Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?

Brooke T. Iley and Albert B. Krachman

Do not be surprised if, before the end of 2021, the federal government begins requiring contractors to certify or represent that their employees have received COVID vaccinations. The federal government has long conditioned contract awards on contractor compliance with emerging social policy mandates. This practice dates backs to the 1960s, when collateral social policy clauses began appearing in federal contracts. The National Emergency created by COVID-19 would appear ripe for a similar federal government action in federal contracting.

Several factors are converging in the United States which signal the potential for a COVID vaccine Certification or Representation. First, the supply issue should be mostly resolved by June 30, 2021. The Biden administration has committed to make enough vaccines available for every adult in the country by the end of May 2021. Second, the administration has been extremely active in making procurement law changes to conform to its policy objectives. Crafting an Executive Order on COVID Vaccines for federal contractor employees is clearly within the administration’s wheelhouse and target zone. Third, as reported in the March 8, 2021, Wall Street Journal, the largest employers in the country, across all sectors, are already engaged in large scale efforts to vaccinate their own employees. Fourth, while the law in this area is still evolving, the prevailing view is that, with certain exceptions, private employers are legally permitted to mandate their employees receive COVID vaccinations as a condition of continuing employment, subject to a variety of considerations related to employee legal, medical, and workplace accommodations. Finally, the federal government might find a federal contractor vaccine mandate a helpful leverage point in the evolving conflict with those states choosing to disregard COVID protections. Continue reading “Will Federal Contractors Be Required to Certify Employee COVID Vaccinations?”

Delaware Court Preserves McDonald’s Right to Seek Clawback of Ex-CEO’s Severance Benefits

Daniel L. Morgan

A recent decision by the Delaware Chancery Court in the clawback litigation between McDonald’s Corporation and its former CEO highlights the meaning and impact of a common contractual provision: the “integration clause.” Such provisions (sometimes also called “entire agreement” clauses) state that the contract at issue embodies the entire agreement of the parties and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings between them. The Delaware court rebuffed an effort by the former CEO to argue that the integration clause in his separation agreement precludes McDonald’s from asserting that the CEO’s false statements made while negotiating that agreement provide a basis for seeking repayment of severance benefits he received. The court’s opinion lays out the requirements that a contract must satisfy in order to prevent a party from using the other party’s deceptive or fraudulent statements made prior to entering the contract to seek repayment of the consideration provided. The case is McDonald’s Corporation v. Stephen J. Easterbrook.

Background of the McDonald’s Litigation

In 2019, McDonald’s Corporation parted company with its then-CEO, Stephen Easterbrook, finding that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with an employee. McDonald’s and Mr. Easterbrook negotiated and entered into an agreement that treated his separation as “without cause” and paid him significant severance benefits. Several months after Mr. Easterbrook’s departure, additional improprieties were brought to the attention of McDonald’s Board, resulting in McDonald’s filing a lawsuit to claw back the severance benefits previously paid. McDonald’s argues that it would not have agreed to the terms of the separation agreement if Mr. Easterbrook had not covered up the extent of his indiscretions.

Continue reading “Delaware Court Preserves McDonald’s Right to Seek Clawback of Ex-CEO’s Severance Benefits”

New! California Provides Additional Guidance on “Big Brother” Pay Data Reporting Requirements

Caroline Powell Donelan and Howard M. Knee

As a reminder, California’s new pay data reporting for employers with 100 or more employees (and at least one employee in California) is due on or by March 31, 2021. You can read more about these new requirements here. California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) has released helpful FAQs to walk employers through the filing requirements and required content. On February 1, 2021, the DFEH also published a 67-page California Pay Data Reporting Portal User Guide. While the portal itself will not be available until February 16, 2021, the user guide contains helpful information on pay data report content, differences and similarities between the California report and the EEO-1 report, and navigating the Pay Data Reporting Portal (once available), as well as sample reports. Please contact us with any questions.

Biden Administration Prioritizing Federal Contractor Workforce Protections

Merle M. DeLancey Jr.

Protection of the workforce is a major focus of the Biden Administration. Rather than attempting to pass new legislation or amend existing statutes, the path of least resistance in the short term appears to be the use of executive orders to implement or, as here, rescind Trump Administration Executive Orders and put into effect many of the same policies as the Obama Administration. The starting point for the Biden Administration is to take the steps to implement rules with respect to the federal workforce and the workforce performing federal government contracts.

One of President Biden’s first actions in office was to direct federal government agencies to start the work to permit implementation of certain changes within the first 100 days of the administration through further executive action. These initiatives most likely will include an increased federal contractor minimum wage, requirements to offer employment to employees of an incumbent contractor, perhaps requiring contractors to disclose labor violations when seeking federal contracts, and increased Service Contract Act (“SCA”) enforcement.

      • President Biden’s Executive Order 14003 on Protecting the Federal Workforce issued on January 22, among other requirements, directed the Office of Management and Budget to make recommendations regarding establishing a $15 minimum wage for federal employees and federal contractors and subcontractors (the current federal contractor minimum wage is $10.95) and to provide employees with emergency paid leave.
      • President Biden’s Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government issued on January 20 revoked President Trump’s controversial Executive Order prohibiting certain types of workplace diversity trainings for federal government contractors.
Continue reading “Biden Administration Prioritizing Federal Contractor Workforce Protections”

D.C. Mayor Signs Non-Compete Ban, Dramatically Alters Competitive Landscape

Kevin M. Passerini and Daniel L. Morgan

Late in December 2020, the District of Columbia Council passed legislation titled, “Ban on Non-Compete Agreements Amendment Act of 2020” (the “Act”), barring the use of non-compete agreements and workplace policies that restrict D.C. employees from competing with their employers after, and even during, employment. This week, the Mayor signed the law. Barring an unlikely intervention by Congress (which has authority to review legislation passed by the D.C. Council), the law will take effect after the 30-day Congressional review period.

This Act follows a recent, growing trend to limit the use of non-competes, but it goes further than other recent legislative efforts: it applies to employees at all income levels and even bars the use of “during-employment” non-competes and workplace policies such as those aimed at preventing disloyalty and abuse of company resources. Several key areas warrant emphasis.

Ban Applies to Employees Performing Work in D.C. for Employers that Operate in D.C.

The Act applies to “employees,” defined as any “individual who performs work in the [District of Columbia] on behalf of an employer and any prospective employee who an employer reasonably anticipates will perform work on behalf of the employer in the [District of Columbia].” The term “employer” is defined as “an individual, partnership, general contractor, subcontractor, association, corporation, or business trust operating in the District, or any person or group of persons acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer operating in the District in relation to an employee, including a prospective employer.”

Continue reading “D.C. Mayor Signs Non-Compete Ban, Dramatically Alters Competitive Landscape”

EEOC Releases New Guidance on Impact of COVID-19 Vaccinations

Mara B. Levin, Anthony A. Mingione, and Jacob W.E. Kearney






The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released updated guidance on December 16, 2020, to address the impact of COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace. The guidance indicates that employers may require COVID-19 vaccinations for workers to be able to return to the workplace as long as employers comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (“Title VII”), the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (“GINA”).

Here are a few highlights:

      • Administration of the vaccine by the employer (or a contractor on the employer’s behalf) is not a medical examination and does not implicate the ADA, GINA, or Title VII. Employers must ensure, however, that all vaccine pre-screening questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity” and do not request genetic information.
      • Asking or requiring employees to show proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination is not a disability-related inquiry under the ADA because it is not likely to reveal information about any disability, nor does it impact GINA. Subsequent questions, such as “why did an employee not receive the vaccine,” would implicate concerns under the ADA and GINA, however. Employers must therefore also ensure that follow-up questions are “job-related and consistent with business necessity” and avoid asking questions about genetic information or family medical history.
      • Employers must provide reasonable accommodations, subject to “undue hardship” analysis, to workers who are unable to get the vaccine because of a disability (under the ADA) or sincerely held religious beliefs (under Title VII).
      • An employer may physically preclude an employee who cannot be vaccinated from entering the workplace when that employee poses a “direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace,” which threat cannot be eliminated by a reasonable accommodation. However, an employer may not automatically terminate the employment of that worker. Employers must consider what protections the employee may have under relevant EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities.

We encourage employers working on their return-to-work strategies to review the EEOC guidance as they consider how and whether to implement COVID-19 vaccination requirements. If you have any questions or need guidance specific to your workplace, please do not hesitate to contact Blank Rome for more information.

Defaulting 401(k) Plan Borrowers in the Time of COVID

Daniel L. Morgan

The great majority of 401(k) plans allow participants to borrow against their plan benefits. These loans are secured by the borrowing participant’s plan account and are typically repaid by withholding amounts from the borrower’s paychecks.

Plan loans are subject to a number of limitations, including a repayment period of five years (unless the loan is used to acquire a primary residence) and a maximum borrowing limit of 50 percent of the borrower’s vested account balance or $50,000.* Violating these limits has adverse tax consequences to the borrower, which are not addressed in this article. The focus of this piece is what happens when someone has borrowed from a 401(k) plan within the limits, terminates employment, and then defaults on the loan—in particular, changes made by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) and a 2017 change to the tax law, which are helpful to the large number of people who may find themselves in this situation during the pandemic.

Plan Loan Defaults by Terminated Employees = Plan Distributions

Under most 401(k) plans, borrowers who terminate employment before paying off their plan loan must either pay the entire remaining amount of the loan within a period of time specified by the plan after cessation of employment or, failing to do so, be considered to be in default on the loan, in which event the tax law treats the borrower as having received a distribution from the plan in the amount of the unpaid loan balance. The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) refers to this amount as a plan offset amount.

Continue reading “Defaulting 401(k) Plan Borrowers in the Time of COVID”

California Corner: Cal-OSHA Steps up Pandemic Regulation—Workplace Safety Is Paramount

Caroline Powell Donelan

If you have googled “California” and/or “COVID‑19” this week, you undoubtedly know that many Golden State counties are again on the verge of shutdown as the state has now passed one million COVID‑19 cases. You also likely know that California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal-OSHA”) just enacted new emergency temporary COVID‑19 safety regulations that went into effect on Monday, November 30.

As with too many California rules, the new regulations are long on technical requirements and short on practical guidance. Cal-OSHA is supposed to meet this month to offer further clarification, and the state has at least published FAQs and an “employer one-pager” to cover the more basic terms and definitions; but in the meantime, below is a high-level snapshot of what you need to know now.

The new regulations cover nearly all California employers with three limited exceptions: (1) workplaces with just one employee who does not have contact with other people; (2) employees who are working from home; and (3) employees covered by Cal-OSHA’s Aerosol Transmissible Disease standard, which applies to certain health care employees and laboratories. For employees that split their time between home and the employer’s workplace, the regulations only apply when the employee works at the workplace or is exposed at work, not when working from home.

As many California businesses have done already, employers must develop a written COVID-19 Prevention Program. Cal-OSHA has posted a Model COVID-19 Prevention Plan for employers to review and adapt.

Continue reading “California Corner: Cal-OSHA Steps up Pandemic Regulation—Workplace Safety Is Paramount”

Large Employers Beware: California’s New Pay Reporting Requirements Will Have the State Looking over Your Shoulder for Years to Come

Caroline Powell Donelan and Howard M. Knee

On or by March 31, 2021, (and each March 31 thereafter), private employers in California with more than 100 full-time and part-time employees that are required to file employer information reports with the federal government (“EEO-1” reports) will be required to submit detailed data to California’s Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) regarding the race, ethnicity, and gender of employees in the 10 job categories used in the federal EEO-1 form. Specifically, SB 973 requires employers to report: (1) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and gender in each of these job categories (looking at any single pay period between October 1 and December 31 of the preceding year); (2) the number of employees by race, ethnicity, and gender whose annual earnings fall within each of the pay bands used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics; (3) the total number of hours worked by each employee counted in each pay band (despite the fact that this information is not commonly kept for exempt workers); and (4) the employer’s North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”) code. If an employer has more than one establishment in California, it is required to submit a report for each establishment, as well as a consolidated report that includes all employees.

And, what will the government do with this data? The stated intent of the law is to identify and remedy pay inequities and strengthen current equal pay laws. The new legislation permits the DFEH to use the data collected to prosecute complaints alleging discriminatory wage practices under the Equal Pay Act (California Labor Code § 1197.5). Moreover, the DFEH is authorized to share the reports with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”), so the DLSE can identify wage patterns and institute litigation to challenge suspected discriminatory practices. In other words, rather than the government responding to complaints from employees, or investigating targeted industries, it will now evaluate all data submitted by large employers and decide whether enforcement action is warranted.

The legislation provides that reported data will be kept confidential and not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. The DFEH, however, may compile, publish, and publicize aggregate reports based on the data it receives, so long as the aggregate reports are reasonably calculated to prevent the association of any data with any individual business or person. The data may be used for investigation and enforcement proceedings by the DFEH and the DLSE under the Fair Employment and Housing Act and Labor Code, respectively. Of course, parties to private litigation will likely seek discovery of reported data as well.

SB 973 essentially mirrors an Obama-era pay data collection rule issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which was later stayed by the Trump administration. Of course, it remains to be seen whether our new administration will revive these collection efforts at the federal level, but for now, California remains willing to carry the torch.

If you have any questions about your pay practices or these new California reporting requirements under SB 973, please contact a member of our Labor & Employment team.

ALERT! PA Increases White Collar Exemption Salary Thresholds

Jason E. Reisman

Finally, the Pennsylvania Department of Labor and Industry (“Department”) formalized its leap to modernize and streamline its regulation governing the executive, administrative, and professional (“EAP”) exemptions (and the outside sales exemption) from the minimum wage and overtime requirements of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. To confirm, yes, the Commonwealth is leaving the U.S. Department of Labor’s recent rule in the dust! See our last blog post on this from February here, as well as the ones from July 2018 and January 2018.

Although the Department took great pains to better—but not fully—align its requirements with those under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), the hallmarks of this new regulation are the new salary threshold increases:

      • $35,568 ($684 per week) effective 10/3/2020 (which matches the FLSA threshold that was effective 1/1/2020—see our prior post here);
      • $40,560 ($780 per week) effective 10/3/2021;
      • $45,500 ($875 per week) effective 10/3/2022; and
      • On 10/3/2023, and every third year thereafter, the minimum salary will change to match the 10th percentile of wages for Pennsylvania workers who work in exempt EAP positions.

Continue reading “ALERT! PA Increases White Collar Exemption Salary Thresholds”