Category: Strategic counseling

Coronavirus Guidance for Employers: Pandemic Declaration and Government Action

Mara B. Levin, Brooke T. Iley, and Taylor C. Morosco

COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the “coronavirus”) was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization (“WHO”) on March 11, 2020, and continues to impact businesses and public life around the world. The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) is monitoring the status of the coronavirus, and various state and local governmental agencies are issuing states of emergency and quarantine directives. The virus continues to spread without containment, creating a host of new real-time issues for employers to address as the general duty to provide a safe working environment has significantly increased.

WHAT IS A PANDEMIC?

WHO has described a pandemic as the worldwide spread of a new disease. For a general discussion of what constitutes a pandemic, review WHO’s general guidance here.

What did WHO say about the COVID-19 pandemic?

WHO’s Director General made his remarks in a briefing to the media about the pandemic and, among other things, outlined general steps that countries should take, which are available here.

WHAT IS THE LATEST FEDERAL RESPONSE TO COVID-19?

On March 11, 2020, President Trump issued a ban on travel from Europe (minus the United Kingdom) to the United States beginning Friday, March 13, 2020, at midnight.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

 

How to Approach Coronavirus-Related Workplace Scenarios

Mara B. Levin, Brooke T. Iley, and Taylor C. Morosco

COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the “coronavirus”), a respiratory illness that was first diagnosed in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, has hit the United States. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern and the virus is being classified as an epidemic. With the spread of the virus, employers face a series of constantly evolving questions regarding their competing legal obligations to provide a safe workplace.

While the immediate risk of contracting COVID-19 in most workplaces remains low, many federal agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), have issued specific guidance for employers to respond to the disease. This client alert discusses recommended approaches and alternatives to specific situations affecting employees in the workplace. Implementation of these recommendations may need to be tailored to your particular business, with consideration being given to workplaces with employees who work in concentrated spaces; employees who have greater exposure on a daily basis with the public; employers who can easily transition to remote working arrangements; and employers who can afford to pay healthy employees to stay home.

WHAT SHOULD AN EMPLOYER DO IF AN EMPLOYEE…

…is sheltering a self-quarantined person?

The CDC does not recommend testing, symptom monitoring, or special management for people exposed to asymptomatic people with potential exposures to the virus. These people are not considered to be exposed and therefore are categorized as having “no identifiable risk.” As a result, there are no extraordinary precautions that need be taken other than those imposed on all employees, which is to stay home if they are feeling sick. Of course, employers can take extra precautions that they deem necessary.

…is exposed to a symptomatic person?

Please click here for the full client alert. 

Guidance for Employers to Address Coronavirus in the Workplace

Brooke T. Iley, Jason E. Reisman, Susan L. Bickley, Anthony B. Haller, Mara B. Levin, and Taylor C. Morosco

COVID-19 (commonly referred to as the “coronavirus”), a respiratory illness that was first diagnosed in Wuhan, China, in late 2019, has hit the United States. The World Health Organization (“WHO”) has declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern and the virus is being classified as an epidemic. With the spread of the virus, employers face a series of constantly evolving questions regarding their competing legal obligations to provide a safe workplace, while protecting the privacy rights of their employees, and without violating anti-discrimination laws.

WHAT LAWS ARE POTENTIALLY IMPLICATED?

Before an employer responds to these challenges, they should be familiar with the laws implicated with an epidemic like the coronavirus:

Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSHA”)

OSHA’s General Duty Clause requires employers to maintain a safe workplace for all workers and to distribute information and training about workplace hazards. It also bars employers from retaliating against employees for exercising their rights to safe workplaces.

The situation is constantly evolving. Employers must monitor the developments about the ongoing outbreak and assess government notifications to formulate appropriate workplace responses and preventative measures.

Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”)

The ADA protects employees from discrimination based on their disability, record of a disability, or perceived disability. “Disability” has a broad definition, which could cover the coronavirus. This means that those who have or are suspected of having the coronavirus could be covered by the ADA, depending on its impact on the employee, or, for instance, if an employee is perceived to be disabled. Employers must be sensitive to the risk of discrimination under the ADA. The ADA also requires employers to keep employee medical information and records confidential and in a separate folder from the employee’s personnel file.

Employers must balance these competing legal requirements as they adjust business practices to address coronavirus concerns. Employers should act to protect their workforce, with an eye toward discrimination laws, all the while maintaining tact and sensitivity towards those who have or may be suspected of having contracted the virus. This is not a science and often involves a case-by-case determination.

Please click here for the full client alert. 

California Corner: The Employee v. Contractor Saga Continues as Uber and Postmates Face First Defeat in Attempt to Enjoin AB5

Caroline Powell Donelan and Natalie Alameddine

The hopes of California gig economy companies to retain the flexibility to classify workers as independent contractors were dashed this week when a federal district court judge refused to enjoin Assembly Bill 5 (“AB5”), which codifies the “ABC” test for most independent contractor classifications.

Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB5 into law last fall, effecting a seismic change on California’s legal landscape. Effective January 1, 2020, the law makes it nearly impossible for companies to lawfully classify most workers as independent contractors (rather than employees). The bill expands on California Supreme Court’s three-prong “ABC” test from its 2018 Dynamex decision for determining how workers can be classified, which you can read about here. With certain limited statutory exceptions, AB5 provides that, to properly classify a worker as an independent contractor in California, an employer must demonstrate that the worker: (A) is free from the company’s control and direction; (B) performs work outside of the company’s usual course of business; and (C) is customarily engaged in independent work of the same nature as the work performed. There is no balancing, as all three factors must be met. Continue reading “California Corner: The Employee v. Contractor Saga Continues as Uber and Postmates Face First Defeat in Attempt to Enjoin AB5”

PA Approves White Collar Salary Threshold Increases—Leaves FLSA in the Dust

Jason E. Reisman

Boom—take that, Pennsylvania employers!

As a result of Governor Wolf’s battle with the Pennsylvania Republican-controlled legislature being at an impasse over a potential state minimum wage increase, the Governor pressed the Commonwealth’s Independent Regulatory Review Commission (“IRRC”) to approve his administration’s previously proposed increase to the salary threshold for the so-called “white collar exemptions” under the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (“PMWA”). Last week, the IRRC voted 3-2 to approve the proposed rule—which is the last regulatory step before the increases to the salary threshold would become effective (though it is unclear at this time when the rule will formally be effective, as we believe it first requires review and approval from the Attorney General).

Background

Governor Wolf first introduced the proposed salary threshold increase in the summer of 2018, after facing repeated rejections of his efforts to raise the Commonwealth’s minimum wage from the federal minimum of $7.25 per hour to at least $12 per hour. The proposed rule has had somewhat of a long and winding road to get to today—but, nonetheless, it now appears primed for implementation. Continue reading “PA Approves White Collar Salary Threshold Increases—Leaves FLSA in the Dust”

Breaking: California Grants Preliminarily Injunction of AB-51

Caroline Powell Donelan

UPDATE: Today, a federal court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of AB-51 (California’s anti-arbitration law discussed here, here, and here) as it relates to arbitration agreements governed by the Federal Arbitration Association (“FAA”). We will get a detailed order from the court soon, but the minute order issued today is below. A great reminder to employers who wish to implement arbitration that the agreement should always expressly state it is governed by the FAA. Continue reading “Breaking: California Grants Preliminarily Injunction of AB-51”

No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!

Stephen E. Tisman

In July, we reported that the New York State Legislature had passed a bill that could substantially alter the legal landscape of wage disputes by allowing employees with wage claims to file liens against their employers’ assets in the amount of the claim. The lien could be filed without any court order or determination of probable liability. The bill further permitted attachments of the employer’s property and would have expanded the personal liability of the 10 largest shareholders of non-public companies by making them liable not only for wages, but also for interest, penalties, liquidated damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

On January 1, 2020, anxious employers got a reprieve—albeit a temporary one—when Governor Cuomo vetoed the legislation. Continue reading “No New York Employee Wage Liens—Yet!”

Salary History Ban Spreads—New Jersey and New York Jump on Board!

Alix L. Udelson

New Jersey and New York are the latest states to prohibit employers from asking job applicants about their pay history and considering pay information in making employment decisions.

New Jersey

In New Jersey, effective January 1, 2020, private employers cannot screen applicants based on their pay history. Employers also cannot require an applicant’s salary history satisfy a certain minimum or maximum criteria. Employers may not consider an applicant’s refusal to provide compensation information in making an employment decision.

There are several noteworthy exceptions and limitations to this law. Continue reading “Salary History Ban Spreads—New Jersey and New York Jump on Board!”

California’s New Anti-Arbitration Law Temporarily Enjoined by Federal Court

Caroline Powell Donelan

UPDATE: On December 29, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California issued an order temporarily enjoining the enforcement of AB 51 (California’s anti-arbitration law discussed here and here) pending resolution of plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, highlighting the “likelihood of irreparable injury” to California employers, and noting plaintiffs had “raised serious questions regarding whether the challenged statute is preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act as construed by the United States Supreme Court.”

The court will hear plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on January 10, 2020.

Stay tuned.

California Employers Fight Back on Governor Newsom’s Attempt to Prevent Mandatory Arbitration Agreements, Seeking to Enjoin AB 51

Natalie Alameddine

As the new year approaches, California employer associations have taken action to prevent Assembly Bill (“AB”) 51 from taking effect. As referenced in this BR Workplace Post, AB 51, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, 2019, prohibits mandatory arbitration in cases under the Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) and California Labor Code, and also prohibits employers from retaliating against individuals who do not consent to arbitration agreements. AB 51 is in part motivated by the #MeToo movement, and part reflective of California’s ongoing battle against the U.S. Supreme Court’s unwavering support of arbitration. It is designed to ensure employees maintain the right to bring FEHA and wage-and-hour actions in court, rather than forced arbitration as a condition of employment.

As employers across the state stare down the barrel of AB 51, the California Chamber of Commerce filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in federal court in California last week seeking to prevent AB 51 from going into effect on the grounds that it is invalid and preempted by the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”). The FAA has a long-established policy favoring arbitration as a means for efficient and individualized alternative dispute resolution. The U.S. Supreme Court has also steadfastly refused to allow employees to circumvent the FAA and file actions in court.

The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is set for January 10, 2020, nine days after AB 51’s effective date. Only time will tell how the court will rule. In the meantime, employers should contact legal counsel to determine the best, tailored course of action given their specific operations, workforce, and overall risk tolerance.