Just as you may have been preparing to settle into a relaxing Memorial Day Weekend, the EEOC issued additional informal guidance today concerning COVID-19 vaccination issues. Although there are still many holes to be filled, and employers continue to be left with incomplete guidance, here are some initial highlights and observations:

MANDATING THE VACCINE

• The EEOC starts off by reminding employers that “It is beyond the EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach… Indeed, other federal, state, and local laws and regulations govern COVID-19 vaccination of employees.” The EEOC directs individuals seeking more information about the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status of the COVID-19 vaccines to the FDA’s EUA page. Many employers rushed out after the last guidance issued by the EEOC believing that the EEOC had said they could legally mandate the COVID-19 vaccination regardless of the EUA nature. The EEOC clarified today that it only opines on the legal implications under the federal discrimination laws.

• According to the EEOC, the federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII and the ADA and other EEO considerations, including concern with disparate impact. The EEOC is silent regarding whether employers can mandate the vaccine for remote workers. It is critically important for employers to consider fully the limitations the EEOC references.

• The EEOC stated that employers can require COVID-19 vaccination with respect to all employees entering the workplace, so long as certain requirements are met. First, the qualification standard must be job-related and consistent with business necessity. Second, if a particular employee cannot meet such a safety-related qualification standard because of a disability, the employer may not require compliance for that employee unless it can demonstrate that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to the health or safety of the employee or others in the workplace. This remains a controversial position and some employers may argue that a lower burden of proof is required.

DIRECT THREAT

• The EEOC reminded employers that to determine if an employee who is not vaccinated due to a disability poses a “direct threat” in the workplace, an employer first must make an individualized assessment of the employee’s present ability to safely perform the essential functions of the job. “The determination that a particular employee poses a direct threat should be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge about COVID-19. Such medical knowledge may include, for example, the level of community spread at the time of the assessment. Statements from the CDC provide an important source of current medical knowledge about COVID-19, and the employee’s health care provider, with the employee’s consent, also may provide useful information about the employee. Additionally, the assessment of direct threat should take account of the type of work environment, such as: whether the employee works alone or with others or works inside or outside; the available ventilation; the frequency and duration of direct interaction the employee typically will have with other employees and/or non-employees; the number of partially or fully vaccinated individuals already in the workplace; whether other employees are wearing masks or undergoing routine screening testing; and the space available for social distancing.”

• The EEOC stated that even if the assessment demonstrates that an employee with a disability who is not vaccinated would pose a direct threat to self or others, the employer must consider whether providing a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, would reduce or eliminate that threat. Potential reasonable accommodations could include requiring the employee to wear a mask, work a staggered shift, making changes in the work environment (such as improving ventilation systems or limiting contact with other employees and non-employees ), permitting telework if feasible, or reassigning the employee to a vacant position in a different workspace.

• The EEOC recommended that as a best practice, an employer introducing a COVID-19 vaccination policy and requiring documentation or other confirmation of vaccination should notify all employees that the employer will consider requests for reasonable accommodation based on disability on an individualized basis.

REASONABLE ACCOMMODATIONS

• The EEOC reminded employers that Title VII and the ADA may require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.

• In addition, employees who are not vaccinated because of pregnancy may be entitled (under Title VII) to adjustments to keep working, if the employer makes modifications or exceptions for other employees. These modifications may be the same as the accommodations made for an employee based on disability or religion.

• The EEOC provided examples of reasonable accommodations, including an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non-employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment.

DISPARATE IMPACT

• The EEOC stated: “As with any employment policy, employers that have a vaccine requirement may need to respond to allegations that the requirement has a disparate impact on—or disproportionately excludes—employees based on their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin under Title VII (or age under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (40+)). Employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.”

INCENTIVES

• The EEOC clarified that incentives may be provided to encourage vaccination without running afoul of the EEOC’s laws as long as the incentive is not tied to the employee receiving the vaccine from the employer or someone with whom the employer contracted. Simply providing an incentive for an employee to voluntarily provide proof of vaccination he/she received from a third party, like a pharmacy or health clinic, is not a disability-related inquiry and therefore, the ADA’s limits on incentives are not implicated.

• However, if the incentive is tied to a vaccine provided by the employer or its agent then any incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) must not be so substantial as to be coercive.

• An employer may not offer any incentives to an employee in exchange for a family member’s receipt of a vaccination from an employer or its agent.

• Employers must not require employees to have their family members get vaccinated and must not penalize employees if their family members decide not to get vaccinated.

CONFIDENTIALITY

• The EEOC made clear that the “ADA requires an employer to maintain the confidentiality of employee medical information, such as documentation or other confirmation of COVID-19 vaccination. This ADA confidentiality requirement applies regardless of where the employee gets the vaccination. Although the EEO laws themselves do not prevent employers from requiring employees to bring in documentation or other confirmation of vaccination, this information, like all medical information, must be kept confidential and stored separately from the employee’s personnel files under the ADA.”

• Unfortunately, the EEOC offered no opinion as to what if anything employers could do with the information once collected, in light of its suggestion that confidentiality applied. [This too is a controversial position, as the EEOC’s view with respect to confidentiality of medical information is broader than that included in the ADA itself.]

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Patricia Anderson Pryor Patricia Anderson Pryor

Patricia Anderson Pryor is the office managing principal of the Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio offices, as well as the Louisville, Kentucky, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Patty remains purposefully poised on the precipice of the changing legal landscape, advising clients on everything from…

Patricia Anderson Pryor is the office managing principal of the Cincinnati and Dayton, Ohio offices, as well as the Louisville, Kentucky, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Patty remains purposefully poised on the precipice of the changing legal landscape, advising clients on everything from vaccine mandates to the Dobbs response, to ESG and the attacks on DEI, to the impact of Loper Bright. The combination of Patty’s ability and tenacity to understand and apply workplace law to nuanced legal questions and specific situations results in clients perpetually asking this initial question, “What does Patty think?”

Patty is the National Head of the firm’s Emerging and Cross-Disciplinary Issues. She has over 25 years of experience representing and defending employers in nearly every form of employment litigation, including class actions. She represents and advises employers in federal and state administrative proceedings, in all forms of dispute resolution, including mediation and arbitration, and in managing all aspects of the employment relationship. She has represented employers before the EEOC, the DOL, the DOJ, OSHA, the OFCCP, and the NLRB, in addition to various state agencies.

Focusing on the best possible outcome for the client Patty takes a 360-degree view, working with employers to avoid litigation by developing effective policies and practices, including harassment policies, FMLA practices, attendance programs, affirmative action programs and wellness plans. She conducts proactive wage and hour audits, harassment investigations and compensation/pay equity reviews.

Patty is a core team member of the firm’s Disability, Leave & Health Management practice group and a leader of the Religious Accommodation Team. She provides practical advice to help companies respond to remote work challenges, paid and unpaid leave situations and the most challenging accommodation requests, all of which have been exacerbated by the pandemic, hybrid work and changes in the law.

Photo of Francis P. Alvarez Francis P. Alvarez

Francis P. (Frank) Alvarez is a principal in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is the founder and co-leader of the firm’s Disability, Leave and Health Management (DLHM) practice group.

Photo of Jenifer M. Bologna Jenifer M. Bologna

Jenifer Bologna is a principal in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She focuses much of her practice on assisting multi-state employers with compliance solutions, developing policies and practices that are lawful in all of the jurisdictions in which…

Jenifer Bologna is a principal in the White Plains, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She focuses much of her practice on assisting multi-state employers with compliance solutions, developing policies and practices that are lawful in all of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

Jenifer specializes in preventative advice and counsel on a nation-wide basis, regularly advising clients on multi-state employment law issues to address an increasingly remote and hybrid workforce. In addition, she supports employers in navigating the complex and growing body of federal, state and local leave, accommodation and benefit laws that impact an employer’s response to employees who are injured or ill, have family care responsibilities or need time to bond with children.

Jenifer’s extensive counseling experience allows her to provide nuanced advice that helps employers effectively respond to the legal and business challenges posed by the varying array of workplace employment laws. Utilizing creative legal strategies and practical advice, she guides clients through these complex issues that often demand individualized solutions.

Jenifer’s goal is to minimize her clients’ litigation risk by working with them to implement preventative strategies and constructive solutions. As such, she regularly assists employers with policy and process development or improvement, including absence management and accommodation protocols and multi-state employment policies. Understanding there is no one-size-fits-all approach, Jenifer works with clients to develop an employment law compliance strategy that best fits their specific needs.

In addition to advice and counsel, Jenifer frequently speaks on disability and absence management issues and employment law compliance, including regularly conducting workplace training on these topics.

Photo of Sheri L. Giger Sheri L. Giger

Sheri L. Giger is a principal in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She is co-leader of the firm’s Disability, Leave and Health Management (DLHM) practice group.

Photo of Andrew F. Maunz Andrew F. Maunz

Andrew F. Maunz is of counsel in the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. Drew is the co-leader of the Pay Equity resource group and his practice focuses on representing employers in workplace law matters, including litigation, preventive advice, and counseling.

Photo of Katharine C. Weber Katharine C. Weber

Katharine C. Weber is a principal in the Cincinnati, Ohio, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Disability, Leave and Health Management (DLHM) practice group. She has successfully assisted countless clients in handling their labor and employment issues in both…

Katharine C. Weber is a principal in the Cincinnati, Ohio, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s Disability, Leave and Health Management (DLHM) practice group. She has successfully assisted countless clients in handling their labor and employment issues in both Ohio and Kentucky.

Katharine has experience litigating wrongful discharge cases; managing discrimination cases; negotiating collective bargaining agreements; representing employers before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and other federal, Ohio and Kentucky agencies; advising management on employment relations; drafting employee handbooks; and negotiating severance agreements.

Katharine regularly advises clients on wage and hour issues. Over the past five years she has served as lead counsel on various wage and hour class and collective actions filed in both Ohio and Kentucky involving claims of misclassification, off the clock work, and other violations for which the plaintiffs claimed to be owed substantial overtime.

Additionally, Katharine is extremely knowledgeable in the area of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act, and brings sophisticated, yet easy to understand advice on handling and defending against sexual harassment claims. From helping clients analyze options and making recommendations on how to handle employee relations issues, to representing clients in complex discrimination cases, Katharine always provides creative solutions and passionate advocacy for her clients. She is also very involved in the transportation industry and has successfully litigated several cutting-edge employment law cases which have been of great benefit to transportation industry employers.