Brunini Law

Labor and Employment

U.S. Department of Labor Unveils Newest Effort to Expand Employee Overtime Eligibility

by

To borrow a phrase from the incomparable Yogi Berra, “[i]t’s like déjà vu all over again.” On Wednesday, August 30, 2023, the United States Department of Labor (“the DOL”) released its newest Proposed Rule that, if implemented, would broaden federal overtime pay regulations to cover millions of additional workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility.  Entitled Defining and Delimiting the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside Sales and Computer Employees, the Proposed Rule seeks to dramatically increase the standard salary level and the highly compensated employee total annual compensation threshold, as well as providing a built-in updating mechanism that would allow for automatic updating of all the thresholds.

 

New 2023 Proposed Rule

Under its new Proposed Rule, the DOL seeks to significantly raise the exempt salary threshold from $684 per week to $1,059 per week.  Stated another way, U.S. employees would need to earn $55,068 or more per year to be exempt from overtime pay – a change the agency says would impact 3.6 million workers who are currently exempt from overtime eligibility.  Additionally, the new Proposed Rule would make the following changes:

  • Automatically update the salary threshold every three (3) years.
  • Raise the threshold for the “highly compensated employee” exemption to $143,988 (from the current threshold of $107,432).
  • Apply salary thresholds in U.S. territories that are subject to federal minimum wage with some exceptions for American Samoa.

The Proposed Rule seeks to update the regulations that govern which executive, administrative, and professional employees (the so-called “white collar” workers) are entitled to minimum wage and overtime pay protections under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“the FLSA”).  The FLSA requires employers to pay its “non-exempt employees” overtime (1.5x the workers’ “regular rate of pay”) for all hours worked in excess of forty (40) per week.  See 29 U.S.C. § 207.  The DOL’s regulations implementing the FLSA sets forth a variety of employment classifications that are “exempt” from the FLSA’s overtime requirement—including employees performing executive, administrative, and/or professional job duties.

Since the 1940’s, in order for an employee to qualify as an exempt, “white collar” employee, he/she had to meet three “tests”:

  • The employee must be paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of work performed;
  • The amount of salary paid must meet a minimum specified amount; and
  • The employee’s job duties must primarily involve executive, administrative, or professional duties (as defined by the regulations).

 

Stroll Down Memory Lane

Until rather recently, the DOL’s last update to these regulations came in 2004, when the agency set the minimum salary threshold at $455 per week (or $23,660 per year).  Then, in May 2016, the Obama-era DOL kicked off a highly-contentious legal fight when it attempted change to the overtime rule by nearly doubling the minimum salary level from $23,660 to nearly $48,000 per year.  At the same time, the 2016 proposal would have also increased the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $134,004 annually (previously set at $100,000), established a mechanism for automatically updating the minimum salary level every three years and allowed employers to use nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments to satisfy up to 10% of the new standard salary level.

Ultimately, the May 2016 proposal was challenged in court.  On November 22, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas enjoined the DOL from implementing and enforcing the proposal. On August 31, 2017, the court granted summary judgment against the DOL, invalidating the May 2016 proposal.  Currently, the Department is enforcing the regulations that have been in place since 2004, including the $455 per week standard salary level.

Ultimately, the Trump-era DOL formally rescind the Obama-era DOL’s 2016 proposal with its own new Proposed Rule, issued on March 7, 2019.  The Trump-era Proposal was formally adopted in 2020.  With its passage, the DOL officially raised the minimum salary level for exempt employees to $679 per week, or $35,308 annually—the level it currently sits at today.  Additionally, the 2020 rule change allowed employers to count nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments (including commissions) to satisfy up to 10% of the standard salary level test (provided such bonuses are paid annually or more frequently); and increased the total annual compensation requirement needed to exempt “highly compensated employees” to $107,432 annually.  Additionally, the 2020 rule change did not adopt any changes to the standard duties test for the white collar exemptions.

 

Moving Forward

Make no mistake—the DOL’s goal with the new Proposed Rule is to increase the number of employees eligible for overtime. As with the prior proposals, observers feel the number could rise well above the projected increase.  If implemented, the Proposed Rule will undoubtedly result in greater expense or operational change for many employers as they struggle to deal with a shrinking pool of workers who are eligible for an exemption from the overtime pay.

This newest Proposed Rule from the DOL is sure to face its own set of legal hurdles, especially in the face of an election cycle.  Experts predict another battle over whether or not the DOL actually possesses the statutory authority to issue a salary-basis or salary-level test.  The Proposed Rule is also still subject to a lengthy comment period before any final implementation.

In the meantime, employers are encouraged to be proactive and engage their legal counsel to begin planning for the change now.  Preparations should include auditing current practices and projecting the cost of change and FLSA compliance under the anticipated new framework. This includes evaluating the possibility and effects of significantly higher operating costs.

Brunini’s Labor & Employment specialists are monitoring these events and will update you accordingly.  In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group if you wish to discuss.

 

 

 

 

 

Related Attorneys

Federal Government Releases New Form I-9 for U.S. Employers

by

Federal Government Releases New Form I-9 for U.S. Employers

By:  Chris Fontan

 

On August 1, 2023, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) released its newest version of the federal Form I-9.  U.S. employers are allowed to continue using the previous version of the Form I-9 through October 31, 2023.  However, starting on November 1, 2023, all employers are required to use this new, updated form.

 

Updates to the Form I-9

The USCIS made a number of material changes to the Form I-9 with this latest update, including:

  • Reducing Sections 1 and 2 to a single page; previously, these sections took up two pages.
  • Relocating Section 1 (Preparer and/or Translator Certification area) to a separate, standalone supplement for employers to provide to its applicants or employees as needed.
  • Revising the Lists of Acceptable Documents page—for use with Section 2—to include:
    • Adding some acceptable receipts, and
    • Providing guidance and links to information on automatic extensions of employment authorization documentation
  • Moving Section 3 (Reverification and Rehire area) to a standalone supplement for employers to utilize as needed.
  • Including a checkbox that allows employers to indicate that they have examined an applicant’s/employee’s Form I-9 documentation remotely pursuant to newly authorized virtual procedures (as opposed to traditional physical examination).

 

The updated Form I-9 virtually cuts its instruction section in half, reducing it from fifteen pages down to eight pages.  Additionally, the form has also been re-designed to be fillable on mobile devices, such as tablets and other smart phones.

 

Remote Verification

 

The biggest change with the new Form I-9 is the ability for employers to indicate they “virtually” examined an applicant’s/employee’s identity and employment authorization documents—as opposed to the traditional method of reviewing these documents in person. To participate in the remote examination option, employers must:

 

  • Be enrolled in E-Verify and be in good standing,
  • Examine and retain “clear and legible” copies of all documents,
  • Conduct a live video interaction with the employee during the verification process, and
  • Create an E-Verify case if the employee is a new hire.

 

Employers who were participating in E-Verify and created cases for employees whose documents were examined virtually between March 20, 2020, and July 31, 2023, may choose to use the new alternative procedure to satisfy the physical document examination requirement by August 30, 2023. Note however, that employers who were not enrolled in E-Verify during the COVID-19 flexibilities time frame must complete an in-person physical examination by August 30, 2023.

While the new Form I-9 is shorter and more streamlined, employers and job applicants are advised to use caution.  While the Form I-9 began as a one page document, it has existed as a multi-page form for over a decade.  As a result, experts fear that employees or employers will accidentally supply information for each other’s sections, which is prohibited under federal law. In addition, there is an increased likelihood that employees and employers will make more mistakes in completing the document, which could lead to serious consequences since individuals execute the Form I-9 “under penalty of perjury.”

 

In addition, questions also remain concerning the remote verification option.  For example, how and where should employers note whether employees that went through remote verification over the prior three years have brought in new documents?  Do employers need to document and retain proof of the video call required for virtual review on file?  Employers are advised to remain alert for further guidance on these and additional issues from USCIS in the coming months.

 

Brunini’s Labor & Employment specialists are monitoring these events and will update you accordingly.  In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group if you wish to discuss.

 

 

Related Attorneys

Mississippi Enacts New Medical Marijuana Law

by

By:  Kyle Williams and Chris Fontan

After months of political maneuvering, including a state-wide ballot initiative and Supreme Court challenge, Mississippi has joined 36 other states in enacting its own medical marijuana program.  On February 2, 2022, Governor Tate Reeves signed Senate Bill 2095, the Mississippi Medical Cannabis Act, (the “Act”) into law. The Act regulates the cultivation, processing, and dispensing of medical cannabis and authorizes physicians, certified nurse practitioners, physician’s assistants, and optometrists to certify patients for cannabis use—up to three ounces per month—to treat numerous “debilitating medical conditions.”

The Mississippi Department of Health will administer the program outlined within the Act and will enact regulations governing medical cannabis cultivators, processors, transporters, medical practitioners, and testing and research facilities. The Act tasks the Department of Revenue with regulating and licensure of cannabis dispensaries.

As more Mississippians are issued “written certifications” to obtain and use medical cannabis, employers will be forced to navigate this emerging area of the law.  As written, the Act contains many provisions favorable for the state’s employers.  For example, the 445-page Act in no way prohibits or limits an employer’s ability to establish or enforce a drug testing policy, nor does it require an employer to allow or accommodate the use of medical cannabis or to modify any job or working conditions of any employee who engages in the use of medical cannabis.  More specifically:

  • Employers are not prohibited from refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining, or otherwise taking adverse employment action against an individual with respect to terms, conditions, or privileges of employment as a result of that individual’s medical use of medical cannabis—regardless of the individual’s impairment or lack of impairment resulting from the medical use of medical cannabis.
  • Similarly, the Act does not create a private right of action by an employee against an employer for refusing to hire, discharging, disciplining or otherwise taking an adverse employment action against that employee with respect to terms, conditions or privileges or employment due to the individual’s medical use of medical cannabis.
  • Employers may discipline employees who use medical cannabis in the workplace or who work while under the influence of medical cannabis.

However, employers must comply with other state and federal laws that might be implicated.

The Act also amends Mississippi’s workers’ compensation laws to account for medical cannabis use.  Notably, the Act does not affect, alter or otherwise impact the workers’ compensation premium discount available to employers who establish a drug-free workplace program in accordance with Miss. Code §§ 71-3-201 et seq.  In addition, the Act does not impact an employer’s right to deny or establish legal defenses to the payment of workers’ compensation benefits to an employee on the basis of a positive drug test or refusal to submit to or cooperate with a drug test, as provided under Miss. Code §§ 71-3-7 and 71-3-121.

We will continue to monitor the implementation of Mississippi’s new medical cannabis program and the forthcoming regulations being promulgated by the Departments of Health and Revenue.  If you need Labor & Employment counsel, please contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.

Related Attorneys

U.S. Supreme Court Clears Way for CMS’s Mandatory-Vaccination Rule to Proceed

by

By: Claire Williams and Chris Fontan

On January 13, 2022—the same day that it blocked a Vaccination-or-Testing mandate issued by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)—the U.S. Supreme Court cleared the way for enforcement by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) of its rule requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for more than 10 million healthcare workers.

In a 5-4 opinion, the Court lifted two previous injunctions blocking CMS’s rule that was issued in November 2021 by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (“HHS”). The CMS Rule provides that, in order to receive Medicare and Medicaid funding, participating healthcare facilities must ensure that their staff are fully vaccinated against COVID-19, unless otherwise exempt for medical or religious reasons.  A facility’s failure to comply with the CMS Rule can lead to monetary penalties, denial of payment for new admissions, and ultimately termination of participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs.

In its per curiam opinion, the Court held that that the CMS Rule falls within the authorities that Congress conferred upon the HHS Secretary.  In so holding, the Court stated that “the Secretary did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the facilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their employees be vaccinated against COVID-19.” Justice Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett.

With the injunctions lifted, covered healthcare facilities need to ensure they are in compliance with the CMS Rule, including CMS’s most recent guidance. Most pressingly, covered healthcare workers must have at least one COVID-19 vaccine by January 27, and a second vaccine by February 28.

Notably, the Court’s opinion is on the district court injunctions, and not on the merits of each case.  Two separate court challenges to the CMS vaccine mandate remain.  With its ruling, the Supreme Court stayed the earlier injunctions pending disposition of the appeals in the United States Courts of Appeals for the Eight and Fifth Circuit.

We are monitoring these events and will update you accordingly.  In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group if you wish to discuss.

 

 

 

Related Attorneys

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks OSHA’s Vaccine-or-Test Rule for Large Employers

by

By: Claire Williams and Chris Fontan

On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States re-instated a nationwide stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”).  The Court’s stay of OSHA’s ETS prevents OSHA from enforcing the standard, which officially went into effect on January 10, 2022.

In a per curiam opinion, the Court held that emergency relief from the ETS is warranted because the applicants, including 27 states, are likely to prevail on their argument that OSHA’s ETS exceeds its statutory authority and is unlawful.  The Court reasoned that “[a]lthough Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly.”  The Court went on to state that “requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”

Justice Gorsuch authored a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justices Thomas, and Alito.  Justices Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan dissented.

The Supreme Court’s stay remains in place pending further litigation and a ruling on the merits of the petitions for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  However, given the limited shelf-life of the ETS itself and the language used by the majority of the Justices, many feel that the Supreme Court’s decision on the stay ultimately seals the fate of the ETS.   We are monitoring these events and will update you accordingly.  In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group if you wish to discuss.

 

 

 

Related Attorneys

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on OSHA’s Vaccine-or-Test Rule for Large Employers

by

By: Chris Fontan

In a rather unprecedented proceeding, all nine justices of the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Friday, January 7, 2022 concerning legal challenges to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”).  Specifically, challengers comprised of private entities and state attorneys general argue that OSHA overstepped its statutory authority when it issued the ETS requiring employers with at least 100 employees to mandate either vaccinations, or masking and weekly testing for workers.

As previously reported, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit previously dissolved a stay of the ETS, allowing OSHA to proceed with enforcement of the ETS’ mandates.  Within several hours of that decision, multiple parties, including 27 states, filed emergency motions with the Supreme Court seeking to block the ETS and requesting an emergency stay of its enforcement.  Justice Brett Kavanaugh took the rather unprecedented action of not unilaterally deciding the immediate stay issue himself, but instead referring this stay request to the full Court.

While it is always dangerous to predict the actions of the Court based solely on the questions asked during oral argument, many legal commentators initially speculate that the conservative majority of the Court seems primed to ultimately enjoin the ETS on the basis that it is too broad and not clearly authorized by Congress.  Decisions in the cases are expected soon, perhaps as early as over the weekend or by Monday, January 10. Timing is, of course, important as the first requirements of the ETS—everything but the weekly testing requirements—are set to take effect Monday, January 10, unless the Court acts before then to block them. The remaining testing requirements are slated to take effect Wednesday, February 9, 2022.

We are monitoring these events and will keep you posted.  In the meantime, feel free to contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group if you wish to discuss.

 

 

Related Attorneys

UPDATE: Federal Appeals Court Lifts Stay on OSHA’s Vaccine-or-Test Rule for Large Employers

by

By:  Chris Fontan

Late Friday, December 17, 2021, a three judge panel of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals dissolved a previously issued stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”).  Shortly after the ruling by the Sixth Circuit, OSHA posted a notice on its website, adjusting its previously established deadlines for compliance with the ETS.

In a 2-1 split vote, the three judge panel determined that, in light of the continued spread of COVID-19 variants, OSHA “must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.” Judge Jane B. Stanch, an appointee President Barack Obama, authored the opinion. Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, an appointee of President George W. Bush, sided with Judge Stanch.  Judge Joan Larsen, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dissented, noting employees are exposed to COVID-19 even while not working and OSHA had not established there was “grave danger” in the workplace or the ETS requirements would correct that.

OSHA quickly recognized the victory, while at the same time acknowledging the uncertainty that the litigation has caused. As a result, OSHA notified the public of new compliance dates concerning the ETS.  According to a new notice on the agency’s website, OSHA announced that it was “exercising enforcement discretion with respect to the compliance dates of the” mandate. OSHA stated that “it will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the [mandate] before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the [mandate’s] testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.” OSHA also promised to “work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.”

Based on this announcement, the current deadlines for the OSHA ETS include:

  • Immediately: Covered employers must start taking good faith efforts to come into compliance with the ETS.
  • January 10, 2022: New deadline for covered employers to:
    • Have written COVID-19 Vaccine-or-Testing Policy prepared describing the requirements with regard to vaccinations and testing
    • Provide specific information about vaccines and the ETS requirements to employees
    • Determine the vaccination status of each employee (and keeping records related to vaccination status)
    • Start requiring masking of unvaccinated employees
    • Provide PTO for employees to get vaccinated
  • February 9, 2022: New deadline for covered employers to:
    • Start requiring weekly COVID-19 testing for unvaccinated employees (and keeping records related to weekly testing)

Within several hours of the decision, multiple parties, including 27 states, filed emergency motions with the U.S. Supreme Court to block the ETS and requested an emergency stay of its enforcement. Those applications will be reviewed by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is assigned to hear petitions from the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. At this point, the Supreme Court has several options, including: granting the petitioners’ applications and staying the ETS pending review of the entire Court; granting the petitioners’ application but, given OSHA’s decision to delay compliance dates, not issuing a stay and simply referring the applications to the full Court for a decision; or taking no action on the applications pending review of the full Court.

Although it is always difficult to predict how quickly a ruling might come, experts predict that the Supreme Court will most likely take action in advance of January 10, 2022, to give employers some certainty. Employers are encouraged to continue to monitor developments with the ETS and pending litigation involving its implementation and to contact their labor and employment counsel for additional information concerning these developments.  If you need Labor & Employment counsel, please contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.

 

 

 

 

Related Attorneys

OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard is Here (Maybe) – Now What?

by

By:  Chris Fontan

On November 4, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) released its anticipated, or controversial, emergency temporary standard (“ETS”) aimed at curbing further spread of COVID-19. The ETS—which is a “vaccinate-or-test” workplace mandate—applies to most employers with 100 or more employees (“Employers”).  Under the ETS, Employers must either mandate COVID vaccinations or require masking combined with proof of negative COVID tests on a weekly basis as a condition of employment.

All requirements of the ETS, other than testing for unvaccinated employees, are effective 30 days after publication of the ETS in the Federal Register (i.e., Dec. 5, 2021). Thus, the ETS requires Employers to ensure all unvaccinated employees working “in person” begin wearing masks by Dec. 5, 2021, and start providing negative COVID-19 tests on a weekly basis beginning Jan. 4, 2022.

As expected, numerous legal challenges to the ETS have been and will continue to be made in the coming weeks. As we previously reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit recently enacted a nationwide injunction, temporarily preventing OSHA from enforcing the ETS.  While the future of the ETS remains uncertain due to this and similar legal challenges, it will take weeks of planning for employers to comply with the ETS’s deadlines. With that in mind, employers should continue preparing for the ETS as if it is going to take effect while litigation continues.  As a result, employers must continue to prepare for potential compliance with the ETS.

Overview of the ETS’ Requirements

According to a “Fact Sheet” prepared by OSHA, the ETS requires Employers to do the following:

  • Implement a mandatory, written COVID-19 vaccination policy, with or without an exception allowing employees to instead undergo weekly COVID-19 testing (beginning Jan. 4, 2022) and wear a face covering at the workplace (beginning Dec. 5, 2021).
  • Obtain proof of the vaccination status of each employee.
  • Create a roster/list showing the vaccination status of each employee.
  • Securely maintain both the proof of vaccination status and the roster/list.
  • Provide employees with up to four (4) hours of paid time off to receive each primary vaccination injection/dose.
  • Provide employees with a “reasonable amount” of paid sick leave to recover from any side effects experienced following each primary vaccination injection/dose.
  • Ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated is tested at least weekly for COVID-19 (if in the workplace at least once a week) or within seven days before returning to work (if away from the workplace for a week or longer).
  • Ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated wears a face covering when indoors or when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes (subject to specific, limited situations).
  • Require employees to promptly provide notice when they receive a positive COVID-19 test (or are diagnosed with COVID-19). Immediately remove any employee, regardless of vaccination status, from the workplace who receives a positive COVID-19 test/is diagnosed with COVID-19, and keep the employee out of the workplace until the return-to-work criteria are met.
  • Provide each employee with information they can understand about: the requirements of the ETS and workplace policies and procedures established to implement the ETS, the CDC document “Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines”, information about protections against retaliation and discrimination, and information about laws that provide for criminal penalties for knowingly supplying false statements or documentation.
  • Report work-related COVID-19 fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours of the employer learning about them, and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of learning about them.
  • Make certain records available to an employee or an employee representative for examination and copying.

Steps for Complying with the ETS

  1. Determine if your organization is covered by the ETS.

 

  1. Determine vaccination status of your organization’s employees.

 

  1. Evaluate available options and logistics for testing—even Employer’s opting for full vaccination mandate will need testing options as a potential “reasonable accommodation” for claimed disabilities and/or religious exemptions.

 

  1. Assess potential impact of paid-time-off and other new requirements.

 

  1. Determine your organization’s approach and draft a written policy.

 

  1. Craft necessary and required employee communications.

 

  1. Establish your organization’s reporting and recordkeeping protocols.

Employers are encouraged to take these steps, to continue to monitor developments with the ETS and pending litigation involving its implementation and to contact their labor and employment counsel for additional information concerning these developments.  If you need Labor & Employment counsel, please contact any member of Brunini’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.

 

 

 

 

 

Related Attorneys

UPDATE: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Issues Stay Blocking OSHA’s Vaccinate-or-Test Rule….For Now

by

By:  Chris Fontan

Less than 2 days after the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) finally released its anticipated, and highly controversial, emergency temporary standard (“ETS”) addressing COVID-19 testing and vaccination, a federal court has thrown up a huge road block in the path of its full implementation.  The Court’s injunction temporarily prevents OSHA from enforcing its controversial new ETS.

 As we previously reported, on November 4, 2021, OSHA unveiled its controversial ETS, which essentially requires employers with 100 or more employees to either mandate COVID vaccinations or proof of negative COVID tests on a weekly basis as a condition of employment. As predicted, soon after President Biden initially instructed OSHA to begin working on plans for the proposed rule, the ETS was met with immediate legal challenges. Most notably, a number of parties, including several businesses, advocacy groups, and the states of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Utah filed a motion for a preliminary and a permanent injunction with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On Saturday, November 6, 2021, the Fifth Circuit granted their “emergency motion” and entered a preliminary stay barring enforcement of the ETS. Citing “grave statutory and constitutional issues,” the Court stayed the ETS until further notice by the Court. In addition, the Court ordered the parties to submit further briefing about the validity of the ETS by November 8th and 9th respectively. The stay order issued on November 6th is not a final ruling on the validity of the ETS, but will halt its implementation at least temporarily.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry said the action stops Democratic President Joe Biden “from moving forward with his unlawful overreach.” Louisiana was one of the states bringing the lawsuit seeking to stop enforcement of the ETS.  “This is a great victory for the American people out there. Never before has the federal government tried in such a forceful way to get between the choices of an American citizen and their doctor. To me that’s the heart of the entire issue,” he said.  Meanwhile, Solicitor of Labor Seema Nanda said the U.S. Department of Labor is “confident in its legal authority” to issue the rule, stating that the OSH Act of 1970 “explicitly gives OSHA the authority to act quickly in an emergency” and OSHA is “fully prepared to defend [the ETS] in court.”

The future of the ETS remains uncertain due to this and other pending legal challenges. While the final result is unknown, it will take weeks of planning for employers to comply with the ETS’s deadlines. With that in mind, employers should continue preparing for the ETS as if it is going to take effect while litigation continues.

 

 

Related Attorneys

OSHA Finally Releases COVID Vaccine/Testing Mandate for Employers

by

By: Chris Fontan

On Thursday, November 4, 2021, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (“OSHA”) finally released its anticipated, and already controversial, emergency temporary standard (“ETS”) addressing COVID-19 testing and vaccination. The ETS—which is a “mandate-or-test” workplace vaccine rule—applies to most employers with 100 or more employees (“Employers”).  The ETS does not apply to: (1) employers who are covered by the recently-released Executive Order mandating vaccinations for federal employees and employees of federal contractors; (2) healthcare employers covered by the prior healthcare ETS; and/or (3) employees working from home or exclusively outdoors. After weeks of speculating over what was likely to be in the proposed rule, Employers are now left with the task of navigating their way through this new mandate.

Here is a general overview of the OSHA ETS:

100-Employee Threshold. In general, the OSHA ETS applies to employers with 100 or more employees. Unlike other OSHA standards that count employees on an “establishment” basis, the ETS covers any private employer with 100 or more employees across the entire company. This broad definition is much more inclusive and will affect many more employers than many previous OSHA standards. The ETS also expressly covers part-time, full-time, and remote employees in its “100 employee” count.

Vaccination Requirement. The ETS requires Employers develop, implement, and enforce a written, mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.  To meet this requirement, the policy must require vaccination of all employees, other than those for whom a vaccine is medically contraindicated, for whom a medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination, or who are otherwise entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Title VII of the Civil Rights Act because they have a disability or sincerely held religious beliefs that conflict with the vaccination requirement.

As part of the required policy, the ETS requires Employers determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination, maintain records of each employee’s vaccination status, and maintain a roster of each employee’s vaccination status. At the same time, Employers must remain cognizant of their obligations to maintain the confidentiality of employee medical information, since OSHA and the EEOC view vaccine-related information like all employee medical information.

Testing Alternative. Consistent with President Biden’s initial announcement, the OSHA ETS also includes an exception from the vaccine mandate for Employers that instead establish, implement, and enforce a written policy allowing employees who are not fully vaccinated to elect to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at the workplace.  Those employees who are not fully vaccinated (including those entitled to reasonable accommodations for religious or medical reasons) must be tested for COVID-19 at least weekly (if in the workplace at least once a week) or within 7 days before returning to work (if away from the workplace for a week or longer).

Employers must maintain a record of each test result. Employees who fail to provide documentation of a COVID test result must be excluded from the workplace until they provide such test result. Notably, the ETS excuses any employees who test positive or are diagnosed with COVID-19 from these testing requirements for 90 days following their positive test or diagnosis.

Face coverings. The ETS requires Employers to ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated (thus, those opting for the testing alternative) wears a face covering when indoors or when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes, except in certain limited circumstances, including: when an employee is alone in a room with floor to ceiling walls and a closed door; for a limited time while the employee is eating or drinking at the workplace, or for identification purposes in compliance with safety and security requirements; when an employee is wearing a respirator or facemask; or where the employer can show that the use of face coverings is infeasible or creates a greater hazard that would excuse compliance. In addition, employers must not prevent any employee, regardless of vaccination status, from voluntarily wearing a face covering unless it creates a serious workplace hazard (e.g., interfering with the safe operation of equipment).

Paid Leave.  As part of the ETS, Employers are required to provide employees “reasonable time”—defined as up to four hours of paid time, to receive each vaccination dose, including travel time.  Employers may not require use of accrued sick or personal time for these purposes. In addition, Employers must provide reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from side effects experienced following each dose. Employers may require use of accrued sick or personal time for these purposes.

Positive COVID-19 tests and employee removal. The ETS also mandates that Employers require their employees to promptly provide notice when they receive a positive COVID-19 test or are diagnosed with COVID-19, regardless of vaccination status. Once such notice is provided, the Employer must immediately remove the employee from the workplace, regardless of vaccination status and the worker must remain removed from workplace until they meet specified criteria for returning to work. Importantly—the ETS does not require that Employers provide paid leave to employees who are removed from the workplace because of a COVID-19 positive result or diagnosis, though paid time may be required by other laws, or by a collective bargaining agreement.

Notice to employees. Under the ETS, Employers are required to provide employees the following (in an appropriate language and at a literacy level):

  • Information about the requirements of the ETS and workplace policies and procedures established to implement the ETS;
  • The CDC document “Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines”;
  • Information about protections against retaliation and discrimination; and
  • Information about laws that provide for criminal penalties for knowingly supplying false statements or documentation.

Interaction with OSHA and Recordkeeping. As an OSHA requirement, the ETS requires Employers to report work-related COVID-19 fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours of learning about them, and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of the employer learning about the hospitalization. In addition, at OSHA’s request, an Employer will have four (4) business hours to provide its policy on vaccination/testing, and until the end of the next business day to provide all other records that must be maintained (i.e. proof of each employee’s vaccination status or test results as required by the ETS).  Employees also have the ability to request their own vaccination or testing records, and may submit requests for the aggregate number of fully vaccinated employees in the workplace along with the total number of employees at that workplace.

Key Dates.  Employers are required to be in compliance with the bulk of the ETS by Sunday, December 5, 2021.  Employers must begin obtaining weekly test results for employees who have not received all doses required for primary vaccination no later than Tuesday, January 4, 2022.

 

Related Attorneys