A website is not a “place of public accommodation” and an inaccessible website is not necessarily equal to the denial of goods or services, a federal appeals court has held in a groundbreaking decision on disability discrimination under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., No. 17-13467 (11th Cir. Apr. 7, 2021). Read more about this case and the implications for businesses here.
Philadelphia Enacts COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave
Philadelphia has joined a growing list of localities to require employers to provide employees paid COVID-19-related sick leave.
When the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) expired on December 31, 2020, many employees lost guaranteed paid COVID-19-related leave. As of March 29, 2021, employers with employees working in Philadelphia must provide them paid COVID-19-related sick leave.
The new 2021 Public Health Emergency Leave (PHEL) amends and expands Philadelphia’s previous COVID-19 paid leave ordinance that had expired on December 31, 2020. The amended PHEL ordinance is similar to the FFCRA, minus the tax credits, and expands existing paid sick leave requirements by mandating Philadelphia businesses with at least 50 employees provide additional paid time off to employees who have worked for the business at least 90 days.
Read more about Philadelphia’s COVID-19 Paid Sick Leave.
COVID-19 Pandemic New Year: What Employers Should Know
The country begins the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic with optimism because of three Emergency Use Authorization vaccines and President Joe Biden’s direction that all states make all adults eligible for vaccination by May 1, 2021. As more workers return to work in person, there are key considerations for employers in the coming months.
Evolving Legal Landscape
While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued guidance and best practices throughout the last year, the decision as to whether to adopt, enforce, or exceed those guidelines was left exclusively to the states. What resulted was a patchwork of laws at the state, county, city, and local health department levels, and confusion as to which rules to follow and when.
The Biden administration has expressed a willingness to take more measures at the federal level and has increased uniformity in terms of approaches for vaccination, isolation and quarantine, and safety measures.
However, uniformity may not translate to a less fluid environment. The CDC, Department of Labor, and new administration continue to issue updates regularly, making it challenging for many employers to keep up.
OSHA Guidance for Employers
Although states are starting to lift or ease restrictions, employers can expect increased enforcement from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). On March 12, 2021, OSHA announced a National Emphasis Program (NEP) related to COVID-19, targeting “specific high-hazard industries or activities where this hazard is prevalent” and adding a focus on anti-retaliation efforts. The NEP covers certain healthcare industries (e.g., hospitals, home health, and skilled nursing facilities, among many others) and non-healthcare industries that have experienced high rates of COVID-19 infection (i.e., meat and poultry processing) or are public facing (i.e., restaurants, supermarkets, and grocery stores) and critical infrastructure. OSHA also will use calendar year 2020 Form 300A data to identify establishments with elevated rates of illness. With respect to anti-retaliation efforts, OSHA will increase efforts to ensure workers are aware of retaliation protections. (For a more detailed summary of the NEP, see OSHA Publishes New National Emphasis Program Targeting COVID-19 Enforcement.)
OSHA has not issued COVID-19-specific standards to date. In limited circumstances, OSHA has applied existing standards to situations involving COVID-19 (e.g., respiratory protection for healthcare employers). OSHA has otherwise been left to rely on the General Duty Clause in the Occupational Safety and Health Act to hold employers accountable for protecting workers against COVID-19 in the workplace. The General Duty Clause requires employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace that is free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm. OSHA has also issued COVID-19 guidance for several industries, as well as general guidance for all employers. The guidance does not carry the weight of the law, but may be useful to OSHA’s enforcement efforts.
Recently, OSHA is under additional pressure following a report from the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that criticized the agency for not conducting enough onsite inspections or issuing COVID-19 standards sooner. Prior to the OIG’s report, President Biden had directed OSHA to consider whether emergency temporary standards were necessary, and to issue any such standards by March 15, 2021. The emergency temporary standards appear to be delayed, but are anticipated to be issued imminently.
Employers in some states, like California, Michigan, Oregon, and Virginia, are already subject to COVID-19 rules under occupational safety and health state plans. Employers should continue to consult state and local law for safety guidelines in the coming months.
EEOC Guidance for Employers
In March 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) published technical assistance for employers entitled What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws. The agency has provided periodic updates, most recently on December 16, 2020.
The technical assistance covers a wide range of topics that will continue to be important for employers in 2021, including:
- Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Exams;
- Confidentiality of Medical Information;
- Hiring and Onboarding;
- Reasonable Accommodation;
- Pandemic-Related Harassment Due to National Origin, Race, or Other Protected Characteristics;
- Furloughs and Layoffs;
- Return to Work;
- Age;
- Caregivers/Family Responsibilities;
- Pregnancy; and
- Vaccinations.
As employees begin returning to workplaces in greater numbers, employers should consider the EEOC’s guidance, especially regarding reasonable accommodations, as they establish their policies and practices and respond to requests for continued remote work and other flexible work arrangements.
The EEOC’s latest updates to its technical assistance addresses COVID-19 vaccinations and questions about the applicability of federal equal employment opportunity laws including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. As employers develop policies and employee communications in connection with the vaccines, employers should review section K of the EEOC’s technical assistance. That section provides important insights on the EEOC’s view on important questions facing employers.
COVID-19 Vaccines and the Workplace
As of this writing, 24.5 percent of the U.S. population have received at least one dose of the vaccine. Employers are faced with how to handle vaccination and the return to work in person, and what role, if any, they should play in encouraging and enabling employees to safely become vaccinated.
In its January 2021 guidance, OSHA encouraged employers to make COVID-19 vaccines available to all eligible employees at no cost and to provide information and training on the benefits and safety of vaccinations.
While many employers are thinking through creative ways to incentivize vaccines, a number of states are considering measures that would prevent employers from mandating vaccinations for return to work or otherwise influence an employer’s approach to vaccinations. On the other end of the spectrum, New York has adopted legislation that requires employers to provide employees with up to four hours of paid time off for each COVID-19 vaccination. Jackson Lewis is tracking pending legislation related to vaccines and the workplace, including more than 100 bills being considered by state legislatures around the country.
In the CDC’s Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, the CDC pointed to evidence suggesting that fully vaccinated individuals are “less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit” the virus to others, but the CDC is continuing to learn more about individuals’ abilities to continue the spread of COVID-19 despite being vaccinated. As discussed below, the CDC guidance supports relaxed quarantine requirements for individuals who have been fully vaccinated. Therefore, employers may have a greater interest in vaccination programs, or at least knowing employees’ vaccination status. However, the CDC and OSHA recommend vaccinated individuals continue to wear masks, practice physical distancing in public, and take other steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19.
The CDC has explained that it is still studying the duration of protection provided by the vaccine, and experts are continuing to evaluate at what point the country can achieve herd immunity, or community immunity (when a sufficient portion of the population of an area is immune to a specific disease to make its spread from person to person unlikely). There have been many positive developments and the outlook on the horizon looks promising, but at the moment, many aspects of the work environment are left unchanged. For now, employers should continue to follow state and local orders and guidance and may choose to consider ways in which they can enable employees to become vaccinated and provide information and training for those who are eligible, as consistent with applicable law. Employers who want to educate their workforce about the COVID-19 vaccines can use materials published by the CDC and state agencies.
Latest Guidance on Isolation, Quarantine
The CDC’s guidance on recommended isolation and quarantine periods has evolved as both the number of people vaccinated has recently grown, and the number of people in the United States who have recovered from COVID-19 and likely have some protection from the virus has increased.
For individuals who have tested positive for COVID-19 or are symptomatic, the CDC’s Discontinuation of Isolation for Persons with COVID-19 Not in Healthcare Settings sets a framework for when to discontinue isolation. However, not all states have adopted the CDC’s guidelines. Indeed, state and local requirements may not coincide with the CDC’s guidance on length of isolation.
With respect to quarantine, on March 12, 2021, the CDC issued revised guidance stating that individuals who have had COVID-19 within the past three months do not need to quarantine if exposed once more to someone positive, as long as they do not develop new symptoms. Similarly, the CDC’s recommendations for fully vaccinated people states that people who have been fully vaccinated do not need to quarantine after an exposure, as long as they experience no symptoms. Previously, the CDC limited this exclusion to quarantine only to individuals who had been fully vaccinated within 90 days. Now, the CDC appears to take a broader approach. Some states, including states with occupational safety and health state plans, may have specific rules regarding quarantine that differ from the CDC guidance regardless of vaccination status.
With the increasing number of Americans becoming vaccinated each day, time will tell as to which states will adopt the CDC’s recommendations. For now, state and local law must be consulted when evaluating the need and duration of quarantine for employees.
All employers, even those in states where quarantine may not be required for fully vaccinated employees, should exercise caution in handling communications regarding employees’ vaccination status when assessing return to work considerations. According to the EEOC’s guidance, asking whether a worker has been vaccinated is not a disability-related inquiry; however, the information may be protected by state or local privacy laws. Employers should be specific about what information should and should not be provided by employees to prevent unsolicited disclosure of medical or genetic information. There are other considerations and best practices for employers when it comes to employees’ vaccination status.
On the Horizon in 2021
While the future looks bright, employers can expect to see a lasting impact from COVID-19.
Continued Spotlight on Paid Sick, Family Leave
The pandemic unquestionably shined a light on employer paid leave policies. Pre-pandemic, many states and cities (such as Arizona, California, Nevada, New York, and others) already passed paid sick leave laws. There has been a push at the federal level for employers to provide paid sick leave. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) expired on December 31, 2020. The FFCRA required employers with fewer than 500 employees to provide paid sick and family leave for certain COVID-19-related reasons. To encourage employers to continue offering paid leave, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 gave employers who were covered under the FFCRA the option to voluntarily provide “qualified” paid sick leave or paid family leave wages to their employees and continue to receive a tax credit for such wages until March 31, 2021.
Under the American Rescue Plan Act signed by President Biden on March 11, the tax credits will again be extended, to September 30, 2021. However, Congress made significant changes to the FFCRA and the qualifying reasons for leave. Importantly, employee paid sick leave allotments will reset on April 1, 2021, the reasons for leave have been expanded to address testing and vaccination issues, and the paid family leave can be used for reasons other than childcare issues. (For more details of how the American Rescue Plan Act modifies the FFCRA, see The American Rescue Plan Extends FFCRA Tax Credit, But Not the Mandate.)
Remember that the FFCRA is voluntary and does not have any impact on employers with more than 500 employees. As a result, ongoing efforts for federal or state and local paid sick and family leave laws are expected. California, for example, has resurrected the statewide COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave that expired at the end of 2020.
Return to Work
For the past year, employers have been encouraged, or required in some cases, to offer remote work to the extent possible. Technology companies have tried to keep up with demand. For example, according to the BBC, the use of Zoom increased 30 fold in April 2020.
Employers eager to return to in-person operations should be prepared for potential resistance from employees who have grown accustomed to working from home, as well as potential accommodation requests related to leave or continued remote work from those who cannot return to work due to medical issues. The EEOC guidance referenced above explains how the pandemic may impact the analysis of whether a requested accommodation poses “significant difficulty” or “significant expense” under the ADA. For example, the EEOC recognizes that the business losses associated with the pandemic are a relevant consideration and that “an employer must weigh the cost of an accommodation against its current budget while taking into account constraints created by this pandemic.” On the other hand, the EEOC also warns against excluding certain workers from the workplace involuntarily based on an employee’s higher risk for severe COVID-19 illness. Employers will need to balance the desire to return to “normal” with their obligations under the ADA and other federal and state laws.
Litigation for Years to Come
Jackson Lewis has developed COVID-19 Employment LitWatch to help employers track litigation trends related to COVID-19. Since the start of the pandemic, over 1,800 complaints have been filed in federal and state courts that allege related labor and employment law violations. More than 55 percent of the complaints allege violations related to disability, leave and accommodation, or discrimination or harassment. California has the most COVID-19 employment lawsuits in the country. (It allows employees to immediately request a right to sue notice from the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing.) Under federal and many state employment discrimination laws, employees often are required to wait months before requesting a right to sue notice. The waiting period frequently creates a delay between a challenged employment action and a lawsuit. Thus, employers may be seeing COVID-19 litigation well into 2022 and beyond.
To reduce the risk of litigation, employers should continue to monitor the ever-changing landscape of federal and state COVID-19 rules and orders. Employers can use Jackson Lewis’ COVID-19 Advisor to stay up-to-date on COVID-19 issues in all 50 states, including health and safety protocols, paid sick leave guidance, paid family leave and mini-Family and Medical Leave Act guidance, and business opening rules, among many other topics.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are closely monitoring the evolving demands on employers, including agency guidance, regulations, and best practices and are available to assist employers in preparing policies and procedures related to COVID-19 and other workplace matters.
California’s Labor Commissioner Issues Required Poster and FAQ Regarding New COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave
On the anniversary of California’s statewide shelter-in-place orders, Governor Newsom signed legislation bringing back the statewide COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave.
The new statute requires employers to display a required poster issued by the California Labor Commissioner and which the Labor Commissioner issued on March 22, 2021. Like prior required posters, the notice includes covered leave reasons and the amount of time eligible employees are entitled. If employees do not frequent the workplace, employers may satisfy the notice requirement by disseminating via electronic means, including e-mail. The statute provides a 10-day grace period until March 29, 2021, for employers to comply but should disseminate or display the poster as soon as feasible.
The Labor Commissioner, also quickly released a Frequently Asked Questions page, regarding the new COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Sick Leave. It includes information on:
- Coverage
- Reasons for Taking Leave
- Start Date and End Date of the Statute
- Requesting Leave from an Employer
- Calculating Leave Entitlement
- Credits Against Entitlement
- Record-keeping and Paystubs
- Enforcement
- Relation to Other Laws
Jackson Lewis continues to track issues related to employee leave and COVID-19. If you have questions about California’s new supplemental paid sick leave or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.
New York State Employees Entitled to Paid Time Off for COVID-19 Vaccinations
Effective immediately, New York State employers must provide employees with up to four hours of paid time off per COVID-19 vaccination. The new law sunsets on December 31, 2022.
The new law provides that:
- All New York employees must receive a paid leave of absence for “a sufficient period of time” not to exceed four hours per vaccine injection. In other words, employees may be entitled to up to eight hours of paid time off if receiving a two-injection COVID-19 vaccine;
- This leave must be paid at the employee’s regular rate of pay; and
- Employers cannot require employees to use other available leave (such as sick leave or vacation time) before providing this leave.
The new law applies to both public and private employers, with potential carveouts for employees subject to a collective bargaining agreement.
In addition to the paid time off requirement, the new law prohibits discrimination or retaliation against any employee who exercises their rights under the law.
The new law is silent as to any retroactive effect, if any. It is also silent as to the types of documentation employers can request from employees seeking this leave.
While some employers already voluntarily provide paid time off to employees for COVID-19 vaccination, New York employers should:
- As a best practice, ensure policies are updated to reflect this additional leave entitlement, although the law does not have a policy or specific recordkeeping requirement;
- Confirm that no one is required to use available time off under company policy before using this leave;
- Communicate this paid time off entitlement to employees;
- Decide whether to request proof of vaccination, keeping in mind confidentiality and privacy issues; and
- Ensure managers are aware of this leave right and the relevant non-discrimination and retaliation provisions.
As similar time-off-to-vaccinate legislation are pending in many jurisdictions, employers are encouraged to reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom they work for additional information.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are closely monitoring updates and changes to legal requirements and guidance and are available to help employers weed through the complexities involved with 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.
The American Rescue Plan Extends FFCRA Tax Credit, But Not the Mandate
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (the “Plan”). The Plan is the most recent stimulus bill enacted to address the COVID-19 pandemic and it comes almost one year to the date the first COVID relief bill containing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) was passed.
The employer leave obligations contained in the FFCRA ended on December 31, 2020. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, which was passed on December 27, 2020, did not extend the FFCRA obligations; rather, it gave employers who were covered under the FFCRA the option to voluntarily decide to provide “qualified” paid sick leave or paid family leave wages to their employees and continue to receive a tax credit for such wages until March 31, 2021.
Although there was discussion about extending the FFCRA mandate and extending it to employers of all sizes, the Plan does not mandate employers provide COVID-19 related leave and continues to limit the tax credit to employers covered by the FFCRA (which for private employers, means employers with less than 500 employees).
For those covered employers that choose to voluntarily provide leave, the Plan extends the date employers can receive tax credits for qualified wages paid to employees from March 31, 2021 until September 30, 2021. Unlike the Consolidated Appropriations Act that did not expand the qualifying reasons for leave and limited qualifying wages to any unused entitlement under FFCRA, among other new provisions, the Plan expands the qualified leave reasons and provides new allotments of paid time that can qualify for tax credits.
Below are some FAQs on the changes made by the Plan:
Are Employers Required to Provide Emergency Paid Sick Leave or Emergency Family Medical Leave?
No. The mandate ended on December 31, 2020.
If Covered Employers Choose to Provide Emergency Paid Sick Leave or Emergency Family Medical Leave, Can They Still Receive the Tax Credit?
Yes. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 allowed covered employers who voluntarily provided paid sick leave or paid family leave under the same terms as provided under the FFCRA to continue to take a tax credit through March 31, 2021. The Plan provides the opportunity for tax credits to continue for qualifying wages paid from April 1, 2021 to September 30, 2021.
For What Purposes Can Paid Leave Be Provided in order for a Covered Employer to receive a Tax Credit?
In order to receive the tax credit, leave must be provided for a qualifying reason under the FFCRA for either the Emergency Paid Sick Leave or the Emergency Family and Medical Leave. The American Rescue Plan expanded the reasons for both the paid sick leave (“PSL”) and paid family leave (“PFL”) to include leave provided to an employee who is:
- Obtaining a COVID-19 immunization,
- Recovering from an injury, disability, illness or condition related to COVID-19 immunization, or
- Seeking or awaiting the results of a COVID-19 test or diagnosis because either the employee has been exposed to COVID or the employer requested the test or diagnosis
In addition, the Plan expanded the reasons that leave can be provided as PFL (which is a longer period than the PSL) and still receive the credit, to include all of the reasons that PSL can be used, which includes instances where an employee is subject to a quarantine or isolation order, where an employee was told to self-quarantine by a healthcare provider due to COVID-19, where an employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis, where an employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or has been advised to self-quarantine, and where an employee’s son or daughter’s school or place of child care is closed due to COVID-19.
How Much Leave May a Covered Employer Provide and Still Receive the Tax Credit?
The Plan permits covered employers to receive a tax credit for up to ten days of PSL for employees starting April 1, 2021, even if an employer previously has taken a tax credit for PSL leave paid to those employees prior to April 1, 2021. The tax credit an employer can receive for PSL is based on an employee’s regular rate of pay if the leave is needed for one of the new reasons related to immunization or testing (described above) or because of the employee’s own symptoms, quarantine or isolation up to a cap at $511 a day. For any other PSL reason, the amount of tax credit an employer can receive is limited to 2/3 the employee’s regular rate of pay and capped at $200 a day.
Employers can also receive a tax credit for up to 12 weeks of PFL. The total cap for PFL has been increased from $10,000 to $12,000. An employer can now take a total tax credit of up to $12,000 per employee. The available credit per employee is still limited to 2/3 the employee’s regular rate of pay up to a maximum of $200 per day for all PFL reasons for leave, including the new leave reasons related to immunization or testing (described above) and reasons that qualify for a $511 per day cap when the wages are paid under the PSL provisions. The first two weeks of PFL no longer need to be unpaid.
Is a Covered Employer Eligible For the Tax Credits if it Provides PSL and/or PFL Only to Certain Employees?
The Plan includes a non-discrimination requirement. Employers may not claim a tax credit on any PSL or PFL wages paid in any calendar quarter if the employer discriminates in favor of highly compensated employees (within the meaning of Section 414(q) of the Internal Revenue Code), full-time employees or employees on the basis of employment tenure in providing the PSL or PFL, as applicable. However, this non-discrimination provision applies separately to PSL wages and PFL wages and so employers should be able to choose only PSL or PFL and still receive the tax credit for its payment of the PSL or PFL wages, as applicable.
Applicability of tax credits under the Plan are subject to IRS guidance. As it did in response to the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, we expect the IRS will issue additional FAQs in the near future.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are closely monitoring updates and guidance in this area and are available to assist employers in preparing policies and procedures related to COVID-19 paid time off.
Vaccinated Grandparents Can Visit Indoors with Grandchildren, but what Do the New CDC Guidelines Mean at Work?
This week, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its first set of recommendations for fully vaccinated people. Significantly, the recommendations are interim only, and will continue to be updated and expanded by the CDC based on the level of community spread, proportion of the U.S. population fully vaccinated, and emerging scientific understanding of the vaccines.
In this welcome guidance, the CDC acknowledged evidence suggesting fully vaccinated individuals are “less likely to have asymptomatic infection and potentially less likely to transmit” the virus to others, and that the benefits of reducing social isolation and relaxing some quarantine measures for fully vaccinated individuals may outweigh the residual risk of passing on COVID-19 or becoming ill.
An individual is considered “fully vaccinated” two weeks after they have either received the second dose of the 2-dose series of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine or two weeks after they have received the single-dose Johnson and Johnson vaccine.
Per the CDC, fully vaccinated individuals in a non-healthcare setting:
- Can visit with other fully vaccinated individuals indoors and in private settings without wearing masks or physical distancing; and,
- Can visit with unvaccinated individuals from a single household at low risk for severe COVID-19 disease indoors without wearing masks or physical distancing; and,
- Need not quarantine and test after a known exposure so long as he or she remains asymptomatic.
However, the CDC states that fully vaccinated people should not visit with others or attend a gathering if they have tested positive for COVID-19 in the prior 10 days or are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, regardless of the vaccination status of other people at the gathering.
As for fully vaccinated employees that work in non-healthcare congregate settings (such as correctional and detention facilities and group homes) and other high-density workplaces (such as meat and poultry processing and manufacturing plants), the CDC said they need not quarantine after an exposure so long as no symptoms present. However, for this group the CDC still recommends testing following an exposure and continued compliance with any routine workplace screening programs in place. Significantly, the CDC explained that the agency is still learning how long the COVID-19 vaccine may protect someone and how well vaccines protect against emerging variants.
Fully vaccinated individuals should continue preventive measures like masking and physical distancing when visiting with unvaccinated individuals who are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 or who have an unvaccinated household member at increased risk for severe COVID-19. In addition, the CDC recommends a fully vaccinated individual get a COVID-19 test if he or she experiences COVID-19 symptoms.
Further, the CDC advised fully vaccinated individuals should continue to wear well-fitted masks, maintain physical distance from others while in public or visiting with unvaccinated people from multiple households and avoid poorly ventilated spaces and medium- and large-sized in-person gatherings. The CDC also said that vaccinated people should follow CDC and health department travel requirements and recommendation and follow guidance issued by individual employers.
What does this mean for employers? The CDC’s pronouncement that so long as they experience no symptoms, fully vaccinated employees do not need to quarantine after COVID-19 exposure is good news indeed and may significantly alleviate concerns over staffing. But employers may also begin to face increasing pressure from vaccinated employees to relax workplace protocols such as mask mandates. For the time being, it may be best to tread cautiously when responding to such requests.
Keep in mind that the CDC’s guidance does not override any existing state and local requirements. Many states have already issued modified orders and standards that relax post-exposure quarantine requirements for those who are vaccinated or that even rescind mask mandates. But other states have yet to take action. In addition, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidance directs employers to require masks in the workplace, and employers around the country are waiting to see whether OSHA will issue a COVID-19 emergency temporary standard in the next few days. If issued, this standard may or may not address masks in the workplace or incorporate the CDC’s recommendations. Some OSHA state plans already have COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards that require masks in the workplace irrespective of vaccines and may have specific rules regarding quarantine also irrespective of vaccines and which may also differ from CDC guidance. Employers should make sure to check any OSHA rules specific to their states and consult with counsel before changing any workplace requirements.
Given the rapidly changing health and regulatory environment, we expect this guidance to continue to evolve. Employers may want to hold off for now on modifying their existing COVID-19 workplace safety policies.
Regular Attendance is Essential Even if Employer was Lenient in the Past, Fifth Circuit Holds
An employer’s past leniency in applying and enforcing its attendance policy did not contradict the employer’s later position that regular worksite attendance was required for employment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held. Weber v. BNSF Railway Co., No. 20-10295 (5th Cir. Feb. 24, 2021).
This provides guidance for employers unsure whether accommodating an employee’s absences creates a “precedent” making it harder in the future to establish that regular attendance is an essential job function. The Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction over Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.
Background
Jay Weber was employed as a train dispatcher by BNSF Railway until his termination in 2016. The employer maintained an attendance policy that prohibited “excessive absenteeism,” which it defined as excessive absences that “disrupts the regular working schedule of other dispatchers in their assigned office.” It maintained a progressive discipline policy under which the gravity of disciplinary action increased with the number of attendance violations.
Throughout his tenure, Weber violated BNSF’s attendance policy many times, leading to disciplinary action. Prior to 2014, BNSF did not consistently apply its attendance policy, but, in 2014, it implemented a new enforcement strategy that required more accountability for violating the attendance policy.
In 2015, Weber had a seizure and was diagnosed with epilepsy. BNSF placed him on a three-month leave of absence because he could not safely perform his job as a dispatcher. When Weber’s doctor cleared him to return to work, Weber sought two accommodations: (i) time off to attend doctor visits to monitor his epilepsy; and (ii) time off when he experienced “triggering events” that may increase the risk of seizure, such as sleeping fewer than four hours.
While BNSF was lenient toward absences in the past, it put Weber on notice that violations of BNSF’s attendance guideline “could result in further disciplinary action.” Under the employer’s progressive discipline policy, the company disciplined Weber for excessive absenteeism and later terminated him on May 18, 2016.
Weber sued BNSF under federal and state law, arguing that the employer failed to accommodate his absences because regular worksite attendance was not an essential function of his job since BNSF was previously lenient with his attendance.
The district court granted summary judgment for BNSF, determining that the evidence raised no dispute of fact and that Weber failed to show he was a “qualified individual with a disability.” Weber appealed.
Attendance is Essential
The Fifth Circuit Court affirmed summary judgment in BNSF’s favor. It concluded that regular worksite attendance, in fact, was an essential function of most jobs.
In determining whether a function is essential, the court looked at the employer’s judgment as to which functions were essential and the consequences of not requiring an employee to perform those functions. Against this standard, the court highlighted several factors based on BNSF’s policies and practices demonstrating that regular attendance was an essential function of Weber’s position. Similarly, the court found that the “consequences” factor also supported a determination that regular worksite attendance was essential to Weber’s position, because the position was essential to operations and his failure to regularly show up to work forced BNSF to find coverage.
As to Weber’s argument related to BNSF’s prior leniency with attendance, the court explained that, while BNSF was lenient in the past, it had now opted for more strict enforcement and provided employees with notice of this change. The court, therefore, did not have to ignore the evidence that regular worksite attendance was essential where there was evidence the employer changed its enforcement practices regarding attendance.
***
Generally, regular attendance at work is considered an essential function of employment. Employers that have a past practice of accommodating employee absences may not necessarily be precluded from arguing that regular worksite attendance is an essential function in the future, where they can show that, in their judgment, words, policies, and practices, the employer has considered regular attendance to be essential to the job in question.
Job-protected time off remains an accommodation that employers must consider. As employers continue receiving requests to excuse absences as an accommodation, it is important to ensure that there is strict adherence to attendance policies, that employees are on notice of attendance policies, and that employers implement and consistently enforce such policies.
Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to answer inquiries regarding this case and other workplace developments.
Understanding CFRA: Who Is Eligible for CFRA Leave
With the recent expansion of the California Family Rights Act (CFRA), employers who previously were not covered under CFRA now find themselves having to navigate the murky waters of the law. From the basics such as who exactly is eligible for CFRA leave to the more complicated issues dealing with how CFRA works for pregnant employees, employers without experience in these matters could find themselves stepping on a proverbial land mine.
Read the full article at Jackson Lewis California Workplace Law Blog.
Updated Guidance from California’s DFEH at the One Year Mark of the Pandemic
California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH), the agency charged with administering California’s employment discrimination statute and regulations, has updated its COVID-19 guidance for employers. The updates cover many issues that employers had been struggling with during the pandemic, including:
- COVID-19 Inquiries and Protective Equipment
- Employees with COVID-19 Symptoms or Infection
- Job-Protected Leave
- Reasonable Accommodations for Employees with Disability/Vulnerable Populations
- Vaccination
Some of the information that employers may want to take special note of include:
COVID-19 Inquiries
The DFEH states that employers may ask employees if they are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, which is also required under many of California’s local health orders. Employers can also ask an employee why they did not report to work if they suspect the absence was for a medical reason. However, employers must keep confidential any illness or medically related information disclosed by the employee. The guidance provides that employers may also take an employee’s temperature or require an employee to submit to a COVID-19 viral test (but not an antibody test). Employers should note that these allowances are based on the current state of the pandemic and may change as the circumstances continue to develop.
Employees with COVID-19 Symptoms or Infection
Employers are permitted under the current guidance to ask if employees have COVID-19 symptoms, so long as the information is kept confidential. Moreover, employers may send employees home if they have COVID-19 symptoms or test positive for COVID-19. Employers should review the guidance from California’s Labor Commissioner, the agency that enforces wage and hour matters, regarding sending employees home due to COVID-19 symptoms or similar.
Job-Protected Leave
The DEFH reminds employers that employees may qualify for leave under the California Family Rights Act (CFRA) either to care for a family member with COVID-19 or for their own illness if it results in inpatient care or requires continuing treatment or supervision by a health care provider. As with other requests for CFRA leave, employers may require medical certification. However, the DFEH states that “[i]n a pandemic, employers must use their judgment and recommendations from public health officials to waive certification requirements when considering and granting leave requests.”
Vulnerable Populations
The FAQs discuss when reasonable accommodations must be considered for members of vulnerable populations. The DFEH guidance distinguishes between reasons for which someone may be a member of a vulnerable population. If an employee is a member of a vulnerable population because of a disability, then absent an undue hardship, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation. However, if the employee is a member of a vulnerable population because of age alone, there is no obligation to accommodate the employee. The DFEH noted that age is not a disability.
Vaccination
The FAQs provide that an employer may require employees to receive an FDA-approved COVID-19 vaccine if certain criteria are met, including:
- The employer may not discriminate against or harass employees or job applicants on the basis of protected characteristics.
- The employer must provide reasonable accommodations as required by applicable law.
- The employer may not retaliate against anyone for engaging in protected activity such as requesting a reasonable accommodation.
The FAQs also provide that employers who have a mandatory vaccine program may ask for “proof” of vaccination. If employers make such requests, the FAQs provide that employers “may wish to instruct their employees or applicants to omit any medical information from such documentation.” Employers are reminded that an individual’s vaccination status must be kept confidential.
Jackson Lewis continues to track federal, state, and local guidance pertaining to COVID-19 and the workplace. If you have questions about the DFEH guidance or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.