Since 2019, private employers with at least 50 employees have been required in most instances, pursuant to NRS 608.0197, to provide 0.01923 hours of paid leave to their employees for each hour worked. Now, Nevada has enacted new law requiring employers to provide additional paid leave to allow employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination and clarifying that employees may use existing paid leave to care for themselves and their family members. Read more from our Nevada colleagues about these new employer obligations.

Starting on July 1, 2021, most Virginia employers must include information in their employee handbooks about reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities and provide that information directly to any employee within 10 days after receiving notice that the employee has a disability. Read more about this new requirement.

Governor Ned Lamont has signed into law a requirement for employers to provide all employees with two hours unpaid time off to vote.  Employers may have missed this development, as it was just one small section within the state’s 800-page budget. The key provisions are:

  • Eligibility for leave:
    • any employee in the case of a state election
    • any employee who is an elector in the case of any special election for United States senator, representative in Congress, state senator or state representative
  • Leave entitlement: two hours unpaid time from an employee’s regularly scheduled work on the day of any covered election during voting hours
  • Conditions for approval: employee must request the time off not less than two working days prior to the election
  • Effective dates: now until June 30, 2024

Maine employees will soon be eligible to take protected unpaid leave to care for serious health conditions of their grandchildren. On June 14, 2021, Governor Janet Mills signed into law L.D. 61, an Act to Include Grandparents Under Maine’s Family Medical Leave Laws. The law amends the Maine Family Medical Leave Act to allow an employee to take unpaid leave to care for a grandchild or a domestic partner’s grandchild. Previously, the law limited leave to care for another individual’s serious health condition to children, domestic partners’ children, parents, domestic partners, siblings, or spouses.

Maine’s FMLA requires employers in Maine who employ 15 or more employees at one location in Maine to provide employees 10 weeks of unpaid FMLA leave over a two-year period. To qualify, an employee must have been employed by the employer for over one year. Employees may use this leave for the birth of a child or adoption of a child 16 or younger; the employee’s own serious health condition; caring for the serious health condition of their children, grandchildren, domestic partner’s grandchildren, domestic partner’s children, parents, domestic partners, siblings, or spouses; donation of an organ for human transplant; or death or serious health condition of the employee’s spouse, domestic partner, parent, sibling, or child if the death or serious health condition occurs while on active duty in the U.S. military or state armed forces.

Upon the end of this leave, employees are entitled to be restored to the position they had when the leave commenced or to a position with equivalent seniority status, benefits, pay, and other terms and conditions of employment. Employers are required to allow an employee to continue his or her benefits during the leave period at the employee’s own expense.

The expansion of the covered reasons for leave to include the serious health condition of a grandchild will go into effect 90 days after the end of the Maine Legislature’s present session.

After releasing an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 for healthcare employers on June 10, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has announced that it is publishing the ETS in the Federal Register on June 21, 2021. The publication gives the ETS immediate effect, but most elements of the ETS will not be enforceable for 14 days, on July 5, 2021.  Read complete coverage.

On June 8, 2021, New York State updated the NY Forward Guidance for several industries, including office-based and food services employers, with changes that many people feel are overdue.

In addition to incorporating updated mask, physical distancing, and capacity rules that have been in place since New York adopted the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance for fully vaccinated individuals on May 19, 2021, the most significant modification to the NY Forward Guidance update is the change in screening questions. The guidance no longer requires employers to ask about symptoms, close contact, or COVID-19 infections that occurred in the last 14 days. Instead, the new daily health screening questions properly reflect the most current CDC and New York State Department of Health isolation and quarantine guidelines for COVID-19.

The following three screening questions are required:

  1. Are you currently experiencing, or recently experienced (in the last 48 hours), any new or worsening COVID-19 symptoms?
  2. Have you had close contact (being within six feet for at least 10 minutes over a 24-hour period) or proximate contact (as determined by health authorities) in the past 10 days with any person confirmed by diagnostic test, or suspected based on symptoms, to have COVID-19?
  3. Have you tested positive through a diagnostic test for COVID-19 in the past 10 days?

Prior to June 8, the time period for all three questions was 14 days, which was premised on outdated COVID-19 public health authority guidance. In addition, if an employee had a preexisting condition that mirrored COVID-19 symptoms, such as migraines, they were required to answer the symptom screening question in the affirmative. The updated guidance permits employees to account for preexisting conditions.

Finally, the updated NY Forward Guidance now expressly provides an exemption from answering the close-contact question in the affirmative for employees who are either fully vaccinated or who have recently (in the last three months) fully recovered from COVID-19.

The updated guidance is a reminder to employers that the NY Forward Guidance is still applicable for businesses seeking to operate in person.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are closely monitoring updates and changes to legal requirements and guidance and are available to help weed through the complexities involved in state-specific or multistate-compliant plans.

If you have questions or need assistance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work, or any member of our COVID-19 team.

Governor Ned Lamont has signed into law additional protections for breastfeeding workers.  Connecticut law already requires all employers to “make reasonable efforts to provide a room or other location, in close proximity to the work area, other than a toilet” where an employee can express milk in private and also prohibits discrimination or retaliation against employees who have elected to exercise their rights to breastfeed or express breast milk at work.

The additional provisions require, absent undue hardship, that such room or location:

  • be free from intrusion and shielded from the public while such employee expresses breast milk,
  • include or be situated near a refrigerator or employee-provided portable cold storage device in which the employee can store breast milk, and
  • include access to an electrical outlet.

Employers should review their lactation accommodation policies and procedures in light of these new changes, which are effective October 1, 2021.

If you have any questions about this development, please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work.

For years (and I do mean years), the EEOC has waffled about whether incentives were permissible in connection with a medical inquiry under a voluntary wellness program.  Friday, the EEOC issued its most recent pronouncement on the topic, this time related to incentives for COVID-19 vaccinations.

The ADA prohibits employers from requiring medical examinations or making “disability-related inquiries” except in very limited circumstances.  One such exception is in the case of a voluntary wellness program.  But it has never been clear what voluntary means in this situation. Is it voluntary if an incentive is provided?

A Brief Primer on Incentives and “Voluntary” Wellness Programs Under The ADA

The EEOC stated its position on voluntariness in 2000, in its Enforcement Guidance on Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations of Employees Under the Americans with Disabilities Act: a wellness program is “voluntary” as long as an employer “neither requires participation nor penalizes employees who do not participate.”  In 2014, the EEOC sued several employers claiming they had crossed the line in terms of when a penalty connected with a wellness plan makes the wellness plan involuntary.  But in oral argument the EEOC refused to identify what the particular line was. See Court Denies EEOC’s TRO Motion Seeking to Halt Employer’s Wellness Program | Benefits Law Advisor

In other contexts, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) permitted incentives, significant incentives, under group health plans. The other federal agencies, the IRS, HHS, and DOL issued joint implementing regulations for such programs.  Acknowledging congressional intent for some form of incentivized wellness programs, the EEOC then issued regulations which generally allowed employers to offer an incentive of up to 30% of the total cost of self-only insurance coverage.  But, its rules were quickly challenged in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.  The court ordered the incentive provisions vacated, concluding the EEOC did not provide sufficient reasoning to justify the incentive limit adopted, even though the limit was largely based on the ACA’s approach.  As a result, the EEOC revised the regulations by removing the section permitting incentives, but leaving in place the remaining portions:

An employee health program that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations (including disability-related inquiries or medical examinations that are part of a health risk assessment) is voluntary as long as a covered entity:

(i)     Does not require employees to participate;

(ii)    Does not deny coverage under any of its group health plans or particular benefits packages within a group health plan for non-participation, or limit the extent of benefits (except as allowed under paragraph (d)(3) of this section) for employees who do not participate;

(iii)   Does not take any adverse employment action or retaliate against, interfere with, coerce, intimidate, or threaten employees within the meaning of Section 503 of the ADA, codified at 42 U.S.C. 12203; and

(iv)    Provides employees with a notice that:

(A) Is written so that the employee from whom medical information is being obtained is reasonably likely to understand it;

(B) Describes the type of medical information that will be obtained and the specific purposes for which the medical information will be used; and

(C) Describes the restrictions on the disclosure of the employee’s medical information, the employer representatives or other parties with whom the information will be shared, and the methods that the covered entity will use to ensure that medical information is not improperly disclosed (including whether it complies with the measures set forth in the HIPAA regulations codified at 45 CFR parts 160 and 164).

29 CFR 1630.14(d)(2).  See Has the Grinch Stolen Wellness Plans this Christmas? | Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog (disabilityleavelaw.com)

Then in January of this year the EEOC proposed new regulations allowing only de minimis incentives, unless the wellness program was connected to a group health plan.  See Wellness Programs and Water Bottles, the EEOC Proposes New Rules under the ADA and GINA | Benefits Law Advisor

To help guide employers on “voluntariness,” the agency provided examples of what would and would not meet the test. For what would be considered de minimis, the EEOC provided two examples: a water bottle or gift card of modest value. A quick online search reveals an approximate price range for water bottles is between $5 and $50. On the other end of the voluntariness continuum, the EEOC observed that charging an employee $50 per month more for health insurance (or, the “carrot” approach, offering a $50 per month reduction in the charge for health insurance, either way totaling $600 per year), would be too great an incentive and violate the ADA.  Similarly, paying for an employee’s annual gym membership or rewarding an employee with airline tickets would be considered more than de minimis. Of course, these examples provide little insight about the incentive’s value.  So, assuming a $25 or even $50 gift card would meet the “a water bottle or gift card of modest value” test, and $600 incentive clearly would not, what about incentives with a value in the middle, say $100? It is worth noting that the EEOC’s proposed rule would permit more liberal incentives for wellness programs structured as part of a group health plans, provided they follow the ACA rules referenced above.

Unfortunately, these proposed regulations were quickly pulled back under the new administration, leaving once again a black hole in terms of what, if any, incentive an employer could provide in connection with voluntary disability-related medical inquiries or medical examinations in connection with a voluntary wellness program.

New “Very Large” and “So Substantial” Guidance

Last week the EEOC updated the technical assistance it maintains on its website with respect to COVID-19 issues.  See EEOC UPDATES ITS GUIDANCE ON VACCINATIONS | Disability, Leave & Health Management Blog (disabilityleavelaw.com)  The EEOC, which had already opined that the pre-vaccination screening questions may be a disability-related medical inquiry, stated that if an employer offers to vaccinate employees on a voluntary basis, the employer does not have to show the pre-vaccination screening questions are job-related and consistent with business necessity. “However, the employee’s decision to answer the questions must be voluntary.”   The EEOC then went on to explain what type of incentive could be offered in connection with vaccination provided by the employer or its agent.  According to the EEOC, the incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) must not be “so substantial as to be coercive.”  “[A] very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information.”  Although this particular guidance is related to COVID-19, presumably the same analysis would apply to other voluntary inquiries where employers seek to take advantage of the voluntary wellness program exception.

While it is nice to see some explanation as to the EEOC’s position on this topic, the EEOC’s language: “not so substantial as to be coercive” or not “very large” as to make employees feel pressured, is certainly not the epitome of clarity.  What does “substantial” or “very large” mean in practice?  Does it allow more than a water bottle?  The EEOC did not provide examples this time, presumably because it is being pulled in two directions.  On the one hand the government has made clear that it does not want to say anything that would discourage vaccinations (and is also looking to encourage vaccinations), at the same time what it says here may be used in other settings with respect to wellness programs.

Incentives Related to the COVID-19 Vaccine

The good news for employers, at least with respect to incentives offered in connection with COVID-19 vaccinations, is that the EEOC has stated that merely asking whether an employee has been vaccinated is not a disability-related medical inquiry under the ADA and, therefore, does not need to meet the voluntary wellness program exception.  The EEOC made this clear in its guidance last week: “Requesting documentation or other confirmation showing that an employee received a COVID-19 vaccination in the community is not a disability-related inquiry covered by the ADA.  Therefore, an employer may offer an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation of a vaccination received in the community.”

However, if the employer is offering the vaccine or having an agent offer the vaccine, the pre-vaccination inquiries may be disability-related medical inquiries. In that case, the incentive offered must comply with the voluntary wellness program regulations.  In that regard, the EEOC reiterated that the amount of the incentive is not the only issue of compliance with respect to vaccinations offered by employers or its agents.  In order to be voluntary, the “ADA prohibits taking an adverse action against an employee, including harassing the employee, for refusing to participate in a voluntary employer-administered vaccination program.  An employer also must keep any medical information it obtains from any voluntary vaccination program confidential.”  Indeed, presumably, all of the requirements of 29 CFR 1630.14(d)(2) (referenced above) continue to apply.

Some employers also have expressed interest in incentivizing employees’ family members to get the vaccine. The EEOC’s recent COVID-19 technical assistance addressed this as well. Remember that under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, family medical history information, in general, constitutes genetic information of the employee. As a result, the EEOC’s guidance confirmed that an employer may not offer an incentive to an employee in return for an employee’s family member getting vaccinated by the employer or its agent because the pre-vaccination questions of a family member would constitute family medical history of the employee. However, employers may offer an incentive to employees to provide documentation or other confirmation that their family members received a vaccination from their own health care provider.

The years long battle over what is and is not an appropriate incentive in connection with voluntary medical inquiries or wellness programs is far from over.  To avoid “very large” penalties of their own, employers should consult with counsel whenever they are designing a wellness program with incentives (carrots or sticks) attached.

 

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.]

Discrimination based on vaccination status is prohibited under a new Montana law (House Bill 702). Enacted on May 7, 2021, the new law went into effect immediately.

The new law provides that employers, including governmental entities, are prohibited from refusing employment to a person or discriminating against a person in compensation or in a term, condition, or privilege of employment based on the person’s vaccination status or whether the person has an “immunity passport.”

The legislation also prevents an employer from requiring employees to get vaccinated with a vaccine administered under Emergency Use Authorization status.

Though employers may not require employees be vaccinated as a condition of employment, employers may still encourage employees to become vaccinated.

Read our full coverage.