Although the OSHA ETS is Dead, OSHA Can Still Cite Employers for COVID Related Hazards

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

Today, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the final nail in the coffin of the OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Specifically, the DOL announced that it will withdraw the COVID ETS, effective January 26, 2022. This comes after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the OSHA ETS on January 13, 2022, which guaranteed the ETS’ demise. Rest In Peace, ETS.

OSHA also wants us to know that although it is withdrawing the vaccination and testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule. OSHA is prioritizing its resources to focus on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard. OSHA’s Healthcare ETS expired on December 21, 2021.

In the meantime, employers need to be aware that OSHA can–and will–still cite them for COVID-related hazards in the workplace. Rather than base citations on the ETS, OSHA will fall back on its favorite catch-all regulation: the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act). Even before the ETS was enacted, OSHA relied upon the General Duty Clause as the basis of COVID-related citations. In addition to the General Duty Clause, OSHA may look for violations of any of the following standards:

  • 29 CFR Part 1904, Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illness.
  • 29 CFR § 1910.132, General Requirements-Personal Protective Equipment.
  • 29 CFR § 1910.134, Respiratory Protection.
  • 29 CFR § 1910.141, Sanitation.
  • 29 CFR § 1910.145, Specification for Accident Prevention Signs and Tags.
  • 29 CFR § 1910.1020, Access to Employee Exposure and Medical Records.

Therefore, employers need to be familiar with the OSHA Guidance, Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace and other industry-specific guidance. Have a written plan of action for COVID-19 as part of your safety program.

We can expect that OSHA Area Offices (AOs) will continue to prioritize inspections of COVID-19-related fatalities, multiple hospitalizations, and other unprogrammed activities alleging potential employee exposures to COVID-19-related hazards. Enforcement of protections for workers in non-healthcare industries will focus on unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated workers, including whether such employees are working indoors or outdoors. Additionally, OSHA will implement programmed inspections targeting those non-healthcare industries where OSHA has previously identified increased enforcement activity, and/or establishments with elevated rates of respiratory illnesses.

The Takeaway: Although OSHA cannot require employers to vaccinate or test their employees, OSHA can require employers to take steps to mitigate the hazards presented by COVID-19 in the workplace. Employers should continue to follow OSHA and CDC guidance that describe how to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace.

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2022 by Kathleen J. Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

The Supreme Court Stays the OSHA ETS; CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers Goes Forward

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

Yesterday, we received decisions from the US Supreme Court on the status of the OSHA COVID-19 ETS and the CMS vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. As I predicted, the OSHA ETS has been stayed, and the CMS mandate has been allowed to go forward.

Why were the two vaccine mandates treated differently? Short answer: the Court found that the fact that CMS has authority to regulate the health and safety of patients gave it authority to issue the vaccine mandate, while the Court also found that OSHA’s authority to issue an ETS to address a “grave danger” in the workplace did not extend to COVID-19. This is a gross oversimplification, but you get the idea.

Many employers with more than 100 employees are breathing a sigh of relief that they are no longer required to engage in the logistically difficult task of regular COVID-19 testing of workers. Employers still need to follow OSHA and CDC guidance regarding COVID-19 precautions such as social distancing and masking. And with the highly contagious nature of the Omicron variant, employers need to take steps to minimize the spread of infection in the workplace for reasons of worker health and to minimize worker absenteeism.

As for employers of healthcare workers, you need to review recent CMS Guidance that provides detailed information on how surveyors will review facilities for compliance with the vaccine mandate.

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2022 by Kathleen J. Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

Get Ready–the U.S. Supreme Court is Going to Hear Arguments on the OSHA ETS and the CMS Vaccine Mandate

Photo by Any Lane on Pexels.com

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hold a special session on January 7, 2022 to hear arguments regarding whether to stay the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) vaccine or test rule and the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. It is unusual for the Court to hear arguments (rather than just read briefs) on the issue of a stay, so this should be interesting. We expect the Court to rule soon after it hears arguments. Employers covered by the OSHA ETS are certainly hoping for a quick ruling; the ETS is scheduled to go into effect on January 4, 2022, though the agency has said it would not start issuing citations before January 10, 2022. Talk about cutting things close. In the meantime, prudent covered employers should continue to prepare policies and testing protocols to be ready for the implementation of the ETS.

The Court’s ruling should give us a pretty good idea as to whether the Court would find either or both vaccine mandates lawful exercises of the federal government’s powers. One of the considerations in a request for a stay or injunction is “likelihood of success on the merits.” So if the Court enters a stay, that is an indication that it believes that the challengers to the vaccine mandates are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenges.

Will the Supreme Court give employers a late Christmas present? Stay tuned for further developments.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to All!

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2021 Kathleen Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

What Is the Status of the Federal Vaccine Mandates?

Photo by Andrea Piacquadio on Pexels.com

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

Legal challenges to the Biden Administration’s COVID-19 vaccine mandates are working their way quickly through the federal court system. With new rulings being issued on days, nights and weekends, it is hard to keep with which mandates are stayed and which are not. So here is a quick overview of where we are right now:

The OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS): In Effect (Not Stayed).

The OSHA ETS applies to employers with 100 or more employees and provides that covered employers must enact a policy that requires employee vaccination or weekly COVID testing. On Friday night, December 17, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati lifted the stay of OSHA’s ETS. A number of parties in the Sixth Circuit proceedings have already filed a joint emergency motion with the U.S. Supreme Court requesting the Court to stay the ETS.

OSHA states 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.” Thus, it is important for covered employers to immediately start making those good faith efforts at compliance with the ETS.

The Federal Contractor Vaccine Mandate: Stayed Nationwide.

The federal government contractor vaccine mandate will become part of federal government contracts and subcontracts, either as part of a new contract or an amendment or renewal of an existing contract. On December 7, 2021, a U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Georgia entered a nationwide stay of the federal contractor vaccine mandate. This past Friday (12/17), a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied the government’s motion to dissolve the stay. The 11th Circuit has also set an accelerated briefing schedule on the merits, with the last brief due on January 24, 2022. The same federal judge in Georgia has scheduled a hearing for 12/21 on the government’s motion for him to lift the stay. Whether the government files an emergency appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court remains to be seen.

The CMS Vaccine Mandate for Healthcare Workers: Stayed in 24 states.

This vaccine mandate has been challenged in two separate lawsuits by a total of 24 states. Right now, enforcement of the CMS vaccine mandate is stayed in those 24 states. The government has filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court asking for the stays to be lifted, and the briefing schedule has a deadline of December 30, 2021, so we don’t expect a decision from the Supreme Court before that date. In the meantime, according to its website, CMS “has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of [the mandate] pending future developments in the litigation.”

As you can see, this is a rapidly developing area, so it is important to know which (if any) vaccine mandates apply to your workplace, and whether immediate compliance is necessary.

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2021 Kathleen Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

Update on the COVID ETS: It Has Been Stayed. But for How Long?

Photo by Josh Hild on Pexels.com

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

As noted in my blog post last week, it was expected that there would be many challenges to the COVID Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Those challenges were filed very quickly, and on Saturday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals stayed enforcement of the ETS based on “grave statutory and constitutional issues.”

Multiple lawsuits have been filed in multiple federal Circuits challenging the ETS. The federal rules for multi-circuit litigation provide for the cases to be consolidated and heard by one court that is initially chosen by a lottery. The Court selected to hear the cases can decide whether to keep the stay in place or lift it. [Update–the lottery is scheduled to be held on November 16].

Where does this leave us? With a great deal of uncertainty, at least until we find out which Court will handle this issue. In the meantime, companies subject to the ETS should continue their preparations to comply with its provisions.

And of course, I’ll keep you posted on further developments.

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2021 Kathleen Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

The OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard is Here. What You need to Know.

Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich on Pexels.com

By Kathleen J. Jennings (kjj@wimlaw.com)

The Biden Administration promised us a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, and today it arrived for private employers of 100 or more employees. [There is also a mandate for federal contractors and another for healthcare workers, but we are not going to talk about those in this post.]

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an emergency temporary standard (ETS) that purports to minimize the risk of COVID-19 transmission in the workplace. This ETS applies to private employers with 100 or more employees firm- or corporate-wide.

The ETS requires covered employers to do the following:

  • Develop, implement, and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, with an exception for employers that instead establish, implement, and enforce a policy allowing employees to elect either to get vaccinated or to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at the workplace.
  • Determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination from vaccinated employees, maintain records of each employee’s vaccination status, and maintain a roster of each employee’s vaccination status.
  • Support vaccination by providing employees reasonable time, including up to four hours of paid time, to receive each primary vaccination dose, and reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from any side effects experienced following each primary vaccination dose.
  • Ensure that each employee who is not fully vaccinated is 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). Boosters are not currently required.
  • Require employees to promptly provide notice when they receive a positive COVID-19 test or are diagnosed with COVID-19.
  • Immediately remove from the workplace any employee, regardless of vaccination status, who received a positive COVID-19 test or is diagnosed with COVID-19 by a licensed healthcare provider, and keep the employee out of the workplace until return to work criteria are met.
  • 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, except in certain limited circumstances.
  • Provide each employee with information, in a language and at a literacy level the employee understands, about the requirements of the ETS and workplace policies and procedures established to implement the ETS; vaccine efficacy, safety, and the benefits of being vaccinated (by providing the CDC document “Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines”); protections against retaliation and discrimination; and 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 learning about them, and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of the employer learning about the hospitalization.

Deadlines:

December 5, 2021: Employers must have their compliance program in place, offer paid time off for vaccinations, and require unvaccinated workers to wear masks.

January 4, 2022: The deadline for workers to be vaccinated or start being tested.

Penalties for non-compliance:

This ETS is enforced by OSHA. Each “serious” violation of the standard could result in a maximum fine of $13,653. The cap for willful or repeat violations is $136,532. However, the Build Back Better Act, if it becomes law, would raise maximum fines for all OSHA rules to $70,000 for serious violations and $700,000 for willful or repeat violations.

Other items of interest:

Note that where an employee chooses to remain unvaccinated, the ETS does not require employers to pay for the costs associated with regular COVID-19 testing or the use of face coverings. In some cases, employers may be required to pay testing and/or face covering costs under other federal or state laws or collective bargaining obligations, and some may choose to do so even without such a mandate, but otherwise employees will be required to bear the costs if they choose to be regularly tested and wear a face covering in lieu of vaccination.

The ETS states that it preempts state and local laws governing COVID vaccinations and precautions.

This is a temporary standard (it will expire in 6 months), and it may be subject to change. Furthermore, we expect many challenges to the standard and OSHA’s authority to issue it. Stay tuned for further developments.

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

Copyright 2021 Kathleen Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

Handling Employees Who Refuse to Comply With a Workplace Mask Rule

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

The CDC recommends the wearing of face masks as one way to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, and 29 states and the District of Columbia have instituted or announced statewide orders requiring face coverings in public, with similar but varying requirements. Even states that do not have mask orders are strongly recommending that citizens wear masks in public to slow the spread of the coronavirus (Hello, Georgia). So it is not surprising that many private employers have enacted work rules that require employees to wear face coverings at work. But where there are work rules, there are always employees who just don’t want to follow them. To make matters worse, the issue of face coverings is highly politicized, and the internet and social media provide creative but usually invalid excuses for employees to use when they refuse to wear a face covering. So let’s talk about how a private employer can handle employee excuses for refusing to wear a face covering.

  • Wearing a mask violates my religion. This excuse requires further inquiry by the employer. Title VII requires covered employers to accommodate the sincerely held religious beliefs of employees. Therefore, in response to this statement, the employer can inquire into what sincerely held religious beliefs the employee ascribes to, and what part of that religion’s doctrine forbid face coverings. I am aware of religions that require face coverings, but not one that would forbid a person from wearing one, so this should lead to an interesting conversation.
  • I can’t wear a mask for medical reasons. The Americans With Disabilities Act generally requires a covered employer to provide a reasonable accommodation to a qualified person with a disability. Therefore, this type of statement should trigger the ADA’s interactive process through which the employer and employee work out a reasonable accommodation. The employer should obtain permission from the employee (in the form of a signed HIPAA release) to confer with the employee’s physician to discuss possible reasonable accommodations. Of course, all medical information should be kept confidential.
  • I can’t wear a mask because I can’t breathe and I will pass out. If this is due to a documented medical condition (perhaps COPD or asthma?), then the employer should start the interactive process discussed above. The employer may need to provide different types of masks that are more comfortable for those with breathing problems or mask free breaks during the workday. Otherwise, the employee needs to wear the mask; medical professionals wear masks all the time without passing out.
  • I don’t want to wear a mask because it makes me breathe in my own CO2. This excuse seems to based upon internet junk science and is not valid.
  • Wearing a mask violates my liberty rights. Just no. This is a not a valid excuse.
  • I can’t wear a mask because it makes me feel anxious or claustrophobic. If this excuse is based upon an actual diagnosis from a health care professional, the employer should start the interactive process discussed above. The employer can offer different mask options so that the employee can pick one that is most comfortable and perhaps provide mask free breaks during the workday. Absent a medical diagnosis, however, this may just be another way for an employee to say that they just don’t want to wear a mask.
  • I don’t care if you have a rule; I won’t wear a mask. At least this employee is being honest with you. However, the refusal to follow an employer’s reasonable work rule is considered insubordination and it should result in some kind of discipline. The employer should be consistent in the way it disciplines employees for violations. If you ignore some employee violations of a rule but enforce the rule against others, you are setting yourself up for a possible claim of discrimination. And failing to enforce a workplace rule is often worse than having no rule at all. So you will need to deal with the mask refuser appropriately.

As a final note–if you have a rule requiring face coverings at work–make sure that employees are not only wearing face coverings, but that they are wearing them correctly. The face covering should cover the nose and mouth. You may need to provide some gentle reminders to employees from time to time.

Stay safe!

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

©2020 Kathleen J. Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.

Can An Employer Terminate An Employee Who Refuses to Wear a Mask at Work?

Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

As several states see dramatic increases in the number of people who test positive for COVID-19, employers must be very proactive in taking steps to protect workers and customers from the spread of the virus.  According to OSHA, employers should assess worker exposure to hazards and risks and implement infection prevention measures to reasonably address them consistent with OSHA Standards. Such measures could include promoting frequent and thorough handwashing or sanitizing with at least 60% alcohol hand sanitizer; encouraging workers to stay at home if sick; encouraging use of cloth face coverings; and training them on proper respiratory etiquette, social distancing, and other steps they can take to protect themselves. Employers should clean and disinfect frequently touched surfaces (e.g., door handles, sink handles, workstations, restroom stalls) at least daily, or as much as possible. 

OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work if appropriate. Face coverings are intended to prevent wearers who have COVID-19 without knowing it (i.e., those who are asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic) from spreading potentially infectious respiratory droplets to others. This is known as source control.

Employers have the discretion to determine whether to allow employees to wear cloth face coverings in the workplace based on the specific circumstances present at the work site. For some workers, employers may determine that wearing cloth face coverings presents or exacerbates a hazard. For example, cloth face coverings could become contaminated with chemicals used in the work environment, causing workers to inhale the chemicals that collect on the face covering. Workers may also need to use PPE that is incompatible with the use of a cloth face covering (e.g., an N95 filtering facepiece respirator).

Note that cloth face coverings are not considered PPE.

While OSHA and the CDC encourage the use of face masks, the wearing or face masks has become very politicized, and there are many who simply refuse to wear them.  

So what happens if an employer mandates that all employees must wear face masks at work, and an employee refuses?  Well, if an employee refuses a reasonable directive of his or her employer, it is considered insubordination, and the employee can be disciplined. If the employee continues to refuse to wear a mask despite repeated discipline and warnings of the consequences, he or she can be terminated.  

It is also important for the employer to avoid getting into political or idealogical arguments with employees who refuse to wear face masks.  In response to the employee who wants to start an argument, simply state:  “we are requiring the wearing face masks to comply with OSHA and CDC Guidance as a way to protect the health of our employees [and customers].  I am sorry that you do not agree, but this rule applies to everyone.  Anyone who does not follow the rule will be disciplined.”

As I have discussed in past posts, an employer must be consistent in its treatment of employees so that it can avoid claims of discrimination. Don’t look the other way when you see that Thomas is not wearing his mask but write up Karen when she does the same thing.

In rare instances, an employee may have a medical reason for not wearing a mask. If an employee claims that he or she cannot wear a mask due to a medical condition, the employer should go through the interactive process with the employee and his/her health care professional to determine if there is a reasonable accommodation that will still prevent the potential spread of the coronavirus.  [And if the employee presents a “reasonable accommodation” card that they have printed off the internet, you can toss it in the trash]. 

Stay safe and healthy!

Kathleen J. Jennings is an attorney licensed to practice law in Georgia and New York. She graduated from Cornell University, College of Arts & Sciences, with distinction and New York University School of Law. She is a principal in the Atlanta office of Wimberly, Lawson, Steckel, Schneider, & Stine, P.C. and defends employers in employment matters, such as sexual harassment, discrimination, Wage and Hour, OSHA, restrictive covenants, and other employment litigation and provides training and counseling to employers in employment matters. She can be contacted at kjj@wimlaw.com.

©2020 Kathleen J. Jennings

The materials available at this blog site are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Web site or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Kathleen J. Jennings and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author.