workers be vaccinated or exempt due to a religious or disability accommodation remains grounds for contract termination, debarment, etc. However, the FAQs — although not its prior guidance — now suggest that:

  • An employee whose request for religious accommodation or disability accommodation may be able to be kept employed by the contractor while that request is being processed,
  • And, an employee who has not requested a religious or disability accommodation or who has been denied one may also be able to be employed for at least some limited period of time while a stepped process is employed attempting to start with counseling and education for the employee about vaccination.
  • Both employees would, at all times, be have to comply with masking and social distancing requirements, even if fully vaccinated individuals are exempt from such requirements due to the protection offered by the vaccine.
  • Additionally the FAQs note particular government agencies may impose heighted requirements above and beyond those otherwise applicable in government buildings and under applicable state and local requirements.

How will that actually work? The White House and Task Force offer no specifics. Hopefully, they will provide some sort of detailed step-by-step process employers can follow to comply with this increasingly unclear mandate. Until then, government contractors are reminded that, despite these new softer words from the White House and Task Force, the President’s Executive Order remains the law. Employers who fail to meet the December 8 deadline risk severe penalties including contract termination and future debarment.

/0 Comments/by

Texas joins Montana in conflict against Biden vaccine mandates

By Executive Order of its Governor, Texas has joined Montana in an on-going conflict against the recent vaccine mandates announced by President Biden. But how direct are these conflicts? While certainly direct enough to ensure significant litigation in both states, there appears to be some room for some form of compliance with the Biden mandates, especially in Texas. Hopefully litigation will strike the state bans (or clearly rule, in reverse, that they somehow supersede the Biden mandates), so that employers (and employees) have clarity as to vaccine-related rights and obligations in these states; however, until and unless that occurs, these state laws are likely to create significant confusion as each law leaves significant room for partial compliance with the federal mandates.

The Texas Governor’s Executive Order is likely to be followed by a new statute from its legislature. Indeed, the Governor has already added it to the legislature’s agenda in an upcoming special session. Until then, it provides, as follows:

No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.

Thus, unless modified by the legislature in its upcoming special session, it appears that while Texas’ new law does apply to private employers, it does not prohibit them from complying with the Biden mandates. Rather, it expands an employee’s ability to demand exemption from a mandate. It is anticipated that all of the Biden mandates will likely permit reasonable accommodations, including exemptions, on the basis of religion and disability. This new Texas law appears to simply add/expand exemptions in Texas on the basis of “personal conscience” or “medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.” It is not clear how these compare to religion or disability. Is “personal conscience” broader than the already broad definition of “religion”? Are “medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19” broader than “disability”?

The Montana ban flows from its legislature’s new law, House Bill 702. The Montana law adds “vaccination status” and a “vaccine passport” to its state’s EEO law’s definition of protected classes (along with race, etc.). It defines the phrase “vaccine passport” to include as an example a vaccine card. How does the Montana law square up to the Biden mandates? In its FAQ dated 9/29/2021, Montana dodges the question saying that, until the new OSHA rule comes out, its law is “in effect,” without explaining what that means.

The Montana law is already subject to multiple lawsuits seeking to strike it down. The Texas bill is sure to be challenged shortly in the courts.

Hopefully employers will soon obtain clarity from courts in these states. Until then, employers in both states (and any other state that joins this pool of confusion) should realize that neither Texas nor Montana’s state law flatly prohibits compliance with the Biden mandates. They may simply limit how or to what extent compliance is possible. Still both are clearly in direct enough conflict with the Biden mandates, it is likely courts will have to clarify these issues.

/0 Comments/by

CDLE, again, reminds Colorado employers that 80-hour pandemic leave remains in effect

On September 30, 2021, the federal tax credit that allowed employers to pass through the costs of pandemic/80-hour leave.  Also on September 30, 2021, the CDLE reminded, again, Colorado employers in an email that Colorado state law continues to mandate that the 80-hour/pandemic leave (“PHEW” leave) be provided at least until November 15, 2021 while the federal emergency declaration remains in effect (plus the 4-week tail required by Colorado state law); in other words, Colorado state law continues to require that the leave be provided, even though the federal tax credit is no longer available.  Here is the CDLE’s email:

Coloradans Are Still Entitled To Employer Provided Covid-Related Paid Sick Leave While Federal Public Health Emergency Remains In Effect

Under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act (HFWA), Coloradans can take up to 80 hours of paid leave in 2021 for any COVID-related needs. This includes not only having COVID-19, but also going to get a COVID-19 test or vaccine, recovering from any vaccine side effects, following a mandatory quarantine, or caring for a family member with any of those needs.

Colorado’s 80-hour COVID-related leave continues as long as a COVID-related emergency remains “declared by a federal, state, or local public health agency” (C.R.S. 8-13.3-402(9)), and the federal COVID-19 emergency is ongoing. The latest declaration extends through October 18, 2021.

HFWA continues the right to COVID-related leave “until four weeks after” all applicable public health emergencies end or are suspended. That means the earliest possible end date of Coloradans’ HFWA right to 80-hour COVID-related leave is November 15, 2021. However, the Biden administration has publicly stated that the federal emergency declaration will likely extend through year’s end.

For more information on paid sick leave, please see the CDLE Division of Labor Standards and Statistics’ fact sheets, INFOs #6B and 6C. You may also call the Division of Labor Standards and Statistics at 303-318-8441.

/0 Comments/by

Feds issue further guidance on Biden vaccine mandate for government contractors

the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force has issued further guidance explaining what government contractors can expect as President Biden’s government contractor vaccine mandate is implemented. Highlights of this most recent guidance include the following:

  • As explained in a previous post, the government-contractor mandate’s requirements will be imposed by way of a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) to be included in covered “contracts and contract-like instruments.” The guidance defines that phrase, as follows:

Contract and contract-like instrument – has the meaning set forth in the Department of Labor’s proposed rule, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors,” 86 Fed. Reg. 38,816, 38,887 (July 22, 2021). If the Department of Labor issues a final rule relating to that proposed rule, this term shall have the meaning set forth in that final rule.

That proposed rule defines a contract or contract-like instrument as an agreement between two or more parties creating obligations that are enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. This definition includes, but is not limited to, a mutually binding legal relationship obligating one party to furnish services (including construction) and another party to pay for them. The term contract includes all contracts and any subcontracts of any tier thereunder, whether negotiated or advertised, including any procurement actions, lease agreements, cooperative agreements, provider agreements, intergovernmental service agreements, service agreements, licenses, permits, or any other type of agreement, regardless of nomenclature, type, or particular form, and whether entered into verbally or in writing. The term contract shall be interpreted broadly as to include, but not be limited to, any contract within the definition provided in the FAR at 48 CFR chapter 1 or applicable Federal statutes. This definition includes, but is not limited to, any contract that may be covered under any Federal procurement statute. Contracts may be the result of competitive bidding or awarded to a single source under applicable authority to do so. In addition to bilateral instruments, contracts include, but are not limited to, awards and notices of awards; job orders or task letters issued under basic ordering agreements; letter contracts; orders, such as purchase orders, under which the contract becomes effective by written acceptance or performance; exercised contract options; and bilateral contract modifications. The term contract includes contracts covered by the Service Contract Act, contracts covered by the Davis-Bacon Act, concessions contracts not otherwise subject to the Service Contract Act, and contracts in connection with Federal property or land and related to offering services for Federal employees, their dependents, or the general public.

    • Companies may note that definition includes contracts and subcontracts, whether in writing or verbal. Likewise it applies to contracts involving “any procurement actions, lease agreements, cooperative agreements, provider agreements, intergovernmental service agreements, service agreements, licenses, permits, or any other type of agreement,” specifically including construction.
  • The requirement will need to be passed down from contractors to all “lower-tier subcontractors.”
  • The requirement will reach not only those “covered contract employees” who work on federal workplaces but those who work in private workplaces, even if outdoors. It includes full-time and part-time workers, and it will include a joint employer principle. Covered companies will also need to impose the mandate on visitors to their workplace (at least as to masking and socially distancing). It will reach beyond the work on the contract itself to all employees who are either “themselves working on or in connection with a covered contract.”

Q17: What constitutes work performed “in connection with” a covered contract?

A: Employees who perform duties necessary to the performance of the covered contract, but who are not directly engaged in performing the specific work called for by the covered contract, such as human resources, billing, and legal review, perform work in connection with a Federal Government contract.

  • The requirement will mandate that the covered contractor review and confirm vaccination by way of certain documents, to include a standard official vaccine card, but not to include self-attestation by the person nor proof that the person is positive for antibodies. Proof of so-called “natural” immunity, in other words, proof that the person has already had a COVID-19 infection, is not sufficient; the person must provide proof of actual vaccination. Proof of vaccination can be displayed digitally, in other words, a photograph of a vaccine card will suffice. The guidance does not at least on its face mandate that the covered contractor retain a copy of that proof, only that the individual “show or provide” it.
  • The requirement will include a mandate that covered contract employees wear a mask and socially distance, except, in low or moderate community transmission areas, a fully-vaccinated individual will not be required to wear a mask.
  • Limited exceptions will be permitted:
    • To the extent required as a legally mandated form of accommodation (example, for religious or disability reasons).
    • When the government contracting agency determines there is an “urgent, mission-critical need” for workers before they can become fully vaccinated, in which case the vaccination mandate may be extended for such individuals up to 60 days after they begin work.
  • The requirement will mandate that each covered contractor designate a “person or persons to coordinate COVID-19 workplace safety efforts at covered contractor workplaces.”
  • The effective date of these requirements will depend on the date of the contract or contract-like instrument.

Q12: By when must the requirements of the order be reflected in contracts?
A: Section 6 of the order lays out a phase-in of the requirements for covered contracts as follows:
• Contracts awarded prior to October 15 where performance is ongoing – the requirements must be incorporated at the point at which an option is exercised or an extension is made.
• New contracts – the requirements must be incorporated into contracts awarded on or after November 14. Between October 15 and November 14, agencies must include the clause in the solicitation and are encouraged to include the clause in contracts awarded during this time period but are not required to do so unless the solicitation for such contract was issued on or after October 15.

  • These requirements will apply in addition to the forthcoming OSHA rule that will apply to companies of 100 or more. In other words, employers who are subject to the government-contractor mandate will have to comply with these requirements, employers who are subject to the 100-employee/OSHA rule will have to comply with that rule, and employers who are subject to both these government-contractor requirements and the 100-employee/OSHA rule will somehow have to comply with both, or at least that appears to be what the guidance is suggesting.

Q20: Can a covered contractor comply with workplace safety requirements from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, including pursuant to any current or forthcoming Emergency Temporary Standard related to COVID-19, instead of the requirements of this Guidance?
A: No. Covered contractors must comply with the requirements set forth in this Guidance regardless of whether they are subject to other workplace safety standards.

  • Once a contractor becomes subject to these requirements, they will be subject to any new or changed requirements issued by the Safer Federal Workplace Task Force, even during mid-term of a covered contract.
  • These requirements will apply even if inconsistent with state or local laws to the contrary.

Q19: Does this clause apply in States or localities that seek to prohibit compliance with any of the workplace safety protocols set forth in this Guidance?

A: Yes. These requirements are promulgated pursuant to Federal law and supersede any contrary State or local law or ordinance. Additionally, nothing in this Guidance shall excuse noncompliance with any applicable State law or municipal ordinance establishing more protective workplace safety protocols than those established under this Guidance.

 

/0 Comments/by

Biden vaccine mandates: What private employers know so far

On 9-9-2021, President Biden announced sweeping vaccine mandates that will affect private employers.

So far, what do private employers know to expect?

  • Employers of 100 or more workers will be required to implement vaccine-or-test mandates. Employees who opt not to be vaccinated will be required to be tested weekly. Employees will need to be provided paid time-off to be vaccinated. Fines could be $14,000 per violation.
    • OSHA has been tasked with implementing guidance explaining this new mandate.
  • Government contractors will be required to implement vaccine mandates for their workers. It appears that this government contractor obligation will not allow a test-out option. It appears that this will apply only to contracts entered into after October 15, 2021. It is noted that this “appears” to be the case, because the Biden administration and its Executive Order on this mandate so specify; however, government contractors should review their current contracts to confirm that they do not already require compliance with future FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulations) that may be adopted during the current contract’s term.
    • It is also noted that the Executive Order does not actually apply to “government contractors.” “Government contractors” is not a phrase defined in law. Rather the Executive Order reaches all federal “contract or contract-like instruments.” It defines that term, as follows:

For purposes of this order, the term “contract or contract-like instrument” shall have the meaning set forth in the Department of Labor’s proposed rule, “Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors, ” 86 Fed. Reg. 38816, 38887 (July 22, 2021).  If the Department of Labor issues a final rule relating to that proposed rule, that term shall have the meaning set forth in that final rule.

    • It is noted that the definition of “contract or contract-like instruments” at 86 Fed.Reg. 38816 is very specific and involved. It does not include all forms of government contracts, but it does include some forms of government relationships one might not consider to be government contracts. In other words, that phrase is a technical legally defined phrase, it is not coextensive with the lay term “government contracts.” Some companies that one might think are “government contractors” will not be covered, and some one might think are not “government contractors” will be covered. It will be a technical issue for review against that very specific regulatory definition.
    • Government contractors are encouraged to provide their current and anticipated government contracts to their attorneys for legal review against 86 Fed.Reg. 38816
    • The Executive Order mandates the federal government to issue further guidance on this government-contractor mandate no later than 9-24-2021, with additional deadlines thereafter through 10-8-2021 for further guidance.
  • Medicare and Medicaid providers as well as some other health-care settings such as some nusing homes will be required to impose some form of mandate.

What don’t we know?

We still know virtually nothing about the specifics of how these mandates will actually work. Hopefully we will be receiving guidance from the various government agencies soon. Questions we still do not know include:

  • How workers will need to be counted for the 100-employee mandate.
  • What government contractors will be subject to the government-contractor mandate (see above re “contract or contract-like instruments” and re new-versus-existing contracts).
  • Whether any or all of these mandates will permit opt-outs or other forms of accommodation for disability or religious reasons. The White House announced that federal workers will have accommodation opportunities, but it is not clear to what extent these new mandates will permit accommodations for private employees.
  • When OSHA will implement the required guidance, though it has been mandated do so within the coming weeks. Whether it will do so by way of a standard or informal guidance. Whether it will issue a proposed then final draft according to normal rulemaking processes, or if, as it appears from the way President Biden described it, OSHA will skip the proposed draft stage and simply issue a final version all at once as an emergency rulemaking.
  • Whether paid time-off to be vaccinated will be required only under the 100-employee mandate, or if it will also be required for government contractors and Medicare/Medicaid employers. Whether paid time-off will be required for testing for those who are allowed to opt-out of vaccination. Whether there will be a pass-through permitted to allow the costs of that paid time-off to be credited against federal taxes for example.
  • What the compliance burden and related costs (including the costs of testing and possibly vaccination) will be. At least some of these expenses will be borne by the federal government, as it has been announced the government will spend $2-billion to acquire new tests.
  • What documentation, recordkeeping, examination/inquiry restrictions and other processes will be required for these various mandates.
  • What end-date these mandates will have, in other words, when they will expire.

What have been reactions so far?

Reactions by the business community continue to be mixed. Many companies have already adopted vaccine mandates, with vax-or-test programs probably being among the most common. For such companies these mandates may provide some clarity as to how companies can best implement such mandates. However, many companies, especially in traditionally red-political communities, face strong pushback from their workers, customers, etc., and have been reluctant to do so.

Is litigation likely?

Litigation is expected to challenge all aspects of the new mandates. It is probable that at least some cases will produce rulings before these new mandates start taking effect. Having said that, employers can expect it to come down to the very wire. Therefore, companies should not simply take a wait-and-see approach. Companies will need to start assessing as soon as possible their obligations, if any, and how they will implement these new mandates. Unfortunately, as noted, companies are having to wait at least for now for further guidance from the various government agencies involved.

 

/0 Comments/by

Vaccine lawsuits rising

Missed my recent webinar on vaccines in the workplace? Email me or send me a message through this website if interested in the complimentary on-demand presentation. In the meantime, check out this article on Law 360 (no subscription required). Interesting topics include a look at some of these new lawsuits, the need to provide certain accommodations, the importance of considering state laws, and the confusion caused by current vaccines EUA status.

/0 Comments/by

Confused about CDC’s new position for fully vaccinated people and what it means for masks and social distancing in the workplace? Looking for a template memo to your employees?

SHRM has released a couple of interesting memos that HR professionals might consider as a starting point when thinking about the CDC’s new guidance for fully vaccinated people and what it means for masks and social distancing in the workplace. SHRM has released one template memo it suggests for employers looking to allow fully vaccinated people to take advantage of the CDC’s new guidance, which effectively says in most situations such people need no longer wear masks or socially distance, and another template for employers looking, instead, to require all workers, including those who are fully vaccinated, to continue to wear masks and socially distance. Neither memo is probably the Goldilocks fit for any particular employer, but together they provide a good place to start brainstorming. Employers are reminded to consult with experienced legal counsel on these issues.

/0 Comments/by

As federal, state and local mandates begin to loosen, will employers face a “turnover tsunami”?

According to a recent article in the Denver Business Journal, employers may be facing a “turnover tsunami” with an estimated “26% of workers  plan(ning) to look for a job with a different employer once the threat of the pandemic decreases.” The article offers helpful tips for companies considering how to attract and keep talent.

/0 Comments/by

White House clears path for offers of paid time-off for vaccinations

The White House announced a tax credit for companies who wish to offer paid time-off for employees to be vaccinated. The credit is available to employers with fewer than 500 employees, and permits up to 80 hours/10 days of paid time off, up to $511 per day.

This new credit is not only welcome for employers seeking to avail themselves of it, but it also helps alleviate confusion over an employer’s ability to offer pay for time-off to be vaccinated.

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit holds employer need not, under ADA, accommodate challenges that an employee’s disability imposes “outside the workplace unrelated to an essential function or a privilege of employment”

The Tenth Circuit recently decided a case involving an employee who required a flexible work schedule to do her job. She suffered from a disability related to her vision. She lived 60 miles from the workplace and relied on family and friends for rides to and from work. Her ability to make it to work on time proved a challenge. The company attempted to allow her to work a flexible work schedule, but that also proved unsuccessful, when her actual schedule became “erratic,” which “contributed to low patient satisfaction scores,” “less than stellar” performance evaluations. She sked the company to continue allowing her the flexible work schedule or even to work remotely full time. The company declined.

The Tenth Circuit held that her request to work remotely or on a flexible work schedule would, if granted, have accommodated “her transportation barrier (which was) a problem she faces outside the workplace unrelated to an essential job function or a privileged of employment.” The company could not control where she lived or when she was able to find rides with friends or family. She was in that sense like all employees, whether disabled or not, and nothing in the ADA imposes on an employer the obligation to grant accommodations that solve workers’ personal off-duty challenges. “(E)mployers have no obligation under the ADA to accommodate disabled employees for problems they face outside the workplace unrelated to the essential job functions of their positions or privileges of employment merely because they are disabled.”

Together with another recent Tenth Circuit case, the decision suggests how the courts may approach litigation that may arise as a result of the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on the workplace.

Source: Unrein v. PHC-Fort Morgan, Inc., — F.3d — (10th Cir. 4/8/2021).

/1 Comment/by

American Rescue Plan Act extends and expands federal tax credits available for coronavirus-related leave

SHRM recently published an article summarizing ARPA (the American Rescue Plan Act). In short, employers with fewer than 500 employees currently may but are not required by federal law (compare for example state laws such as in Colorado) to provide paid leave for certain coronavirus-related reasons and, if such an employer does chose to provide such leave, it may pass through costs to the federal government. Those rules expired first December 31, 2020, then were extended through March 31, 202. Now according to ARPA, the ability for an employer to pass-through covered costs has been extended through September 30, 2021. ARPA not only extends the period when costs can be passed through to the federal government, but expands the reasons for which such leave may be granted to, now, include time off to be vaccinated and time off while waiting for the results of an employer-mandated covid-19 test. Employers are encouraged to contact their tax professionals for further information.

/0 Comments/by

Tenth Circuit previews likely ruling when employers require return-to-work following pandemic

A recent Tenth Circuit decision previews courts’ likely analysis when employers begin requiring workers to return to the workplace following the eventual end of the pandemic. In the case, the Court held that making a “transitional duty” permanent is not a reasonable accommodation — in other words is not required by the ADA — especially where it would eliminate an essential function of the worker’s position.

The Court used the phrase “transitional duty” to refer to the employer-prison’s temporary assignment of a disabled worker to relatively light duty that consisted of “sedentary” tasks in the “control room.” The prison provided the transitional duty only as a temporary accommodation of his arthritis pending hip surgery after which he was expected to return to his regular duties as a correctional officer. It was undisputed that the regular duties of a correctional officer included the ability to defend oneself, which he could not do absent successful recovery from surgery. When the temporary transitional duty ended and he was still unable to work as a correctional officer, his employment was terminated. He sued claiming that the ADA required the prison to convert the transitional duty into his permanent assignment. The prison responded and the Tenth Circuit agreed that making his temporary accommodation permanent would not have been a reasonable accommodation, in other words, was not required under the ADA. His job was to work as a correctional officer; the transitional duty was merely a temporary effort to respond to his arthritis and need for surgery.

Just as having permitted that correctional officer to work in the control room was merely a temporary response to the circumstances at the time, one that the ADA did not require to be made permanent, so, now in the context of the pandemic, allowing employees to work remotely, temporarily during the pandemic, does not open the door to ADA lawsuits claiming to make remote-work permanent, at least where attendance is itself an essential function of the job. Readers are reminded that the EEOC similarly recently opined that temporarily eliminating an essential function, in response to specific circumstances such as the pandemic, does not require that elimination to be made permanent under the ADA (or Title VII).

Source: Mannan v. Colorado, 2020 BL 493234, 2020 Us App Lexis 39822 (10th Cir. 12/18/20).

/0 Comments/by

EEOC issues guidance on vaccines

The EEOC issued guidance on vaccines, as subpart K of its Technical Assistance (FAQ) regarding coronavirus. The EEOC’s FAQ is not regulatory, it does not carry the weight of law, and it did not reach any specific conclusions. Rather, it included the EEOC’s current thinking that:

  • It may become possible, as vaccines begin to be available, for an employer to mandate vaccination as a condition of entry into the workplace if the company can establish business necessity and that failure to impose the requirement would pose a direct threat of harm to others or that employee’s own health.
  • The EEOC noted it may or may not also be possible for an employer to mandate vaccination as a condition of employment. In other words, the EEOC said that, while some employers may be able to require vaccination as a condition of physically entering the workplace, to terminate an un-vaccinated employee would require a higher showing to prove business necessity and direct threat. For example, such an employer would have to prove the inability to allow the worker to take leave, to work remotely, etc.
  • In both instances, an employer would have to provide a reasonable accommodation for an employee who declines vaccination
    • Regarding a disability, under the ADA, unless the employer can prove undue hardship, i.e., that “there is no way” to allow the worker into the workplace or just to keep their job without the vaccine, to take leave, if not even to work remotely, and/or
    • Regarding a sincerely held religious belief, under Title VII, unless it would impose more than a de minimis cost or burden to the company to provide such an accommodation.

The EEOC recommends that employers consider, in all circumstances, using a third-party medical contractor that expertly advise workers, obtain informed consent, and manage any questions as well as the administration of the vaccine, and the exchange of any information regarding genetics, within medical confidentiality, such that the worker would, once vaccinate, simply provide the company with documentation of having been vaccinated, ensuring no confidential information is shared with the company.

Employers should first be aware that the EEOC does not have jurisdiction over and did not opine on other federal or state laws, which may well be thornier restrictions for employers who feel required vaccines are needed in their workplaces. Further, multiple states have already begun the process of debating whether to legislate or simply regulate in this area.

Finally, it should be noted that the EEOC was discussing vaccines that have been “approved or authorized” by the FDA. Currently no vaccines have been “approved” by the FDA, some have received an emergency use “authorization.” The EEOC did not discuss the fact that, in the fact sheet supporting the current authorizations, the FDA specifically stated: “It is your choice to receive or not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.” While that statement seems to be limited to a patient’s choice in terms of their own medical care — not their employment rights — that statement’s importance has not yet been analyzed by the EEOC (or the courts).

/0 Comments/by

CDLE issues yet more rules, now confirming the need to provide a fresh 80 hours of pandemic leave starting January 1, 2021

The CDLE has issued a new batch of rules and INFO sheets #6B and #6C confirming the need, in Colorado, to issue a fresh 80 hours of pandemic leave. In other words, an employee who has used, for example, 70 of their current 80 hours, will have their remaining 10 hours zeroed out at the close of 12/31/2020, then at the beginning of 1/1/2021, they will need to have their available paid leave requirements augmented to permit a fresh 80 hours; an employee who has used 10 of their current 80 hours, will likewise have their remaining 70 hours zeroed out and be given a fresh 80 hours as well. INFO 6C explains the basis for the requirement to provide this fresh 80 hours, and INFO 6B explains the basic requirements of Colorado 48-hour and 80-hour paid leave requirements under HFWA.

Employers should consider providing all Colorado employees with a copy of the CDLE’s poster and an explanatory memo. As explained in a previous post, employers should carefully craft the language of their memo to meet the other requirements posed in the CDLE’s HFWA rules.

/0 Comments/by

Will employers be able to mandate vaccines?

Wondering if employers will be able to mandate vaccines? Long story, short, we don’t yet fully know. It is likely that employers will be able to mandate vaccines — at least as a condition of entry into some workplaces if not as a condition of continued employment — so long as it is required by a business necessity and so long as appropriate opt-outs are permitted especially for religious or disability reasons. Employers with unionized workforces may need to engage in bargaining with their unions, first, unless clear and unmistakable language in the CBA already allows unilateral action. However, federal and state officials throughout the country have said they are currently analyzing the issue and hope to issue guidance soon.

In the meantime, if you’re looking for a couple good reads on the subject as an introduction to these issues, you may want to start with two thought pieces on the issues: one by Holland & Hart attorney Brad Williams available here and the other by SHRM available here. With regard to just the EEO laws, especially Title VII’s religious protections and the ADA’s disability protections, interested readers may also like to review the EEOC’s 2009 thoughts from the H1N1 pandemic, especially question 13. Again, though, hopefully the EEOC, along with the DOL and the various state and local agencies, will all be updating their guidance shortly within the context of the current coronavirus pandemic.  

Stay tuned for future updates as guidance becomes available. 

/0 Comments/by

CDLE issues more new information for Colorado employers

Implementing its most recent batch of rules on a variety of topics, the CDLE just issued yet more information for Colorado employers on those topics.

Are your ready for January 1, 2021?

  • Looking for more information about the CDLE’s latest batch of rules?

Join us for a complimentary, engaging and interactive webinar.

L2S Legal, LLC is recognized by SHRM to offer SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP professional credits (PDCs). This program is valid for 1.0 PDCs.

When: Wednesday, December 16, 2020 Noon 12:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vGmrkeFcQ6iaM26Hg3iMGQ 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing Zoom’s information for joining the webinar.

Where to find the CDLE’s latest information

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment’s latest information is available at its website.

As noted in recent posts on this blog, look for the CDLE’s latest rules on its Rulemaking page, to include the following rules:

  • Colorado Overtime And Minimum Pay Standards (“Comps”) Order #37, 7 CCR 1103-1;
  • Wage Protection Rules, 7 CCR 1103-7;
  • Direct Investigations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-8;
  • Colorado Whistleblower, Anti-Retaliation, Non-Interference, And Notice-Giving (“Colorado Warning”) Rules, 7 CCR 1103-11;
  • Colorado State Labor Relations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-12; And
  • Equal Pay Transparency Rules, 7 CCR 1103-13.

Look for its latest posters on the CDLE’s Poster page (the following list is quoted from CDLE)

  • The “Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards” (“COMPS”) poster and notice, covering wage and hour law — see COMPS Rule 7.4, Posting and Distribution Requirements, unchanged from the 2020 COMPS Order, which requires employers to display the annually revised poster (and send it to off-site employees), plus include either the poster or COMPS itself in any handbook or manual the employer has.
  • The “Colorado Workplace Public Health Rights Poster: Paid Leave, Whistleblowing, & Protective Equipment” poster and notice, covering HFWA and PHEW since their enactment in July 2020 — see Colorado WARNING Rule 4, Notice and Posting Rights and Responsibilities, unchanged from the temporary WARNING Rules in effect since September 21, 2020, which requires employers to post and give employees notice of these rights.
  • Translations of posters and INFOs — to implement requirements for employers to provide posters and notices to non-English-fluent workers, DLSS in 2020 posted translations of its posters in 12 languages and Spanish translations of INFOs (on the same pages as the English posters and INFOs), with new translations of the 2021-updated posters to be posted later this month, and translations of INFOs coming thereafter.
  • With translations into Spanish and other language.

Look for informational summaries on the CDLE’s INFO page, where the CDLE provides the following information summaries (again quoting the CDLE):

  • INFO# 1: Colorado Overtime &, Minimum Pay Standards Order (COMPS Order) #37 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 1: Orden de COMPS #37] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 2:DLSS Wage Claim Investigation Process
  • INFO# 3: Tips (Gratuities) and Tipped Employees Under Colorado Wage Law
  • INFO# 4: Meal and Rest Period
  • INFO# 5: Public Health Emergency Whistleblower Rights [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 5: Ley de Protección al Denunciante de Emergencias de Salud Pública] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 6A: Paid Leave Under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, through December 31, 2020 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 6A: Pago por Ausencia Laboral bajo el Acta de Familias y Lugares de Trabajos Saludables, vigente hasta el 31 de diciembre, 2020]
  • INFO# 6B: Paid Leave Under the Healthy Families and Workplaces Act, as of January 1, 2021 [In Spanish:Hoja Informativa y Opinión Formal (INFO por sus siglas en inglés) # 6B: Pago por Ausencia Laboral bajo el Acta de Familias y Lugares de Trabajos Saludables, a partir de 1º de enero] (Próximamente)
  • INFO# 7: Payment of Wages & Required Record-Keeping
  • INFO #8: Colorado Chance to Compete Act (“Ban the Box”)

The CDLE also invites interested individuals to sign up for the agency’s email alerts.

Highlights from the CDLE’s latest information

In recent posts, this blog has summarized a number of the CDLE’s latest rules. Some of the highlights from this most recent information just posted by the CDLE implementing its new rules includes the following:

  • INFO #1: The new hourly minimum wage in Colorado will be $12.32. The new minimum guaranteed salary for exempt workers will be $40,500.
    • Employers are reminded they must distribute a copy of the COMPS poster or the entire COMPS Order 37 (new for this year) with any policies/handbooks that are being distributed otherwise. Signatures must be obtained.
  • INFO #4: The CDLE has taken a strict approach to meals and rest periods, summarized in INFO #4.
    • Employers are responsible for not only “authorizing” workers to take breaks, but they must “permit” them to do so, and CDLE explains a rest break is “authorized” if the company has an adequate policy for example, but even if “authorized,” it is not “permitted” if the employee is “unable or discouraged” to take the break. Evidence that the employee is not “permitted” to take a break may simply be the employee’s own statement that they “felt pressure from the employer not to take the break.
    • It is the employer’s obligation, not the employee’s, to track and record and keep records of employee breaks. An employer cannot simply say it assumed the breaks were being taken as “authorized” where an employee claims not to have been “permitted” to take the break.
    • When a break is missed, it counts as work time, must be paid as such, even if that triggers daily or weekly overtime.
  • INFO #5: In its rules and now in its INFO implementing Colorado’s new PHEW law (already in effect), the CDLE has take the position that an employer who provides no PPE (mask) in a time of a public health emergency may not prohibit an employee from using an unsafe mask. PHEW allows employers to prohibit employees from using masks that do not meet the company’s requirements, only if — according to the CDLE’s interpretation — the employer has first provided its own mask to the worker. Employers should consider making appropriate disposable masks available in their workforces, so that they can later prohibit inappropriate masks that employees might otherwise wish to wear.
  • INFO #7: The CDLE summarized rules regarding the payment of wages, the establishment of pay periods, payment of final wages at separation, pay statement requirements and recordkeeping requirements.
  • INFO #8: The CDLE explained Colorado’s new ban-the-box law. Companies may not state in job applications or advertisements “that a person with a criminal history may not apply,” nor ask about the person’s criminal history on an application, nor require the applicant to disclose any criminal history on the application. Additionally, the CDLE says this prohibits an employer from stating that background checks will be required. Although an employer may require background checks as part of a conditional offer of employment, that may not be stated in an application or advertisement. The CDLE explains the limited exceptions available where employers are otherwise required by law to inquire into these matters.
/0 Comments/by

CDLE finalizes new WARNING rule

As noted in a prior blog post, the CDLE has finalized a crop of new rules on a variety of topics. This post addresses its WARNING (Whistleblower, Anti-Retaliation, Non-Interference, and Notice-Giving) Rules, effective January 1, 2021.  The WARNING Rules implement Colorado’s new whistleblower and related notice laws. Highlights of the rules include the following:

  • An explanation of the posting obligation that requires employers to post the state’s HFWA poster  with translations available from the CDLE for any languag espoken by at least 5% of the workforce in a conspicuous location in each workplace where individuals work, such as bulletin boards or break rooms, by time clocks or at entrances. In the event that is not possible Rule 4.1.4 describes a process for providing the actual poster to each new hire or on “a web-based platform.”
  • An explanation of the “reasonable” and “good faith” requirements a whistleblower must meet to be protected, to include under Rule 5.1.2 a statement by the worker, without necessarily citing a specific rule or guideline, “what action, condition, or situation they believe constitutes a qualifying violation of a rule regarding, or significant threat to workplace health or safety.”
  • An explanation in Rule 5.2.3 that, while Colorado’s new law permits workers to insist on using their own more protective PPE, such PPE must itself be sourced “from a reliable provider” if the company has provided PPE compliant with federal, state and local recommendations that was sourced from a reliable provider.
  • Perhaps most controversially, an explanation in Rule 5.2.4 that whistleblower cases under this new law will entail a lower burden of proof for an employee who seeks to prove they were constructively discharged than most other whistleblower laws require. The worker will be able to prove a constructive discharge if he proves he blew the proverbial whistle in compliance with the new rules, including Rule 4.1.4 (above), the company failed to remedy the concern “immediately,” continuing to work would have posed a “substantial threat to health or safety for any person,” and he quit as a result thereof. In its prefatory Statement explaining the rule, the CDLE confirms this means that a plaintiff will not be required to prove the employer took an adverse employment action against the plaintiff; in other words, it will not be required to prove discharge, demotion, cut in pay, hours, etc.

Employers in Colorado should take time to familiarize themselves with these new rules.

/0 Comments/by

CDLE finalizes crop of new rules

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) has finalized a half dozen rules on a wide array of topics. Employers should take care to immediately familiarize themselves with these rules, as many take effect January 1, 2021. The rules can be found on the CDLE’s rulemaking page, where the CDLE summarizes its new rules with the following table that contains links to the actual rules themselves:

Adopted Rules Clean Version Redline Version Statement of Basis & Purpose

State Labor Relations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-12

 PDF PDF PDF
Colorado Whistleblower, Anti-retaliation, Non-interference, and Notice-giving (Colorado WARNING) Rules, 7 CCR 1103-11 PDF PDF PDF
Direct Investigations Rules, 7 CCR 1103-8 PDF PDF PDF
Equal Pay Transparency Rules, 7 CCR 1103-13 PDF PDF PDF
Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards (COMPS) Order #37, 7 CCR 1103-1 PDF PDF PDF
Wage Protection Rules, 7 CCR 1103-7 PDF PDF PDF

Individuals interested in receiving updates from the CDLE directly when it engages in the rulemaking process, may subscribe with the CDLE here.

Look for follow-up posts on this blog highlighting some of the key developments in some of these rules.

/0 Comments/by

How will Proposition 118’s new paid Family and Medical Leave compare with currently required federal and state paid leave?

As noted on this blog, Colorado voters approved Proposition 118, which will mandate the creation of a new state-administered insurance program to provide paid Family and Medical Leave.

As Colorado employers know, the current federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does not require paid leave. However, federal law currently does require paid leave in some instances, most notably up to 80 hours of pandemic leave with the possibility of an additional 10 weeks for pandemic-related childcare/school closure. Colorado’s newly mandated paid leave law already requires similar pandemic leave, plus on January 1, 2021 at least 48 hours of general paid sick leave.

This new Proposition 118 leave will be in addition to these leaves. Proposition 118 leave is not limited to pandemic-related needs. While this new leave will run concurrently with any federal unpaid FMLA leave, a company may not require an employee to exhaust other paid leave prior to taking this leave, though workers and companies may “mutually agree” to make up any difference between lost pay and the benefits provided with such other leave, quoting CRS 8-13.3-410.

Explanatory material in the Colorado legislature’s 2020 Blue Book summarizing Proposition 118, illustrated this benefit formula with the following table (parentheticals added):

Proposition 118 SB 20-205 (the portion of Colorado’s newly mandated paid leave law that is not limited to pandemic-related needs) FMLA
Type of leave Family and medical Medical Family and medical
Length of leave/paid or unpaid 12 weeks (up to 16 for pregnancy or childbirth complications); paid Up to 6 days; paid 12 weeks; unpaid
Eligibility requirements After $2,500 in wages have been subject to premiums Employee earns 1 hour paid sick leave per 30 hours worked; up to 48 hours per year After employee has worked for 12 months
Job protection After working for employer for 180 days N/A Yes
Employer size All employers (with 10 or more employees) Employers with 16 or more employees as of Jan. 2021; all employers beginning Jan. 2022 All elementary and secondary schools; public agencies; private businesses with 50 or more employees
Reasons for leave Birth or adoption of child; caring for self or family member; family member going on active duty in the military; sexual assault/abuse, & stalking Care for employee’s health/safety; care for a person that the employee needs to provide health/safety-related care Birth or adoption of child; caring for family member; family member going on active duty in the military

Interested in more information about Proposition 118 and the other new federal and state paid leave laws?

  • How will all this play out?
  • What do we know?
  • What can we expect?
  • What should HR professionals do to prepare their organizations?

Join us for a complimentary, engaging and interactive webinar.

L2S Legal, LLC is recognized by SHRM to offer SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP professional credits (PDCs). This program is valid for 1.0 PDCs.

When: Thursday, Nov 12, 2020 Noon 12:00 PM Mountain Time (US and Canada) 

Register in advance for this webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_vGmrkeFcQ6iaM26Hg3iMGQ 

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing Zoom’s information for joining the webinar.

/0 Comments/by

CDLE issues revised INFO #6A

The CDLE has issued a revised INFO #6A, which is its summary explaining the aspects of Colorado’s new sick leave law taking effect 1/1/2021. The CDLE summarized its changes to INFO #6A, as follows:

(1) Pg. 1: In the list of 3 situations that qualify for leave, a non-substantive wording change to category #3 (leave to care for another person) aims to make clearer that it applies when the person being cared for meets the category #2 definition (being ordered/instructed to quarantine/isolate, due to a risk of COVID-19, by a government agent or health provider).

(2) Pg. 1, footnote 3: As to what is and is not a “bonus” excluded from the regular pay rate that applies to paid leave in 2020, footnote 3 has been added to cite, and explain the answer in, the federal rule that applies to 2020 leave.

(3) Pg. 2: An “Example” of the CBA exemption was deleted because stakeholders have expressed differing views of the exemption that warrant consideration before the Division decides whether to adopt any interpretation.

(4) Pg. 3: An elaboration to the paragraph on how “Policies by any name can comply” cites and explains the federal rule that applies to 2020 leave, which draws a key distinction between employer policies that existed prior to April 1, 2020, and those adopted after that date.

(5) Pg. 2-3: Non-substantive citation edits — without changing any wording, numerical citations were added to the federal rules on what documentation (29 C.F.R. 826.100) and notice (29 C.F.R. 826.90) employees can be asked to provide, and numbers were corrected in two HFWA citations (to the 8-13.3-416 provision against waiver of rights, and the 8-13.3-418 provision recognizing employer rights against employee misconduct).

Of these, item 2 may be of particular interest, in that the CDLE revised INFO 6A to provide that, while on paid leave, sick leave must include payment of any “non-discretionary pay based on pre-determined criteria or formulae (e.g., by production or accuracy), whether called a piece rate, bonus, incentive, or other name.” In other words, in contrast what had seemed clear language in the new statute and in conflict with its prior INFO #6A, the CDLE has — without undertaking rulemaking — decided to re-interpret these new laws as excluding from required sick leave only “discretionary” bonuses.

/0 Comments/by

“Paid Sick Leave Gaps Draw States’ Attention as Virus Persists”

State and local governments in at least 12 states (Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, District of Columbia, Massachusetts) have or are in the process of enacting new emergency sick leave laws, which either supplement coverage of existing federal coronavirus-related leave rights and/or implements all new general sickleave requirements, according to an interesting article by Bloomberg BNA, available here: ”Paid Sick Leave Gaps Draw States’ Attention as Virus Persists.”

Colorado employers are reminded of Colorado’s new sick leave law, which does both (as well as imposes additional obligations on employers here).

/0 Comments/by

New York judge strikes three portions of DOL regulations re FFCRA leave

A New York federal trial court has struck three portions of the DOL regulations implementing the FFCRA’s emergency paid sick leave. The State of New York challenged and the trial court struck these three portions of the DOL regulations:

  1. A requirement that emergency paid sick leave is available only if the employer has work available;
  2. An exclusion for employees working for a health care provider (note: this portion of the order is particularly unclear as it may have only struck the DOL’s definition of a “health care provider” without providing an explanation of how that phrase should be interpreted);
  3. A requirement that intermittent emergency paid sick leave be made available only with the employer’s consent (again this portion of the order is also unclear, in that the court clearly struck the requirement for employer consent, but apparently did not require intermittent leave be provided if the employer does not have work to provide).

The ruling is far from clear. Its impact is even less clear. It is not clear if the ruling has any impact outside of New York. New York did not request and the judge did not issue a nationwide injunction; therefore, technically the ruling has no impact outside New York. Nor is it clear if the DOL will challenge the ruling, including by appeal. It is not clear if judges outside New York (or appellate judges if this ruling is appealed) will find the trial court’s order persuasive.

Employers are reminded that a growing number of state and local jurisdictions are adopting their own requirements along these lines. Colorado employers in particular are reminded they must comply not only with the federal FFCRA’s requirements along these lines but also the new state law requirements.

/0 Comments/by

CDC shifts to symptoms-based not test-based recommendations for employers

The CDC has shifted from a test-based approach to now recommending employers follow a symptoms-based approach for its workers.

As a general rule, the CDC cautions employers not to require employees to take coronavirus tests and should not require employees to provide a doctor’s note to validate the need for sick leave or the ability to return to work.

Employers should not require a COVID-19 test result or a healthcare provider’s note for employees who are sick to validate their illness, qualify for sick leave, or to return to work.

– Under the American’s with Disabilities Act, employers are permitted to require a doctor’s note from your employees to verify that they are healthy and able to return to work. However, as a practical matter, be aware that healthcare provider offices and medical facilities may be extremely busy and not able to provide such documentation in a timely manner. Most people with COVID-19 have mild illness and can recover at home without medical care and can follow CDC recommendations to determine when to discontinue home isolation and return to work.

– The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has established guidance regarding Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The guidance enables employers to take steps to protect workers consistent with CDC guidance, including requiring workers to stay home when necessary to address the direct threat of spreading COVID-19 to others.

Now, the CDC is now recommending a symptoms-based approach for determining when employees should self-isolate from the workplace. Specifically the CDC now recommends:

  • Following their first positive test, with no symptoms, isolation for 10 days
  • Following their first positive test with mild to moderate symptoms, isolation for the longer of 10 days or 24 hours after last fever or other symptom
  • Following their first positive test with severe symptoms, isolation for 20 days, or longer depending on healthcare provider input
  • Following an exposure with either no testing or a negative test, and with no symptoms, isolation for 14 days

The CDC recommends testing only in rare situations, and then two tests at least 24 hours apart.

The CDC cautions that test results may not be as reliable as one might hope. It now believes that a negative test result may be false, and a person may continue to test positive long after no longer being contagious. Therefore, the CDC currently believes that an employee who is able to return to work according to the foregoing criteria does not restart their isolation clock, as it were, simply because they test positive again later — again assuming they otherwise meet the foregoing criteria, including having had no symptoms, etc., for the required period from their first test.

The CDC has issued less restrictive requirements available for workers engaged in an essential industry, permitting such workers an exemption to return to work after exposure if they have no symptoms, wear a face covering, monitor symptoms and socially distance. The CDC has also issued different criteria for healthcare workers. Likewise, the CDC’s new guidelines acknowledge that different criteria may be imposed by a healthcare provider, and different guidelines may be appropriate for individuals with preexisting conditions.

/0 Comments/by

“Colorado employers continue to lose vast majority of cases to compel workers back on the job,” reports Denver Business Journal

As noted in prior blog posts, Colorado employers have been, and now continue to be, held liable for unemployment benefits in bulk of unemployment claims, despite calls to return to work.

“It has held remarkably steady between 16% and 18%,” Fitzgerald said of the total number of decisions that have gone for employers over the three-plus months the department has heard such disputes. “There’s a number of folks who are just not safe to return to a job regardless of the actions their employers take.”
— Read on www.bizjournals.com/

/0 Comments/by

Governor Polis signs Colorado sick leave laws into effect, requiring IMMEDIATE action by employers

Governor Polis has signed two laws into effect.

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) has issued summaries of each law (which it calls INFOs).

Additionally, the CDLE has released a poster (Spanish) for immediate posting by covered employers (see below).

Immediate Posting and Notification Obligations

Covered employers are required to immediately:

  • Post the required poster (Spanish).
    • Postings must be made in English and any language that at least 5% of the workforce speaks.
  • Notify employees of their rights under PHEW and HFWA. This notice may be accomplished by distributing in writing or by e-mail the required poster (Spanish).
    • If a company wishes, it may also meet this requirement by distributing copies of INFO 5, 6A and 6B, instead of (or in addition to) the poster.
  • Comply with the other requirements of PHEW and HFWA that took immediate effect (see below).

PHEW – Whistleblower and other protections

As explained in the CDLE’s INFO 5, PHEW applies to Colorado employers irrespective of size and also covers companies (called “principals” in the new law) who contract with five or more independent contractors in a year; it protects their employees and contractors. 

PHEW provides whistleblower protections for employees who lodge complaints regarding a public health emergency, i.e., who raise “a reasonable concern about workplace violations of government health or safety rules, or about an otherwise significant workplace threat to health or safety, related to a public health emergency.” Additionally it protects those who oppose such unsafe practices or participate in their investigation, determination or remedying. In INFO 5, the CDLE includes these observations regarding this aspect of PHEW:

Reasonableness​: Workers are protected even if they are incorrect about a claimed violation, if their belief was “reasonable” and in “good faith.” Workers are​ not protected for communications (A) that are “knowingly false,” or are made “​with reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the information,” or (B) that “​share individual health information that is otherwise prohibited from disclosure” by state or federal law. (C.R.S. 8-14.4-102(5)-(6).)

Principal is not required to ​agree ​with, or ​act on, incorrect concerns​: If a worker’s concern is reasonable but incorrect, the principal is not required to agree with it, or to take any action the worker requests. It just cannot fire or otherwise act against the worker for raising that concern (for example, with a demotion, discipline, a cut in pay or hours, or an undesired transfer or shift change).

PHEW requires companies to allow individuals to wear their own desired pandemic-related safety gear, so long as it is more (not less) protective than that required by law and by the company.

A principal must allow, and cannot act against a worker for, “voluntarily wearing at the worker’s workplace the worker’s own personal protective equipment, such as a mask, faceguard, or gloves” (“PPE”) — with these limits and conditions on the PPE that the worker has a right to wear (C.R.S. 8-14.4-102(3)):

  • only PPE that “provides ​a higher level of protection than the equipment provided by the principal”;
  • only PPE that “is recommended by a federal, state, or local public health agency with jurisdiction over the worker’s workplace”; and
  • only PPE that “does not render the worker incapable of performing the worker’s job or prevent a worker from fulfilling the duties of the worker’s position.”

PHEW prohibits non-disclosure agreements that would otherwise impair an employee’s rights under PHEW. 

HFWA – Sick leave and other requirements

As explained in the CDLE’s INFO 5 and 6, HFWA takes effect in three stages.

Stage 1: HFWA’s immediate requirements

Effective immediately, all employers, irrespective of size, must

  • Offer leave that mirrors the federal FFCRA (Cares Act) leave currently required for coronavirus purposes.
    • While this new state law mirrors the requirements of the federal FFCRA, it expands the FFCRA in at least one major respect. This new Colorado law now requires such leave for employers of all sizes; whereas, the FFCRA does not apply to companies with more than 500 workers and has possible exemptions for employers with fewer than 15 workers.
    • Additionally HFWA offers no tax credits for the payment of this new leave. Whereas the FFCRA allows for the costs of such leave to be passed through effectively to the federal government in the form of tax credits, this means large employers who are not subject to the FFCRA apparently will have to absorb the costs of this new leave.  
    • The process for requesting and granting HFWA leave tracks the FFCRA’s in many respects, including the types of documentation involved.
      • However, the HFWA explicitly states that an employee’s failure to provide documentation or advance notice is generally not grounds for denying the leave.  “Documentation is not required to take paid sick leave, but can be required as soon as the employee reasonably can provide it” (quoting the CDLE’s INFO 6A).

Notice can be oral, and must provide only enough information for an employer to determine whether the leave is for an HWFA purpose. An employer may not require notice to include information or documentation beyond what is allowed in the documentation above. An employee’s representative (​e.g., spouse, adult family member, or other responsible party) may provide the notice if the employee cannot do so personally. If an employee fails to give notice, the employer must notify the employee of the failure and provide an opportunity to provide notice before denying the requested leave.

    • Existing leave policies can comply if they otherwise meet or exceed the HFWA’s requirements.
  • Post the required poster (Spanish).
  • Notify workers of their HFWA rights (see above regarding doing so by distribution of the poster and/or INFO 5, 6A and 6B).

Workers have complaint and anti-retaliation protections; however, the anti-retaliation provisions do not protect employee abuse of the HFWA as explained by the CDLE in INFO 6B:

HFWA disallows acting against employees for ​incorrect complaints or information, as long as the employee’s belief was reasonable and in good faith. (C.R.S. 8-13.3-407(3).) Employers ​can impose consequences (firing or otherwise) for misusing paid leave, dishonesty, or other leave-related misconduct. (C.R.S. 8-13.3-408.)

  • Example: ​An employer denies an employee paid leave for a “life coach” appointment. The employee files a complaint at the Division, and tells coworkers the employer is wrongly denying paid leave. The Division rules that this appointment was ​not HFWA-covered. That means the employer did nothing wrong by denying leave. But without evidence the employee’s belief that HFWA covered the appointment was unreasonable or in bad faith, the employer ​can’t ​ take action against the employee for requesting leave, filing a complaint, or telling co-workers she believed the employer violated HFWA.
  • Example:​ An ​employer​ grants​ an ​employee ​request ​for​ paid​ leave​ for a ​blood ​test ​and​ physical​ exam.​ The employer then learns the employee went bowling and never really had that appointment, so it (A) denies the request for paid leave and (B) fires the employee for dishonest misuse of leave. The employee files a complaint claiming (A) denial of paid leave and (B) retaliation against using HFWA rights. The employer did nothing wrong: (A) leave was not for an HFWA purpose, and (B) the firing was not retaliation because by taking leave with no HFWA purpose, the employee did not act reasonably or in good faith.

Stage 2: HFWA’s 1/1/2021 requirements

Effective 1/1/2021, for companies with more than 15 employees:

  • The HFWA’s (and FFCRA’s) pandemic sick leave requirements will have ended. Instead, an employer will be required to offer at least 48 hours (for hourly and 6 days for salaried workers) of sick leave for employees when
  1. having a mental or physical ​illness, injury, or health condition that prevents them from working;
  2. needing to get ​preventive medical care​, or to get a ​medical ​diagnosis, care, or treatment​, of any mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition;
  3. needing to ​care for a family member ​who has a mental or physical illness, injury, or health condition, or who needs the sort of care listed in category (2);
  4. the employee or the employee’s family member having been a victim of ​domestic abuse, sexual assault, or criminal harassment​, and needing leave for related medical attention, mental health care or other counseling, victim services (including legal services), or relocation; or
  5. due to a ​public health emergency​, a public official having ​closed ​either (A) the employee’s ​place of business​, or (B) the ​school or place of care ​of the employee’s child, requiring the employee needing to be absent from work to care for the child.
  • That leave will have to accrue at least at the rate of 1 hour per every 30 hours worked. Leave may be front loaded.
  • That leave may be capped at 48 hours per year.
  • That leave must be allowed to roll-over year-to-year (though again subject to a cap if the employer so elects).
  • That leave must be allowed for hourly and salaried employees, whether full-time or part-time, with accruals starting on the date of hire.
  • Note: Existing leave policies can comply if they otherwise meet or exceed the HFWA’s requirements.
    • With regard to PTO policies in particular, the 48 hour/6 day requirement is met so long as the full compliment of PTO exceeds such amounts. ‘Compliance can be through a broader paid leave policy, such as allowing “paid time off” for any purpose, health-related or not — as long as the policies (A) provide as much time off as HFWA requires, (B) for all conditions and situations that HFWA covers.”‘
    • Still relying on existing policies may be difficult for many companies as current sick leave policies often (a) provide for leave only when employees are sick (not for the other reasons set forth above), (b) provide only 5 not 6 sick days, (c) apply to employees after a 90-day probationary period and (d) do not cover part-time employees. These are just some examples of the kinds of current sick leave policies that will need to be revised to come up to HFWA’s requirements.
      • Additionally, policies should be revised to impose the permitted 48 hour/6 day cap; otherwise, as required, the sick leave will carry over and continue to accrue year after year.
  • Provide for at least 80 hours of sick leave in the event of another public health emergency. This leave will not be required in addition to the 48 hours/6 days required above; rather, leave requirements may be supplemented to cover the 80-hours of pandemic leave in the event of another public health emergency.
  • And as with the initial pandemic-leave requirements (see above), the HFWA explicitly states that an employee’s failure to provide documentation or advance notice is generally not grounds for denying the leave.
    • Additionally documentation may only be required when the absence is of 4 or more days, per CRS 8-13.3-404(6).

Stage 3: HFWA’s 1/1/2022 requirements

Effective 1/1/2022, the HFWA’s requirements will attach to employers of 15 or fewer.

HFWA and part-time employees

As noted, HFWA leave is required for part-time employees.

In footnote 2 of INFO 6A, the CDLE explains that Stage 1 HFWA leave (FFCRA-type pandemic leave) is to be provided to part-time employees, as follows:

​Leave for a part-time employee with a regular schedule is at the number of hours normally worked in a two-week period. If an employee’s hours vary, the employer must use their average hours over the six months before the leave. If the varied-schedule part-timer was employed less than six months, the employer must use the number of hours the employee agreed to work when hired, or if no such agreement exists, the average daily hours the employee was scheduled to work over their entire employment. (These are methods the U.S. Department of Labor adopted, 29 C.F.R. 826.21(b), so employers can use them for federal and Colorado law.)

And footnote 5 of INFO 6B explains the same for the availability of Stages 2 and 3 HFWA leave (general sick leave) for part-time employees, as follows:

​Leave for a part-time employee with a regular schedule is at the number of hours normally worked in a two-week period. If an employee’s hours vary, employers must use the employee’s average hours over the six months before leave started. If the varied-schedule part-timer has been employed less than six months, the employer must use the number of hours the employee agreed when hired, or if there is no such agreement, the average daily hours the employee was scheduled to work over their entire employment. Any of these calculations include hours the employee took leave, in addition to hours worked. (These are the methods the U.S. Department of Labor adopted, so employers can use the same method for federal and Colorado law.)

HFWA and CBAs

As explained in the CDLE’s INFO 6B, the HFWA allows for collectively bargained leave instead so long as it is “equivalent or more” than the HFWA requires:

Example: ​ A CBA can depart from the HFWA requirement that leave must be in hourly increments, but cannot eliminate HFWA rights to take leave without interference (or, relatedly, to file a complaint if HFWA is violated). 

HFWA and business closures

When Stage 2/3 HFWA leave kicks in, it will not be required for periods when an “entire business” is “completely closed.”

No paid leave required if an entire business is completely closed​. ​Unless a workplace is closed due to a temporary government quarantine/isolation order, no paid leave applies ​if an entire business is completely closed ​(whether temporarily or permanently) – because then, workers aren’t on “leave,” they’re on furlough or layoff (which makes unemployment insurance, not paid leave, the possible remedy).

Defining a public health emergency

Both PHEW and HFWA discuss the phrase “public health emergency” as periods recognized as such by ‘either (A) “a public health order issued by a state or local public health agency” or (B) “a disaster emergency declared by the governor based on a public health concern”’ (quoting the CDLE’s INFO 5). The CDLE notes in footnote 3 of INFO 6B that, starting at least 1/1/2021, a public health emergency need not be related to coronavirus.

Counting years

In footnote 4 of its INFO 6B, the CDLE states that, unless an employer specifies otherwise, years will be counted, at least for HFWA purposes, on the basis of a calendar year. 

If an employer doesn’t say otherwise, the “year” when paid leave accumulates is a ​calendar​ year, because HFWA’s broad leave requirements all start with calendar years: January 1, 2021, for most employers; January 1, 2022, for small employers. But an employer ​can ​ choose a different annual cycle if (A) it tells employees in writing in advance, and (B) switching to a different cycle doesn’t diminish employee HFWA rights. 

Successor liability

The HFWA imposes successor liability on a buyer who “acquires all of an organization, a trade, or a business or substantially all of the assets of one or more employers,” quoting CRS 8-13.3-402(12). See also CRS 8-13.3-403(8).

/0 Comments/by

EEOC confirms coronavirus antibody testing not permitted as part of return-to-workplace program, although active-virus testing may be permitted

The EEOC updated its FAQ guidance with Q&A no. A7, advising that an employer may not require coronavirus antibody testing (which is the blood test done to see if the person’s blood suggests they were previously exposed to the virus sufficient to create antibodies) as part of a company’s return-to-workplace program. However the EEOC advised (1) this may change as the science develops and (2) an employer may be able to require active virus testing (which is commonly done with a nasal swab) if such testing is uniformly required and “job-related consistent with business necessity.”

A.7.  CDC said in its Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” In light of this CDC guidance, under the ADA may an employer require antibody testing before permitting employees to re-enter the workplace? (6/17/20)

No. An antibody test constitutes a medical examination under the ADA. In light of CDC’s Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace,” an antibody test at this time does not meet the ADA’s “job related and consistent with business necessity” standard for medical examinations or inquiries for current employees. Therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA.  Please note that an antibody test is different from a test to determine if someone has an active case of COVID-19 (i.e., a viral test).  The EEOC has already stated that COVID-19 viral tests are permissible under the ADA.

The EEOC will continue to closely monitor CDC’s recommendations, and could update this discussion in response to changes in CDC’s recommendations.

/0 Comments/by

OSHA issues updated FAQ confirming cloth face coverings and general masks worn re coronavirus are not PPE

OSHA issued an updated FAQ re cloth face coverings and the kind of masks commonly worn regarding coronavirus (called “surgical” masks by OSHA, as distinguished from what it calls “respirators (e.g., filtering face pieces)”).

OSHA explains that cloth face coverings are worn, not to protect the wearer, but to reduce the expression of virus by the wearer, what OSHA calls “source control.”

Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.

As such, OSHA says, cloth face coverings are not PPE and need not be provided by or paid for by an employer. Likewise surgical masks and even respirators, when worn for source control, are not PPE and need not be provided by or paid for by an employer.

Cloth face coverings are not considered personal protective equipment (PPE) and are not intended to be used when workers need PPE for protection against exposure to occupational hazards. As such, OSHA’s PPE standards do not require employers to provide them.

Although not required by OSHA, “OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.” In addition, even when cloth face coverings are encouraged, OSHA also recommends that employers encourage social distancing in the workplace. (Note: Employers should remember OSHA is only one source of applicable law. Employers need to comply with all applicable laws, some of which, especially at the state and local level, do mandate social distancing, de-densifying, and even cloth face coverings.)

OSHA’s FAQ reminds employers that some companies must provide masks and even respirators as PPE, for example healthcare employers whose workers are known to be exposed to coronavirus. Likewise OSHA reminds all employers they face a General Duty citation if they fail to take feasible and effective means to eliminate a recognized hazard in the workplace; OSHA’s FAQ suggests it may rely upon evidence to include the failure of an employer to encourage the use of cloth face coverings or surgical masks and the practice of social distancing.

UPDATE: November 18, 2020, OSHA issued a statement confirming again that cloth face coverings are not PPE within the meaning of OSHA requirements (though employers may require them in their workplaces).

/0 Comments/by

OSHA believes some employers have a duty to investigate work-relatedness of coronavirus cases

If an employee tests positive, does an employer have an obligation to investigate whether it is “work-related”? OSHA thinks so, now, but investigating and determining “work-relatedness” may not be as easy — or as lawful — as OSHA believes.

OSHA issued a revised enforcement guidance that now imposes on some employers a duty to investigate the possible “work-relatedness” of employee coronavirus cases and, if confirmed, to comply with OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements regarding work-related injuries and illnesses.

Employers may wish to review this summary of the revised guidance by SHRM.

To determine the work-relatedness of an employee’s having coronavirus, the employer should conduct an investigation, which may be as simple as talking to the individual. OSHA suggests that an employer’s investigation should include:

(1) (asking) the employee how he believes he contracted the COVID-19 illness;

(2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss(ing) with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and

(3) review(ing) the employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure.

Unfortunately this may not be as simple as OSHA makes it sound. Employers are reminded of the EEOC and other legal constraints on medical inquiries. Employers should consult with legal counsel as they attempt to thread the needle between the conflicting requirements of OSHA and the EEOC.

OSHA believes a case of coronavirus may be considered work-related if “(f)or instance:

COVID-19 illnesses are likely work-related when several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation.

An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if it is contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation.

An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if his job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.

An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if she is the only worker to contract COVID-19 in her vicinity and her job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread.

An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if he, outside the workplace, closely and frequently associates with someone (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who (1) has COVID-19; (2) is not a coworker, and (3) exposes the employee during the period in which the individual is likely infectious.

CSHOs should give due weight to any evidence of causation, pertaining to the employee illness, at issue provided by medical providers, public health authorities, or the employee herself.

OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements may not apply to employers with fewer than 10 workers or with workplaces recognized by OSHA as low hazard.

/0 Comments/by

PPPFA grants greater flexibility for PPP loan borrowers

Congress passed and President Trump signed the PPPFA (Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act), which grants greater flexibility for PPP loan borrowers.

Among its changes, the PPPFA

  • Reduces the required ratio of loan usage on payroll from 75% to 60%
  • Permits loan funds to be used over a 24- not 8-week covered period
  • Extends the deadline to rehire workers from June 30 to December 31, 2020
  • Adds exceptions to the headcount requirement for rehiring
  • Extends the repayment term from 2 to 5 years

Many of the PPPFA’s changes are options available but not necessarily mandated for existing PPP loans. Companies that have taken out a PPP loan should contact their lender and tax/accounting professionals to learn which of the PPPFA’s options may now be available to them.

/0 Comments/by

Coronavirus-safety lawsuits against employers begin

Employees have begun filing lawsuits against their employers alleging inadequate safety measures in place to protect against coronavirus.

So far, two lawsuits have reached an initial-decision stage:

  1. Rural Community Workers Alliance v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., case no. 5:20-CV-06063-DGK. See Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss dated 5-5-2020.
  2. Massey v. McDonald’s, case no. 2020CH04247. See initial complaint, which news reports advise was sustained against a motion to dismiss, by way of a verbal order from the bench that has not (yet?) been reduced to writing and that, instead, set the matter for a forthwith hearing regarding a possible preliminary injunction.

The McDonald’s complaint alleges that the company has taken inadequate safety precautions to protect against coronavirus and asserts claims that, as a result, its restaurant operations at the locations identified in the complaint constitute “public nuisances” that endanger the public, including not only customers but the plaintiff (and requested class-action members) employees and, further constitute the tort of negligence against the plaintiffs (and requested class-action members) who are employees. The complaint further includes a negligence claim against individual store owners.

While the McDonald’s complaint has reportedly been set for a preliminary injunction hearing, the plaintiffs may take little comfort from the Smithfield Foods case, which was also set for such a hearing, but then dismissed.

Employers can expect to see more of such lawsuits filed as the country struggles through the coronavirus crisis, but it seems the court in the Smithfield Foods case reached the right conclusion. Coronavirus is a national crisis. It is not a risk specific to any given workplace. COVID-19 is a novel virus. Not just companies, and individuals, but the government itself is struggling to determine what proper safety measures are in the workplace.

Most importantly in these cases, workplace safety is within the exclusive jurisdiction of OSHA. Congress created extensive regulatory procedures and protections within the OSHA administrative framework. One such right is not a private right of action by workers who wish to challenge workplace safety measures. Employees must pursue their concerns through the OSHA process, not by filing private lawsuits in court.

To the extent plaintiffs try to cloak their negligence claims as “public nuisance” claims, the same reasoning applies, as the court noted in the Smithfield Farms case.

The parties agree that the Plant cannot be a public nuisance simply by virtue of the fact that it is a meat-processing plant during a global pandemic. Moreover, in this case, Smithfield has implemented substantial health and safety measures to protect Plant workers, and no employees of the Plant have been diagnosed with COVID-19. While Plaintiffs argue that Smithfield could do more to protect its workers, that is not the issue before this Court. The issue is whether the Plant, as it is currently operating, constitutes an offense against the public order. Because of the significant measures Smithfield has implemented to combat the disease and the lack of COVID-19 at the facility, the Plant cannot be said to violate the public’s right to health and safety.

The court there concluded its analysis by emphasizing that it was sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ concerns, but that those concerns should be raised to the appropriate workplace safety agencies, primarily OSHA.

Plaintiffs are naturally concerned for their health and the health of their community in these unprecedented times. The Court takes their concern seriously. Nevertheless, the Court cannot ignore the USDA’s and OSHA’s authority over compliance with the Joint Guidance or the significant steps Smithfield has taken to reduce the risk of a COVID-19 outbreak at the Plant.

/0 Comments/by

Colorado unemployment agency continues trend of ruling in favor of workers who decline to return to work

A previous post addressed the requirement that workers return to work — or face loss of unemployment — when an offer to return (to comparable work) is extended, unless the worker is a “vulnerable individual” or otherwise unable to return due to coronavirus-related reasons. As noted there, the initial report was that the state was tending to find in favor of employees by a large margin. The Denver Business Journal is reporting today that the state unemployment agency is continuing that trend, now finding 84% of the time in favor of workers.

Colorado Department of Labor and Employment officials have received about 1,100 submissions from employers about workers who have refused to come back to work in recent weeks and want to keep receiving jobless benefits. And of the 869 cases that CDLE officials have adjudicated, only 16% have ended in workers being told to return to their positions or give up their unemployment payments, chief communications officer Cher Haavind said.

In the vast majority of cases, workers claiming they can’t safely return to work fall into one of two categories delineated by federal and state law as allowing them to refuse to go back to an environment where they would interact with many co-workers or customers, Haavind said. One is that they are part of a vulnerable population that would make them more susceptible to catching coronavirus — people over age 65 or who have underlying medical conditions such as heart troubles or being immunocompromised. The second is that they are caring either for someone who is at increased risk of contracting the virus or are caring for a child out of school.

/0 Comments/by

EEOC updates Q&A, specifically re employees with an underlying disability that puts them at “higher risk” re coronavirus

The EEOC updated its prior Q&A re coronavirus, adding three questions (numbered G3-G5) to address the needs of employees who already suffer from an underlying disability that, now, puts them at “higher risk” related to coronavirus.

First in questions G3-G4, the EEOC advises that an employer is obligated to consider whether a reasonable accommodation exists to permit such an individual to return to work once a request is made. Until a request is made, the employer has no obligation to consider the possibility of a reasonable accommodation. The EEOC explains too that the request need not be made formally — it may be made “in conversation or in writing” — and it need not be made by the employee themselves — it may be made by the employee “or a third party, such as an employee’s doctor.” Indeed the request need not even be a request, it is enough if the employee “let(s) the employer know that she needs a change for a reason related to” an underlying disability.

Question G4 confirms that an employer need not consider a reasonable accommodation even when the company knows the worker has an underlying disability that might put them at a “higher risk” related to coronavirus, until such a request is made. However where the employer is itself concerned that the employee’s disability might put them at a “higher risk” related to coronavirus, the employer cannot on its own initiative “exclude” the worker from work unless it can prove a “direct threat” to the worker’s own health (or the health of others) and, further, that the “direct threat” cannot be removed by reasonable accommodation, such as allowing “telework, leave, or reassignment” if reasonable. The EEOC discusses the possibility of showing such a “direct threat,” noting it “is a high standard,” with proof that “if, after going through all these steps (of considering the relevant risk, the possibility of reasonable accommodation, etc.), the facts support the conclusion that the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm to himself that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.”

Question G5 discusses possible accommodations that should be considered by an employer and worker in trying to determine if a reasonable accommodation might exist to permit a worker with an underlying disability to work despite a “higher risk” related to coronavirus (emphasis added).

Accommodations may include additional or enhanced protective gowns, masks, gloves, or other gear beyond what the employer may generally provide to employees returning to its workplace.  Accommodations also may include additional or enhanced protective measures, for example, erecting a barrier that provides separation between an employee with a disability and coworkers/the public or increasing the space between an employee with a disability and others.  Another possible reasonable accommodation may be elimination or substitution of particular “marginal” functions (less critical or incidental job duties as distinguished from the “essential” functions of a particular position).  In addition, accommodations may include temporary modification of work schedules (if that decreases contact with coworkers and/or the public when on duty or commuting) or moving the location of where one performs work (for example, moving a person to the end of a production line rather than in the middle of it if that provides more social distancing).

These are only a few ideas.  Identifying an effective accommodation depends, among other things, on an employee’s job duties and the design of the workspace.  An employer and employee should discuss possible ideas; the Job Accommodation Network (www.askjan.org) also may be able to assist in helping identify possible accommodations.  As with all discussions of reasonable accommodation during this pandemic, employers and employees are encouraged to be creative and flexible.

/0 Comments/by

Colorado unemployment disputes skyrocket as employers begin to offer returns to work that employees decline, with CDLE at least initially tending to rule for workers

As previously posted on this blog, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Unemployment created a new portal for employers to use to report when an employee refuses after being offered to return to work; the refusal will generally render the individual ineligible for further unemployment, unless the individual can prove they are “vulnerable” and that the company has inadequate coronavirus protections in place.

The Denver Business Journal is reporting that approximately 150 workers have already advised the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment that they do not wish to return to work and would rather stay on unemployment due to concerns about coronavirus, while 200 employers have used the new portal to report refusals.

How is the CDLE handling these disputes? The Denver Business Journal advises the agency is attempting to investigate each claim individually, without agency representatives actually going to jobsites though.

Instead, workers will be asked to explain what underlying condition they have that makes it unsafe for them to return to work or why they feel the workplace is an unsafe environment, and employers will be asked if the worker is coming back at the same job and pay rate and if efforts have been made at increased sanitation and social distancing.

Who’s winning these disputes? For now the Denver Business Journal reports the CDLE is ruling generally in favor of the workers.

So far, CDLE officials, who have gone through about 55 claims, are coming down on the sides of the workers at a ratio of about 10-to-1, said Jeff Fitzgerald, unemployment insurance division director.

The CDLE does not explain in the article how it plans to address this issue going-forward especially if, as reported in the Denver Post, the combination of traditional unemployment benefits plus pandemic unemployment benefits is high enough that a “majority” of workers in Colorado are actually earning more money on unemployment currently than they would in their job if returned.

The cutoff point is around $30 an hour in Colorado, according to the study by Gregory Miller, a CFA and graduate researcher at CSU. Make more than that and the financial incentive is to return to work. Make less than that, and collecting unemployment pays better, especially if a job doesn’t come with health insurance and other benefits.

The combination of that “financial incentive” plus health concerns about the possible coronavirus-related implications of returning to work around others, even subject to Colorado’s social distancing guidelines, means the CDLE is going to be required to address many, many more such disputes going-forward.

/0 Comments/by

Looking for a short primer on which expenses are forgivable and how to maximize the forgiveness of a PPP loan?

Here’s a handy short primer on PPP loans, discussing which expenses are forgivable and steps employers can take to maximize the forgiveness of a PPP loan.

Which Paycheck Protection Program Expenses Are Eligible for Forgiveness?
— Read on www.shrm.org/ResourcesAndTools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/Pages/Paycheck-Protection-Program-Expense-Forgiveness.aspx

/0 Comments/by

Trying to prepare your EEO-1 data filing in the midst of coronavirus pandemic? FYI, the EEOC just delayed EEO-1 data collection for 2020 due to coronavirus

The EEOC has delayed EEO-1 data collection for 2020 until 2021 due to coronavirus. In its press release, the EEOC explained the delay, as follows:

The EEOC recognizes the impact that the current public health emergency is having on workplaces across America and the challenges that both employers and employees alike are now facing. Filers of the EEO-1, EEO-3and EEO-5, which include private sector employers, local referral unions, and public elementary and secondary school districts, are dealing with unique and urgent issues. Delaying the collections until 2021 will ensure that EEO filers are better positioned to provide accurate, valid and reliable data in a timely manner.

EEO-1, EEO-3 and EEO-5 filers should begin preparing to submit data in 2021. Pending approval from the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) the EEOC would expect to begin collecting the 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 in March 2021 and will notify filers of the precise date the surveys will open as soon as it is available. The EEOC would expect to begin collecting the 2020 EEO-3 and the 2020 EEO-5 in January 2021 and will notify filers of the precise date the surveys will open as soon as it is available.

In addition to updates to the agency website, the EEOC will be reaching out directly to EEO-1, 3, and 5 filers regarding the delayed opening of the surveys.

The EEOC will formally publish its announcement in the Federal Register, to appear, starting 5/8/2020, here.

/0 Comments/by

DOL issues new model COBRA notices to address growing wave of litigation

The DOL has issued a new set of model COBRA notices that may be used to comply with COBRA’s requirements, along with a set of explanatory Q&A’s. The DOL’s model COBRA forms are not required to be used, they are intended to reduce litigation exposure by helping to “to ensure that qualified beneficiaries better understand the interactions between Medicare and COBRA.”

Employers should immediately contact their health insurance and benefits providers and plan administrators to ensure they are using the correct COBRA documentation.

/0 Comments/by

OSHA publishes guidance for employers on how to establish a safe workplace in the coronavirus pandemic

As essential industries struggle to stay open and as more and more companies look to reopen, OSHA has published a “Guidance for Preparing Workplaces for Coronavirus.” The guidance provides specific recommendations for workplace structuring, cleaning, protective equipment, etc., broken down for different kinds of jobs, based on their risk of exposure to coronavirus. Employers will want to review the guidance with their safety professionals. 

Employers are reminded to check any state and local requirements as well for their workplaces. For example, Cal-OSHA has published its own requirements. Colorado has published a page containing its extensive suggestions; Pinnacol has offered its own suggestions here.

/0 Comments/by

Colorado Unemployment releases website to report an employee’s refusal to return to work

In Colorado, Governor Polis’ safer-at-home order remains in effect but permits certain employers to begin reopening subject to certain conditions at various times.

What if an employer decides to reopen in accordance with that order, but an employee feels they would be “safer at home,” may that employee decline an offer to return to work and continue to receive unemployment (traditional and/or pandemic) benefits? 

The Colorado Department of Labor and Employment has issued a FAQ explaining that it will depend on the circumstances. As a general rule, the answer is, no, that worker may not choose to decline the offer, without losing unemployment; in other words, that worker would, be declining the offer to return to work, become ineligible for further unemployment benefits. That general rule allows one exception for workers who can establish they are “vulnerable” and further that the company’s workplace lacks sufficient precautions to permit safe distancing, etc.

What if my employer is requiring me to return to work but I don’t feel safe?
● Per Safer at Home Executive Order D 2020 044, no vulnerable individuals can be compelled by their employer to return to work if their work requires in person work near others.
● Employers must accommodate vulnerable individuals with remote work options, if the work can be done remotely.
● If you refuse to return to work due to unsatisfactory or hazardous working conditions based on your status as a member of a vulnerable group, you may continue to be eligible for benefits based on the risk to your health.
● If you refuse to return to work due to unsatisfactory or hazardous working conditions because you reside with a person who is a member of a vulnerable group, you may continue to be eligible for benefits based on the risk to the health of your co-inhabitant.
● If an employer requires work from an employee entitled to paid leave (due to illness or a quarantine/isolation order) under the Colorado HELP Rules, that would be unlawful under those rules, and should be reported to the contact information at the bottom of these FAQs.
● Any other possible violations of social distancing, or other health and safety orders, should be reported to the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration or County health officials. https://www.osha.gov/contactus/bystate/CO/areaoffice

How will an employer notify the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment that a return offer has been declined?

Apparently anticipating the possibility that many people will want to decline offers to return to work, the CDLE has opened a special portal to permit companies to report that an offer to return was extended and declined.

Employees and companies alike should review the CDLE’s information. Individuals should realize that Governor Polis’ stay-at-home order does not give everyone the option to decline a return to work. As a general rule, an individual who declines an offer to return to work will lose unemployment. Companies can use the CDLE’s portal to report that the return offer was declined. Both individuals and companies should realize there may be exceptions for individuals who can show they are “vulnerable” and that the company’s safety precautions (social distancing, face-covering, etc.) are inadequate.

/0 Comments/by

Wondering why the new coronavirus-related unemployment compensation (CARES Act unemployment benefits) are taking so long?

Visitors to Colorado’s unemployment page at the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment will see this update regarding the status of the new coronavirus-related unemployment benefits that will be available under the CARES Act:

Update as of April 12, 2020: We are still programming our systems to begin accepting claims for workers who are eligible for benefits related to the CARES Act, including those who are self-employed (retroactive as far back as February 2 or when your work stopped as a direct result of COVID-19). Programming is also underway for the Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation, which is $600/week additional benefit (retroactive to March 29). Claimants DO NOT need to take action for the additional $600 benefit. Benefits will be retroactive and eligible claimants will not lose benefits while you wait to file a claim. We appreciate your understanding.

If you are a traditional employee or pay premiums for your own wages, and are not working or had your hours reduced,  file a regular unemployment claim:

  • If your last name begins with a letter from A to M: Please file your unemployment claim on a Sunday, Tuesday, Thursday, or after 12 noon on Saturday.
  • If your last name begins with a letter from N to Z: Please file your unemployment claim on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, or before 12 noon on Saturday.

The CDLE should be commended for at least providing this update, and note it did so over the weekend on Easter Sunday. Indeed the CDLE reports it has on-boarded many new workers to process these payments and is working long hours to make it possible.

Readers who are curious, even frustrated, that it is taking so long may be interested in this article just published by Bloomberg BNA detailing some of the technical, legal, security and practical issues that each of the various states is facing as they all try to find ways to use systems that were never designed for this volume or type of payment, to accommodate this new federal program.

 

/0 Comments/by

Documentation and forms for requesting FFCRA coronavirus-related sick leave and coronavirus-related FMLA leave

In a prior post, it was noted that the DOL had issued its final rules regulating the FFCRA. As explained there, the DOL regulations summarize the documentation that employers should keep for coronavirus-sick and coronavirus-FMLA leave granted under the FFCRA.

→Reminder: FFCRA-covered employers are reminded that in addition to this required documentation, they must have already posted-distributed an FFCRA poster.

In terms of the documentation required in the new DOL regulations, the IRS has also issued its own guidance regarding documentation that will be required for FFCRA (in other words, CARES Act) tax credits:

How Should an Employer Substantiate Eligibility for Tax Credits for Qualified Leave Wages?

An Eligible Employer will substantiate eligibility for the sick leave or family leave credits if the employer receives a written request for such leave from the employee in which the employee provides:

  1. The employee’s name;
  2. The date or dates for which leave is requested;
  3. A statement of the COVID-19 related reason the employee is requesting leave and written support for such reason; and
  4. A statement that the employee is unable to work, including by means of telework, for such reason.

In the case of a leave request based on a quarantine order or self-quarantine advice, the statement from the employee should include the name of the governmental entity ordering quarantine or the name of the health care professional advising self-quarantine, and, if the person subject to quarantine or advised to self-quarantine is not the employee, that person’s name and relation to the employee.

In the case of a leave request based on a school closing or child care provider unavailability, the statement from the employee should include the name and age of the child (or children) to be cared for, the name of the school that has closed or place of care that is unavailable, and a representation that no other person will be providing care for the child during the period for which the employee is receiving family medical leave and, with respect to the employee’s inability to work or telework because of a need to provide care for a child older than fourteen during daylight hours, a statement that special circumstances exist requiring the employee to provide care.

An Eligible Employer will substantiate eligibility for the sick leave or family leave credits if, in addition to the information set forth in FAQ 44 (“What information should an Eligible Employer receive from an employee and maintain to substantiate eligibility for the sick leave or family leave credits?”), the employer creates and maintains records that include the following information:

  1. Documentation to show how the employer determined the amount of qualified sick and family leave wages paid to employees that are eligible for the credit, including records of work, telework and qualified sick leave and qualified family leave.
  2. Documentation to show how the employer determined the amount of qualified health plan expenses that the employer allocated to wages. See FAQ 31 (“Determining the Amount of Allocable Qualified Health Plan Expenses”) for methods to compute this allocation.
  3. Copies of any completed Forms 7200, Advance of Employer Credits Due To COVID-19, that the employer submitted to the IRS.
  4. Copies of the completed Forms 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return, that the employer submitted to the IRS (or, for employers that use third party payers to meet their employment tax obligations, records of information provided to the third party payer regarding the employer’s entitlement to the credit claimed on Form 941).

An Eligible Employer should keep all records of employment taxes for at least 4 years after the date the tax becomes due or is paid, whichever comes later.  These should be available for IRS review.

Employers looking to develop forms for requesting the coronavirus-related sick leave or the coronavirus-related FMLA leave may wish to start with two such forms recently published by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) on its coronavirus-page of resources, then consult with their own legal counsel and tax professional to ensure they will not only comply with the FFCRA’s requirements but also be able to assert the available tax credits.

/0 Comments/by

Looking for a handy summary of coronavirus relief for businesses?

www.moyewhite.com/getmedia/45dfc85d-3c2a-4b53-b5ac-43dd6be23c6f/covidrelief_Part3_v2.pdf

Questions? Contact Lynne Hanson, Esq., Moye White, LLP, 303-292-7927.

/0 Comments/by

DOL issues regulations under the FFCRA regarding newly mandated coronavirus sick- and FMLA- leave

The DOL has issued regulations implementing the FFCRA’s newly mandated coronavirus sick- and FMLA-leave. The regulations address many topics, including the following highlights. Look for additional information as the new regulations are analyzed.

  • The definition of “Telework,” which includes the statement that an employee is not “able to Telework” if there are any “extenuating circumstances (such as serious COVID-19 symptoms) that prevent
    the Employee from performing that work” (parenthetical in original), sec. 826.10.
  • A flesh-out of each of the six reasons that qualify for the new paid coronavirus sick leave, sec. 826.20. This includes specifically with regard to reason 4 (“seeking medical diagnosis for COVID-19”) that the employee need merely be “experiencing any of the” recognized symptoms of COVID-19, which be only a “dry cough.” However, leave is limited to the time the employee is ” unable to work because the Employee is taking affirmative steps to obtain a medical diagnosis, such as making, waiting for, or attending an appointment for a test for COVID-19.”
  • The DOL also clarified in sec. 826.20(b), and especially in its prefatory language explaining that new regulatory language, that both the new coronavirus sick- and FMLA- leaves will be available when a parent is needed to care for a child who is under 18 years old or (clarifying what had seemed language in the new law that contradicted the actual FMLA) who is “18 years of age or older and incapable of self-care because of a mental or physical disability.”
  • How the amount of coronavirus sick- and FMLA- leave should be calculated, and how pay for the same should be calculated, sec. 826.21-.25.
  • How eligibility for the new coronavirus FMLA-leave is determined. As previously noted, the new coronavirus sick leave is available to all employees of a covered employer, while the new coronavirus FMLA leave is available only to employees who have been on payroll for at least 30 calendar days. Sec. 826.30 explains how that is to be calculated.
  • How employees are to be counted to determine if the employer is covered, i.e., if the employer employers fewer than 500 employees, sec. 826.40. All employees are to be counted. One part-time employee counts as one employee (not 1/2 for example). Employees who work for the company count even if they also count as employees of a Joint Employer. Likewise, true independent contractors are not counted. Employees of affiliated entities generally will count towards their actual employer (not its affiliate), again absent joint-employer status.
  • Sec. 826.40 also explains that the small business exemption available to employers of fewer than 50 is available, upon self-certification (that must be documented, preserved but not filed with DOL unless requested) by “an authorized officer of the business” that:

(i) The leave requested under either section 102(a)(1)(F) of the FMLA or section 5102(a)(5) of the EPSLA would result in the small business’s expenses and financial obligations exceeding available business revenues and cause the small business to cease operating at a minimal capacity;

(ii) The absence of the Employee or Employees requesting leave under either section 102(a)(1)(F) of the FMLA or section 5102(a)(5) of the EPSLA would entail a substantial risk to the financial health or operational capabilities of the business because of their specialized skills, knowledge of the business, or responsibilities; or

(iii) There are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified, and who will be available at the time and place needed, to perform the labor or services provided by the Employee or Employees requesting leave under either section 102(a)(1)(F) of the FMLA or section 5102(a)(5) of the EPSLA, and these labor or services are needed for the small business to operate at a minimal capacity.

  • How intermittent leave will work and that, unlike regular FMLA leave, intermittent leave for both the new coronavirus sick- and FMLA-leaves will be available ” only if the Employer and Employee agree. The Employer and Employee may memorialize in writing any agreement under this section, but a clear and mutual understanding between the parties is sufficient.” Sec. 826.50. Also that these new leaves are available to an employee who has been offered Telework “only when the Employee is unavailable to Telework because of a COVID-19 related reason” (see also above regarding the definition of Telework).
  • Sec. 826.60 provides for the two new leaves to run concurrently in certain situations, if both are needed, with the new coronavirus sick leave being used first, and an employee who exhausts these paid leaves may choose, but not be required to substitute other paid leave to cover the unpaid portion of any gap.
  • Sec. 826. 90 explains the types of notice that an employee can be required to give, which include rules generally prohibiting the requirement of notice sooner than “after the first workday (or portion thereof) for which an Employee takes” the new leave (parenthetical in original) and requiring an employer to give notice and an opportunity to provide required documentation prior to denying the request for leave. For example sec. 826.90 provides, as follows:

 Notice may not be required in advance, and may only be required after the first workday (or portion thereof) for which an Employee takes Paid Sick Leave or Expanded Family and Medical Leave. After the first workday, it will be reasonable for an Employer to require notice as soon as practicable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Generally, it will be reasonable for notice to be given by the Employee’s spokesperson (e.g., spouse, adult family member, or other responsible party) if the Employee is unable to do so personally.

  • Sec. 826. 100 provides further explanation of the kinds of documentation that can be required for particular types of leave needed.

 826.100 Documentation of Need for Leave.

(a) An Employee is required to provide the Employer documentation containing the following information prior to taking Paid Sick Leave under the EPSLA [sick leave] or Expanded Family and Medical Leave under the EFMLEA:

(1) Employee’s name;

(2) Date(s) for which leave is requested;

(3) Qualifying reason for the leave; and

(4) Oral or written statement that the Employee is unable to work because of the qualified reason for leave.

(b) To take Paid Sick Leave for a qualifying COVID-19 related reason under § 826.20(a)(1)(i), an Employee must additionally provide the Employer with the name of the government entity that issued the Quarantine or Isolation Order.

(c) To take Paid Sick Leave for a qualifying COVID-19 related reason under § 826.20(a)(1)(ii) an Employee must additionally provide the Employer with the name of the health care provider who advised the Employee to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.

(d) To take Paid Sick Leave for a qualifying COVID-19 related reason under § 826.20(a)(1)(iii) an Employee must additionally provide the Employer with either:

(1) the name of the government entity that issued the Quarantine or Isolation Order to which the individual being care for is subject; or

(2) The name of the health care provider who advised the individual being cared for to self quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.

(e) To take Paid Sick Leave for a qualifying COVID-19 related reason under § 826.20(a)(1)(v) or Expanded Family and Medical Leave, an Employee must additionally provide:

(1) the name of the Son or Daughter being cared for;

(2) the name of the School, Place of Care, or Child Care Provider that has closed or become unavailable; and

(3) a representation that no other suitable person will be caring for the Son or Daughter during the period for which the Employee takes Paid Sick Leave or Expanded Family and Medical Leave.

(f) The Employer may also request an Employee to provide such additional material as needed for the Employer to support a request for tax credits pursuant to the FFCRA. The Employer is not required to provide leave if materials sufficient to support the applicable tax credit have not been provided. For more information, please consult https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/covid-19-related-tax-credits-for-required-paid-leave-provided
by-small-and-midsize-businesses-faqs.

  • Sec. 826.130 guarantees the worker a “right to be restored to the same or an equivalent position” if the job still exists, in other words, the section also clarifies that the “Employee is not protected from employment actions, such as layoffs, that would have affected the Employee regardless of whether he or she took leave. In order to deny restoration to employment, an Employer must be able to show that an Employee would not otherwise have been employed at the time reinstatement is requested in order to deny restoration to employment.” The section also recognizes that very small employers of fewer than 25 employees (see above regarding counting) may be protected by an exemption from the restoration obligation subject to four conditions set forth in sec. 826.130(b)(3).
  •  Sec. 826.140 details recordkeeping requirements for four years.
/0 Comments/by

Midsized businesses applying for certain loan under the CARES Act should be aware that terms may include a union-neutrality obligation for the term of the loan

Companies employing 500-10,000 workers should be aware, when considering loans under the CARES Act that sec. 4003(c)(3)(D)(I)(X) will require, as a term of that loan, that they “remain neutral in any union organizing effort for the term of the loan.” That language (emphasis added) reads, as follows:

(D) Assistance for mid-sized businesses.–
(i) In general.–Without limiting the terms and
conditions of the programs and facilities that the
Secretary may otherwise provide financial assistance to
under subsection (b)(4), the Secretary shall endeavor to
seek the implementation of a program or facility described
in subsection (b)(4) that provides financing to banks and
other lenders that make direct loans to eligible businesses
including, to the extent practicable, nonprofit
organizations, with between 500 and 10,000 employees, with
such direct loans being subject to an annualized interest
rate that is not higher than 2 percent per annum. For the
first 6 months after any such direct loan is made, or for
such longer period as the Secretary may determine in his
discretion, no principal or interest shall be due and
payable. Any eligible borrower applying for a direct loan
under this program shall make a good-faith certification
that–

(I) the uncertainty of economic conditions as of
the date of the application makes necessary the loan
request to support the ongoing operations of the
recipient;
(II) the funds it receives will be used to retain
at least 90 percent of the recipient’s workforce, at
full compensation and benefits, until September 30,
2020;
(III) the recipient intends to restore not less
than 90 percent of the workforce of the recipient that
existed as of February 1, 2020, and to restore all
compensation and benefits to the workers of the
recipient no later than 4 months after the termination
date of the public health emergency declared by the
Secretary of Health and Human Services on January 31,
2020, under section 319 of the Public Health Services
Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) in response to COVID-19;
(IV) the recipient is an entity or business that is
domiciled in the United States with significant
operations and employees located in the United States;
(V) the recipient is not a debtor in a bankruptcy
proceeding;
(VI) the recipient is created or organized in the
United States or under the laws of the United States
and has significant operations in and a majority of its
employees based in the United States;
(VII) the recipient will not pay dividends with
respect to the common stock of the eligible business,
or repurchase an equity security that is listed on a
national securities exchange of the recipient or any
parent company of the recipient while the direct loan
is outstanding, except to the extent required under a
contractual obligation that is in effect as of the date
of enactment of this Act;
(VIII) the recipient will not outsource or offshore
jobs for the term of the loan and 2 years after
completing repayment of the loan;
(IX) the recipient will not abrogate existing
collective bargaining agreements for the term of the
loan and 2 years after completing repayment of the
loan; and
(X) that the recipient will remain neutral in any
                union organizing effort for the term of the loan.

/0 Comments/by

DOL updates its Q&A re new coronavirus sick-/FMLA- leave law

The DOL has updated its Q&A regarding the new coronavirus sick-/FMLA- leaves. Added answers include:

  • Employees who are already or who become subject to layoffs/furloughs will generally not be entitled to either of these new leaves.
  • Employees who are assigned to telework are only entitled to these new leaves if they are unable to telework as a result of one of the qualifying reasons for these sick-/FMLA-leaves.
  • Employees, including teleworking employees, are entitled to intermittently take both of these new sick-/FMLA-leaves (assuming they meet one of the qualifying reasons).

Employers of fewer than 500 should review the updated Q&A immediately in its entirety.

/0 Comments/by

BREAKING NEWS: DOL has issued the poster REQUIRED to be “posted” re coronavirus sick-/FMLA- leave

Employers who are subject to the new FFCRA (Families First Coronavirus Response Act) sick-/FMLA- leave are required to post a poster by the FFCRA’s effective date, April 1, 2020. The EEOC has just issued the required poster along with a Q&A that answers common questions employers will have regarding the same, including explaining that, where a workplace has suffered reductions due to coronavirus it may be necessary to issue the poster by email or so-called snail mail — but not to already furloughed or laid off workers nor in languages other than English. The Q&A provides, as follows:

 

DEFINITIONS

“Paid sick leave” – means paid leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.

“Expanded family and medical leave” – means paid leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.

QUESTIONS & ANSWERS

  1. What is the effective date of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), which includes the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act?The FFCRA’s paid leave provisions are effective on April 1, 2020, and apply to leave taken between April 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020.
  2. As an employer, how do I know if my business is under the 500-employee threshold and therefore must provide paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?You have fewer than 500 employees if, at the time your employee’s leave is to be taken, you employ fewer than 500 full-time and part-time employees within the United States, which includes any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, or any Territory or possession of the United States. In making this determination, you should include employees on leave; temporary employees who are jointly employed by you and another employer (regardless of whether the jointly-employed employees are maintained on only your or another employer’s payroll); and day laborers supplied by a temporary agency (regardless of whether you are the temporary agency or the client firm if there is a continuing employment relationship). Workers who are independent contractors under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), rather than employees, are not considered employees for purposes of the 500-employee threshold.Typically, a corporation (including its separate establishments or divisions) is considered to be a single employer and its employees must each be counted towards the 500-employee threshold. Where a corporation has an ownership interest in another corporation, the two corporations are separate employers unless they are joint employers under the FLSA with respect to certain employees. If two entities are found to be joint employers, all of their common employees must be counted in determining whether paid sick leave must be provided under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and expanded family and medical leave must be provided under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.

    In general, two or more entities are separate employers unless they meet the integrated employer test under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). If two entities are an integrated employer under the FMLA, then employees of all entities making up the integrated employer will be counted in determining employer coverage for purposes of expanded family and medical leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.

  3. If I am a private sector employer and have 500 or more employees, do the Acts apply to me?No. Private sector employers are only required to comply with the Acts if they have fewer than 500 employees.[1]
  4. If providing child care-related paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave at my business with fewer than 50 employees would jeopardize the viability of my business as a going concern, how do I take advantage of the small business exemption?To elect this small business exemption, you should document why your business with fewer than 50 employees meets the criteria set forth by the Department, which will be addressed in more detail in forthcoming regulations.You should not send any materials to the Department of Labor when seeking a small business exemption for paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave.
  5. How do I count hours worked by a part-time employee for purposes of paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?A part-time employee is entitled to leave for his or her average number of work hours in a two-week period. Therefore, you calculate hours of leave based on the number of hours the employee is normally scheduled to work. If the normal hours scheduled are unknown, or if the part-time employee’s schedule varies, you may use a six-month average to calculate the average daily hours. Such a part-time employee may take paid sick leave for this number of hours per day for up to a two-week period, and may take expanded family and medical leave for the same number of hours per day up to ten weeks after that.If this calculation cannot be made because the employee has not been employed for at least six months, use the number of hours that you and your employee agreed that the employee would work upon hiring. And if there is no such agreement, you may calculate the appropriate number of hours of leave based on the average hours per day the employee was scheduled to work over the entire term of his or her employment.
  6. When calculating pay due to employees, must overtime hours be included?Yes. The Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act requires you to pay an employee for hours the employee would have been normally scheduled to work even if that is more than 40 hours in a week.However, the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act requires that paid sick leave be paid only up to 80 hours over a two-week period. For example, an employee who is scheduled to work 50 hours a week may take 50 hours of paid sick leave in the first week and 30 hours of paid sick leave in the second week. In any event, the total number of hours paid under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act is capped at 80.

    If the employee’s schedule varies from week to week, please see the answer to Question 5, because the calculation of hours for a full-time employee with a varying schedule is the same as that for a part-time employee.

    Please keep in mind the daily and aggregate caps placed on any pay for paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave as described in the answer to Question 7.

    Please note that pay does not need to include a premium for overtime hours under either the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act or the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.

  7. As an employee, how much will I be paid while taking paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave under the FFCRA?It depends on your normal schedule as well as why you are taking leave.If you are taking paid sick leave because you are unable to work or telework due to a need for leave because you (1) are subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; (2) have been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; or (3) are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are seeking medical diagnosis, you will receive for each applicable hour the greater of:
    • your regular rate of pay,
    • the federal minimum wage in effect under the FLSA, or
    • the applicable State or local minimum wage.

    In these circumstances, you are entitled to a maximum of $511 per day, or $5,110 total over the entire paid sick leave period.

    If you are taking paid sick leave because you are: (1) caring for an individual who is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or an individual who has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; (2) caring for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons; or (3) experiencing any other substantially-similar condition that may arise, as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, you are entitled to compensation at 2/3 of the greater of the amounts above.

    Under these circumstances, you are subject to a maximum of $200 per day, or $2,000 over the entire two week period.

    If you are taking expanded family and medical leave, you may take paid sick leave for the first ten days of that leave period, or you may substitute any accrued vacation leave, personal leave, or medical or sick leave you have under your employer’s policy. For the following ten weeks, you will be paid for your leave at an amount no less than 2/3 of your regular rate of pay for the hours you would be normally scheduled to work. The regular rate of pay used to calculate this amount must be at or above the federal minimum wage, or the applicable state or local minimum wage. However, you will not receive more than $200 per day or $12,000 for the twelve weeks that include both paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave when you are on leave to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons.

    To calculate the number of hours for which you are entitled to paid leave, please see the answers to Questions 5-6 that are provided in this guidance.

  8. What is my regular rate of pay for purposes of the FFCRA?For purposes of the FFCRA, the regular rate of pay used to calculate your paid leave is the average of your regular rate over a period of up to six months prior to the date on which you take leave.[2] If you have not worked for your current employer for six months, the regular rate used to calculate your paid leave is the average of your regular rate of pay for each week you have worked for your current employer.If you are paid with commissions, tips, or piece rates, these amounts will be incorporated into the above calculation to the same extent they are included in the calculation of the regular rate under the FLSA.

    You can also compute this amount for each employee by adding all compensation that is part of the regular rate over the above period and divide that sum by all hours actually worked in the same period.

  9. May I take 80 hours of paid sick leave for my self-quarantine and then another amount of paid sick leave for another reason provided under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act?No. You may take up to two weeks—or ten days—(80 hours for a full-time employee, or for a part-time employee, the number of hours equal to the average number of hours that the employee works over a typical two-week period) of paid sick leave for any combination of qualifying reasons. However, the total number of hours for which you receive paid sick leave is capped at 80 hours under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act.
  10. If I am home with my child because his or her school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, do I get paid sick leave, expanded family and medical leave, or both—how do they interact?You may be eligible for both types of leave, but only for a total of twelve weeks of paid leave. You may take both paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons. The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act provides for an initial two weeks of paid leave. This period thus covers the first ten workdays of expanded family and medical leave, which are otherwise unpaid under the Emergency and Family Medical Leave Expansion Act unless you elect to use existing vacation, personal, or medical or sick leave under your employer’s policy. After the first ten workdays have elapsed, you will receive 2/3 of your regular rate of pay for the hours you would have been scheduled to work in the subsequent ten weeks under the Emergency and Family Medical Leave Expansion Act.Please note that you can only receive the additional ten weeks of expanded family and medical leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act for leave to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons.
  11. Can my employer deny me paid sick leave if my employer gave me paid leave for a reason identified in the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act prior to the Act going into effect?No. The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act imposes a new leave requirement on employers that is effective beginning on April 1, 2020.
  12. Is all leave under the FMLA now paid leave?No. The only type of family and medical leave that is paid leave is expanded family and medical leave under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act when such leave exceeds ten days. This includes only leave taken because the employee must care for a child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons.
  13.  Are the paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave requirements retroactive?No.
  14. How do I know whether I have “been employed for at least 30 calendar days by the employer” for purposes of expanded family and medical leave?You are considered to have been employed by your employer for at least 30 calendar days if your employer had you on its payroll for the 30 calendar days immediately prior to the day your leave would begin. For example, if you want to take leave on April 1, 2020, you would need to have been on your employer’s payroll as of March 2, 2020.If you have been working for a company as a temporary employee, and the company subsequently hires you on a full-time basis, you may count any days you previously worked as a temporary employee toward this 30-day eligibility period.
  15. What records do I need to keep when my employee takes paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?Private sector employers that provide paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave required by the FFCRA are eligible for reimbursement of the costs of that leave through refundable tax credits.  If you intend to claim a tax credit under the FFCRA for your payment of the sick leave or expanded family and medical leave wages, you should retain appropriate documentation in your records. You should consult Internal Revenue Service (IRS) applicable forms, instructions, and information for the procedures that must be followed to claim a tax credit, including any needed substantiation to be retained to support the credit. You are not required to provide leave if materials sufficient to support the applicable tax credit have not been provided.If one of your employees takes expanded family and medical leave to care for his or her child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19, you may also require your employee to provide you with any additional documentation in support of such leave, to the extent permitted under the certification rules for conventional FMLA leave requests. For example, this could include a notice that has been posted on a government, school, or day care website, or published in a newspaper, or an email from an employee or official of the school, place of care, or child care provider.
  16. What documents do I need to give my employer to get paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?You must provide to your employer documentation in support of your paid sick leave as specified in applicable IRS forms, instructions, and information.Your employer may also require you to provide additional in support of your expanded family and medical leave taken to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19-related reasons. For example, this may include a notice of closure or unavailability from your child’s school, place of care, or child care provider, including a notice that may have been posted on a government, school, or day care website, published in a newspaper, or emailed to you from an employee or official of the school, place of care, or child care provider. Your employer must retain this notice or documentation in support of expanded family and medical leave, including while you may be taking unpaid leave that runs concurrently with paid sick leave if taken for the same reason.

    Please also note that all existing certification requirements under the FMLA remain in effect if you are taking leave for one of the existing qualifying reasons under the FMLA. For example, if you are taking leave beyond the two weeks of emergency paid sick leave because your medical condition for COVID-19-related reasons rises to the level of a serious health condition, you must continue to provide medical certifications under the FMLA if required by your employer.

  17. When am I able to telework under the FFCRA?You may telework when your employer permits or allows you to perform work while you are at home or at a location other than your normal workplace. Telework is work for which normal wages must be paid and is not compensated under the paid leave provisions of the FFCRA.
  18. What does it mean to be unable to work, including telework for COVID-19 related reasons?You are unable to work if your employer has work for you and one of the COVID-19 qualifying reasons set forth in the FFCRA prevents you from being able to perform that work, either under normal circumstances at your normal worksite or by means of telework.If you and your employer agree that you will work your normal number of hours, but outside of your normally scheduled hours (for instance early in the morning or late at night), then you are able to work and leave is not necessary unless a COVID-19 qualifying reason prevents you from working that schedule.
  19. If I am or become unable to telework, am I entitled to paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?If your employer permits teleworking—for example, allows you to perform certain tasks or work a certain number of hours from home or at a location other than your normal workplace—and you are unable to perform those tasks or work the required hours because of one of the qualifying reasons for paid sick leave, then you are entitled to take paid sick leave.Similarly, if you are unable to perform those teleworking tasks or work the required teleworking hours because you need to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19 related reasons, then you are entitled to take expanded family and medical leave. Of course, to the extent you are able to telework while caring for your child, paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave is not available.
  20. May I take my paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave intermittently while teleworking?Yes, if your employer allows it and if you are unable to telework your normal schedule of hours due to one of the qualifying reasons in the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act. In that situation, you and your employer may agree that you may take paid sick leave intermittently while teleworking. Similarly, if you are prevented from teleworking your normal schedule of hours because you need to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19 related reasons, you and your employer may agree that you can take expanded family medical leave intermittently while teleworking.You may take intermittent leave in any increment, provided that you and your employer agree. For example, if you agree on a 90-minute increment, you could telework from 1:00 PM to 2:30 PM, take leave from 2:30 PM to 4:00 PM, and then return to teleworking.

    The Department encourages employers and employees to collaborate to achieve flexibility and meet mutual needs, and the Department is supportive of such voluntary arrangements that combine telework and intermittent leave.

  21. May I take my paid sick leave intermittently while working at my usual worksite (as opposed to teleworking)?It depends on why you are taking paid sick leave and whether your employer agrees. Unless you are teleworking, paid sick leave for qualifying reasons related to COVID-19 must be taken in full-day increments. It cannot be taken intermittently if the leave is being taken because:
    • You are subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19;
    • You have been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19;
    • You are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and seeking a medical diagnosis;
    • You are caring for an individual who either is subject to a quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; or
    • You are experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

    Unless you are teleworking, once you begin taking paid sick leave for one or more of these qualifying reasons, you must continue to take paid sick leave each day until you either (1) use the full amount of paid sick leave or (2) no longer have a qualifying reason for taking paid sick leave. This limit is imposed because if you are sick or possibly sick with COVID-19, or caring for an individual who is sick or possibly sick with COVID-19, the intent of FFCRA is to provide such paid sick leave as necessary to keep you from spreading the virus to others.

    If you no longer have a qualifying reason for taking paid sick leave before you exhaust your paid sick leave, you may take any remaining paid sick leave at a later time, until December 31, 2020, if another qualifying reason occurs.

    In contrast, if you and your employer agree, you may take paid sick leave intermittently if you are taking paid sick leave to care for your child whose school or place of care is closed, or whose child care provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19 related reasons. For example, if your child is at home because his or her school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19 related reasons, you may take paid sick leave on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays to care for your child, but work at your normal worksite on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

    The Department encourages employers and employees to collaborate to achieve maximum flexibility. Therefore, if employers and employees agree to intermittent leave on less than a full work day for employees taking paid sick leave to care for their child whose school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, because of COVID-19-related reasons, the Department is supportive of such voluntary arrangements.

  22. May I take my expanded family and medical leave intermittently while my child’s school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons, if I am not teleworking?Yes, but only with your employer’s permission. Intermittent expanded family and medical leave should be permitted only when you and your employer agree upon such a schedule. For example, if your employer and you agree, you may take expanded family and medical leave on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, but work Tuesdays and Thursdays, while your child is at home because your child’s school or place of care is closed, or child care provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons, for the duration of your leave.The Department encourages employers and employees to collaborate to achieve flexibility. Therefore, if employers and employees agree to intermittent leave on a day-by-day basis, the Department supports such voluntary arrangements.
  23. If my employer closed my worksite before April 1, 2020 (the effective date of the FFCRA), can I still get paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?No. If, prior to the FFCRA’s effective date, your employer sent you home and stops paying you because it does not have work for you to do, you will not get paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave but you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is true whether your employer closes your worksite for lack of business or because it is required to close pursuant to a Federal, State, or local directive. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.It should be noted, however, that if your employer is paying you pursuant to a paid leave policy or State or local requirements, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance.
  24. If my employer closes my worksite on or after April 1, 2020 (the effective date of the FFCRA), but before I go out on leave, can I still get paid sick leave and/or expanded family and medical leave?No. If your employer closes after the FFCRA’s effective date (even if you requested leave prior to the closure), you will not get paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave but you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is true whether your employer closes your worksite for lack of business or because it was required to close pursuant to a Federal, State or local directive. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.
  25. If my employer closes my worksite while I am on paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, what happens?If your employer closes while you are on paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, your employer must pay for any paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave you used before the employer closed. As of the date your employer closes your worksite, you are no longer entitled to paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, but you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is true whether your employer closes your worksite for lack of business or because the employer was required to close pursuant to a Federal, State or local directive. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.
  26. If my employer is open, but furloughs me on or after April 1, 2020 (the effective date of the FFCRA), can I receive paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?No. If your employer furloughs you because it does not have enough work or business for you, you are not entitled to then take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave. However, you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.
  27. If my employer closes my worksite on or after April 1, 2020 (the effective date of the FFCRA), but tells me that it will reopen at some time in the future, can I receive paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave?No, not while your worksite is closed. If your employer closes your worksite, even for a short period of time, you are not entitled to take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave. However, you may be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. This is true whether your employer closes your worksite for lack of business or because it was required to close pursuant to a Federal, State, or local directive. You should contact your State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about your eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx. If your employer reopens and you resume work, you would then be eligible for paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave as warranted.
  28. If my employer reduces my scheduled work hours, can I use paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for the hours that I am no longer scheduled to work? No. If your employer reduces your work hours because it does not have work for you to perform, you may not use paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for the hours that you are no longer scheduled to work. This is because you are not prevented from working those hours due to a COVID-19 qualifying reason, even if your reduction in hours was somehow related to COVID-19.You may, however, take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave if a COVID-19 qualifying reason prevents you from working your full schedule. If you do, the amount of leave to which you are entitled is computed based on your work schedule before it was reduced (see Question 5).
  29. May I collect unemployment insurance benefits for time in which I receive pay for paid sick leave and/or expanded family and medical leave?No. If your employer provides you paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, you are not eligible for unemployment insurance. However, each State has its own unique set of rules; and DOL recently clarified additional flexibility to the States (UIPL 20-10) to extend partial unemployment benefits to workers whose hours or pay have been reduced. Therefore, individuals should contact their State workforce agency or State unemployment insurance office for specific questions about eligibility. For additional information, please refer to https://www.careeronestop.org/LocalHelp/service-locator.aspx.
  30. If I elect to take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, must my employer continue my health coverage? If I remain on leave beyond the maximum period of expanded family and medical leave, do I have a right to keep my health coverage?If your employer provides group health coverage that you’ve elected, you are entitled to continued group health coverage during your expanded family and medical leave on the same terms as if you continued to work. If you are enrolled in family coverage, your employer must maintain coverage during your expanded family and medical leave. You generally must continue to make any normal contributions to the cost of your health coverage. See WHD Fact Sheet 28A: https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/28a-fmla-employee-protections.If you do not return to work at the end of your expanded family and medical leave, check with your employer to determine whether you are eligible to keep your health coverage on the same terms (including contribution rates). If you are no longer eligible, you may be able to continue your coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (COBRA). COBRA, which generally applies to employers with 20 or more employees, allows you and your family to continue the same group health coverage at group rates. Your share of that cost may be higher than what you were paying before but may be lower than what you would pay for private individual health insurance coverage. (If your employer has fewer than 20 employees, you may be eligible to continue your health insurance under State laws that are similar to COBRA. These laws are sometimes referred to as “mini COBRA” and vary from State to State.) Contact the Employee Benefits Security Administration at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/workers-and-families/changing-jobs-and-job-loss to learn about health and retirement benefit protections for dislocated workers.

    If you elect to take paid sick leave, your employer must continue your health coverage. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), an employer cannot establish a rule for eligibility or set any individual’s premium or contribution rate based on whether an individual is actively at work (including whether an individual is continuously employed), unless absence from work due to any health factor (such as being absent from work on sick leave) is treated, for purposes of the plan or health insurance coverage, as being actively at work.

  31. As an employee, may I use my employer’s preexisting leave entitlements and my FFCRA paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave concurrently for the same hours?No. If you are eligible to take paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave under the FFCRA, as well as paid leave that is already provided by your employer, unless your employer agrees you must choose one type of leave to take. You may not simultaneously take both, unless your employer agrees to allow you to supplement the amount you receive from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave under the FFCRA, up to your normal earnings, with preexisting leave. For example, if you are receiving 2/3 of your normal earnings from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave under the FFCRA and your employer permits, you may use your preexisting employer-provided paid leave to get the additional 1/3 of your normal earnings so that you receive your full normal earnings for each hour.
  32. If I am an employer, may I supplement or adjust the pay mandated under the FFCRA with paid leave that the employee may have under my paid leave policy?If your employee chooses to use existing leave you have provided, yes; otherwise, no. Paid sick leave and expanded family medical leave under the FFCRA is in addition to employees’ preexisting leave entitlements, including Federal employees. Under the FFCRA, the employee may choose to use existing paid vacation, personal, medical, or sick leave from your paid leave policy to supplement the amount your employee receives from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, up to the employee’s normal earnings. Note, however, that you are not entitled to a tax credit for any paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave that is not required to be paid or exceeds the limits set forth under Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act.However, you are not required to permit an employee to use existing paid leave to supplement the amount your employee receives from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave. Further, you may not claim, and will not receive tax credit, for such supplemental amounts.
  33. If I am an employer, may I require an employee to supplement or adjust the pay mandated under the FFCRA with paid leave that the employee may have under my paid leave policy?No. Under the FFCRA, only the employee may decide whether to use existing paid vacation, personal, medical, or sick leave from your paid leave policy to supplement the amount your employee receives from paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave. The employee would have to agree to use existing paid leave under your paid leave policy to supplement or adjust the paid leave under the FFCRA.
  34. If I want to pay my employees more than they are entitled to receive for paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave, can I do so and claim a tax credit for the entire amount paid to them?You may pay your employees in excess of FFCRA requirements. But you cannot claim, and will not receive tax credit for, those amounts in excess of the FFCRA’s statutory limits.
  35. I am an employer that is part of a multiemployer collective bargaining agreement, may I satisfy my obligations under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act through contributions to a multiemployer fund, plan, or program?You may satisfy your obligations under the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act by making contributions to a multiemployer fund, plan, or other program in accordance with your existing collective bargaining obligations. These contributions must be based on the amount of paid family and medical leave to which each of your employees is entitled under the Act based on each employee’s work under the multiemployer collective bargaining agreement. Such a fund, plan, or other program must allow employees to secure or obtain their pay for the related leave they take under the Act. Alternatively, you may also choose to satisfy your obligations under the Act by other means, provided they are consistent with your bargaining obligations and collective bargaining agreement.
  36. I am an employer that is part of a multiemployer collective bargaining agreement, may I satisfy my obligations under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act through contributions to a multiemployer fund, plan, or program?You may satisfy your obligations under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act by making contributions to a multiemployer fund, plan, or other program in accordance with your existing collective bargaining obligations. These contributions must be based on the hours of paid sick leave to which each of your employees is entitled under the Act based on each employee’s work under the multiemployer collective bargaining agreement. Such a fund, plan, or other program must allow employees to secure or obtain their pay for the related leave they take under the Act. Alternatively, you may also choose to satisfy your obligations under the Act by other means, provided they are consistent with your bargaining obligations and collective bargaining agreement.
  37. Are contributions to a multiemployer fund, plan, or other program the only way an employer that is part of a multiemployer collective bargaining agreement may comply with the paid leave requirements of the FFCRA?No. Both the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act provide that, consistent with its bargaining obligations and collective bargaining agreement, an employer may satisfy its legal obligations under both Acts by making appropriate contributions to such a fund, plan, or other program based on the paid leave owed to each employee. However, the employer may satisfy its obligations under both Acts by other means, provided they are consistent with its bargaining obligations and collective bargaining agreement.

With that, the DOL issued two additional Q&A’s re how coronavirus relates to the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act) and the FMLA(Family and Medical Leave Act).

 

 

/0 Comments/by

DOL issues enforcement guidance urging staff to recognize a “temporary non-enforcement period” for “reasonable” and “good faith” compliance

The DOL issued Field Assistance Bulletin no. 2020-1 urging its staff to recognize a “temporary non-enforcement period” for employers who are in “reasonable” and “good faith” compliance. To qualify for the benefit of this “non-enforcement period,” the employer must establish all of the following:

  1. The employer remedies any violations, including by making all affected employees whole as soon as practicable.  As explained in a Joint Statement by the Department, the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued on March 20, 2020, [2]  this program is designed to ensure that all covered employers have access to sufficient resources to pay required sick leave and family leave wages.[3]

  2. The violations of the Act were not “willful” based on the criteria set forth in McLaughlin v. Richland Shoe, 486 U.S. 128, 133 (1988) (the employer “either knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited…”).

  3. The Department receives a written commitment from the employer to comply with the Act in the future.

In other words, an employer who has taken no steps to try to come into compliance with the FFCRA (Families First Coronavirus Response Act) will likely not qualify for the benefits of this “temporary non-enforcement period,” and an employer that has at least tried may qualify for some mitigation but will nonetheless be required to come into compliance, though it may have some time to remedy the violation “as soon as practicable” and may have the benefit of not having the DOL taking further enforcement actions against it in the meantime.

/0 Comments/by

EEOC publishes YouTube webinar on ADA, Rehabilitation Act and coronavirus

The EEOC published a short 42-minute YouTube video on the ADA, Rehabilitation Act and coronavirus.  The webinar fleshes out the EEOC’s recent coronavirus guidance and identifies certain questions that it believes it is currently unable to answer, including the following:

  • Whether coronavirus (COVID-19) is or could be a disability protected by the ADA?

Questions addressed include, in addition to those raised in the above guidance:

  • Whether an employer can ask an employee if his/her family has tested positive for coronavirus? Here, the EEOC believes that question is too narrow, because it is limited to questions about the employee’s family and as such the EEOC says it believes the question might implicate the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA); therefore, the EEOC urges employers instead to ask if the employee has had any such contact with anyone whom he/she knows to have tested positive.
  • Whether an employer, when disclosing that someone has tested positive, can disclose that person’s identity? The EEOC repeats its position in its above guidance’s instruction that employers, upon learning of a positive coronavirus test result, have some ability to disclose the same within a true need-to-know basis, and that it may be able to disclose to co-workers that someone has tested positive, but it repeats the employer should not generally report the person’s identity. That is true, the EEOC says, even where coworkers may be guessing or attempting to guess at the person’s identity. It gives as an example that the company may report that a person is teleworking without telling his coworker’s that the reason for his absence from the workplace is a positive test result. Likewise the EEOC addresses the issue where an employer may be faced with a concern that disclosing something as general as “someone at this location” or “someone on the 4th floor” has tested positive, is not sufficient information for concerned coworkers; here too, the EEOC restates its position that, even in that situation, the employer should not disclose the person’s identity. 
  • Whether allowing workers to telework during the coronavirus crisis may be later used by a disabled worker requesting the right to telework after the coronavirus crisis? The EEOC answers flatly, no, the fact that an employer allows teleworking during this coronavirus crisis cannot be used as evidence that teleworking might be a reasonable accommodation outside the coronavirus crisis. However in an unhelpful muddling of its answer, the EEOC added that it “could” be somehow relevant to showing that telework was in general feasible at least in some circumstances, theoretically.

The EEOC says that, while teleworking, HR professionals and others with a need-to-know medical information must store information, even at home, in a confidential manner, including not leaving notes where they can be seen. In a frankly absurd moment, the EEOC actually recommends HR professionals consider writing their notes while teleworking “in code.”

The EEOC noted that, during the coronavirus crisis, employers may be having difficulty obtaining doctor’s notes related to ADA accommodation requests and suggests that employers consider whether other documentation might suffice — arguably at least until a doctor’s note becomes available — such as a “health insurance record” or “a prescription.”

While not particularly robust or helpful on some of those difficult questions — and adding to the confusion on some questions — the webinar is nonetheless recommended for HR professionals to review as soon as possible.

/0 Comments/by

Common questions re WARN versus coronavirus

Thinking about layoffs, furloughs or reductions of hours? Wondering about the WARN Act’s 60-day notice requirements? Bloomberg BNA published a handy article discussing some of the common questions about the WARN Act and coronavirus layoffs, furloughs and hour-reductions.

Source: The WARN Act: Top Coronavirus Questions Answered by Lawyers
— Read on www.bloomberglaw.com/exp/eyJjdHh0IjoiRExOVyIsImlkIjoiMDAwMDAxNzEtMTI4NS1kMDlhLWEzNzMtOWE5N2ZiMTYwMDAwIiwic2lnIjoiODFXQlVIQjIzU3pRUnB1TzJaTHlLL3BXU0NJPSIsInRpbWUiOiIxNTg1MTYyNTE0IiwidXVpZCI6IkVuY0FVQkNZUnhxcjlOQ3AreU4xVHc9PWcwRnZ1MHVUMUNNQnQzbnEzMXcxRkE9PSIsInYiOiIxIn0=

/0 Comments/by