Tag Archives: OSHA

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

What Employers Need to Know About Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

Posted on by

In an effort to combat the COVID-19 virus and its subsequent variants, the Biden administration has instituted three important mandates that employers should be aware of as they may impact their business. First, the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), issued by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA), requires that all employers with 100+ employees mandate vaccination or weekly testing. The second mandate involves federal workers and contractors and requires them to obtain a vaccination without any option for weekly testing. The final mandate was issued by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), and requires vaccination of all healthcare workers at CMS-covered facilities.

OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard

The mandate that has the most wide-ranging impact is Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that calls for employers with 100 or more employees to either require employees to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination or to prove compliance with a weekly-testing program. This ETS is expected to affect over 80 million employees. 

On December 17, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals lifted the stay placed on OSHA’s ETS issued by the Fifth Circuit in November. The court held that OSHA does have statutory authority to mandate national vaccines and/or testing for employers with more than 100 employees. Specifically, it outlined that because COVID-19 is a virus that causes bodily harm, OSHA was well within its administrative authority to regulate the health and safety of employees. 

Since the Sixth Circuit’s decision to dissolve the stay, OSHA announced that it will not be issuing citations for noncompliance with the ETS requirements until January 10 and the testing requirements will not be enforced until February 9 with the caveat that the employer must make good faith efforts to come into compliance as soon as possible.

After this ruling by the Sixth Circuit, eight groups challenged the OSHA vaccine mandate and filed emergency applications with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to stay the mandate again until the case can be heard in the highest court. On December 20, the Supreme Court requested a response from the federal government by December 30. And, on December 22, in an almost unprecedented move, the Supreme Court ordered oral argument on these emergency applications, which will take place on January 7.

Despite the fact that the validity of the ETS is now squarely before the Supreme Court, employers should still operate as if the ETS will go into immediate effect. OSHA has implemented new deadlines to reflect the current status of the ETS.

By January 10, employers should:

  • Track employee vaccination status
  • Create a database detailing vaccination information for each employee
  • Require unvaccinated employees to wear a mask
  • Provide paid time off for employees to get vaccinated and recover

As of February 9, 2022, employers must also require unvaccinated employees must start testing for COVID weekly. Self-administered or self-read tests would not comply. Employers must observe or use a proctor and have employees tested on site, or at a recognized testing facility.

The Mandate for Federal Employees and Contractors

The second mandate stems from President Biden’s executive order that requires most federal employees or contractors to get vaccinated. This mandate does not have a testing option.

On December 7, the U.S. District Court for the Southern Section of Georgia granted a preliminary injunction to temporarily halt the enforcement of the Biden’s administration’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors.The court found that the administration had overstepped the bounds of it authority under the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act 40 U.S.C. 101 et. seq. The injunction effectively prohibits enforcement of the federal contractor vaccine mandate in all 50 states and any territory of the United States. However, on December 17, the Eleventh Circuit, denied the government’s motion to stay. This effectively upheld the injunction. The court found that the government had failed to show that it “would be irreparably harmed absent a stay.”

The CMS Mandate

The third mandate is an interim file rule of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), which requires vaccination of all healthcare workers at CMS-covered facilities throughout the United States. The CMS mandate is currently enjoined by court order in 25 states and continues in full effect in 25 other states. After the ruling by the Fifth Circuit in November, however, CMS suspended implementation and enforcement of the mandate pending resolution of the challenges before the Supreme Court.

COVID-19 Vaccines: Should You Mandate, Motivate or Educate Employees?

Posted on by

For the past year, employers have grappled with unprecedented workplace safety and human resources challenges, forced to address safety measures that were unfamiliar for many industries. Employees have become accustomed to daily health screening and masks, and human resources has added COVID safety training and enforcement to its job duties. As vaccines are becoming more prevalent, employers have to now decide whether they should vaccinate their workforces. Making this decision can seem daunting and the applicable employment laws can seem overwhelming. However, there are some baseline considerations that may help.

As a threshold matter, employers are obligated under the OSHA General Duty Clause to provide a safe working environment to their employees. At the direction of President Joe Biden, OSHA released new comprehensive guidance regarding COVID workplace safety, including a 16-point list of essential components of a workplace safety program. OSHA recommended that employers make the vaccine available to eligible employees at no cost, and made clear that employers must continue to enforce COVID safety protocols regardless of an employee’s vaccination status “because at this time, there is not evidence that COVID-19 vaccines prevent transmission of the virus from person-to-person.”

Employers now must determine whether they will mandate, motivate, or educate employees to receive the vaccine. They will first have to determine whether the vaccine will provide a safer working environment. While it seems clear that the vaccine will minimize or eliminate the vaccinated individual’s COVID symptoms, it remains unclear whether a vaccinated worker may spread the virus to others. Therefore, a vaccinated workforce may still be a contagious one.   

Businesses that serve in-person customers may benefit from mandating the vaccine. A local restaurant or retailer may be able to advertise that its staff is vaccinated encouraging patrons to return. While a mandatory vaccine program may be complex, the benefit of returning customers may outweigh the pain of a program. Conversely, in an organization where most employees have remained remote and business has continued at normal levels, the complexity of a mandatory program may not be worth it. In the latter scenario, it may be better to implement a voluntary program, which is easier to administer and has less compliance complexity. Employers will have to weigh the return on investment for each approach.

Employers will also have to determine their appetite for risk. Many initially lean toward a mandatory vaccine approach in an effort to protect employees from becoming seriously ill. However, even mandatory programs pose liability risks for employers. Essentially, there are two schools of thought regarding mandatory vaccine programs:

  1. A vaccinated workforce is essential to safety. A vaccinated workforce will reduce community spread and bring the workforce closer to herd immunity. The fewer employees that become symptomatic or sick, the sooner we may reduce COVID-19’s spread. Likewise, it would be negligent, or a violation of the employer’s General Duty obligations, to not mandate eligible employees to receive the vaccine.
  2. The vaccine is too new to mandate. On the other hand, some believe that it would be negligent, or a violation of an employer’s General Duty to require employees to receive the vaccine, noting that the vaccine is merely under emergency authorization. Consequently, mandating that eligible employees receive the vaccine would create employer liability for any possible harm the vaccine could cause to employees.  

It is also important to note that mandatory programs will likely trigger workers compensation coverage for any medical services and/or lost time associated with employee reactions to the vaccine. Workers compensation coverage is not always a bad thing. Employers should remember that the workers compensation exclusive remedy provision protects employers from negligence and tort claims (but not gross negligence). 

Employers should also consider the practical and operational complexities associated with a vaccination program. Employers who implement a mandatory program must be prepared to enforce the rules. They may be faced with difficult decisions regarding candidates and eligible employees who refuse to receive the vaccine (without any legal protections). Can the employer continue to recruit and retain talent under a mandatory program?

Regardless of where an employer lands on the vaccine program spectrum, they must take their employee complaints and concerns seriously. Likewise, employers must not take adverse action against a complaining employee. Employee OSHA whistleblower cases have reached unprecedented numbers. As of February 5, there have been 4,738 COVID OSHA whistleblower complaints filed in the previous 12-months. Before 2020 (and COVID-19), the largest number of complaints received by OSHA in a 12-month period was 3,355 in 2016.

The good news, if there is any, is that employers that provide safe working environments, are open to employee concerns, and communicate with workers are already taking positive and proactive steps to avoiding liability and litigation. The following best practices may be helpful: 

  • Review your COVID safety program to ensure it comports with OSHA’s 16-point COVID prevention program guidance, and continue to review and update as guidance and regulations change.
  • Provide managers and employees regular safety training, and provide managers with training to enforce safety programs, hold employees accountable, and document all safety incidents and violations.
  • Stay up to date with regulations. OSHA has updated emergency temporary standards, and local and state laws continue to change rapidly.
  • Update anti-retaliation policies to include COVID safety protocols. Also consider a whistleblower hotline and ensure that managers are trained and understand how to take seriously and address employee concerns and complaints.
  • Be sure your workforce has the most current information regarding COVID-19, its symptoms and transmission, and the vaccine. Also be sure to provide all communication in multiple languages for a multilingual workforce.

Ultimately, COVID workplace safety is at the core of any employer’s operations. Whether an employer mandates, motivates or educates its employees to receive the vaccine, they must continue to evolve and enforce their COVID safety protocols.

OSHA Revises Stance on COVID-19 Record-Keeping and Enforcement

Posted on by

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently issued two enforcement memos regarding COVID-19. The first of these memos revised OSHA’s requirements for employers as they determine whether individual cases of COVID-19 are work-related. The second revised OSHA’s policy for handling COVID-19-related complaints, referrals, and severe illness reports. The changes in these revisions include:

Record-Keeping and Reporting

OSHA’s position for months has been that cases of COVID-19 are subject to record-keeping and reporting requirements if they are work-related. On May 26, 2020, OSHA’s new memorandum superseded the previous April 10, 2020 memorandum on the subject of work-relatedness.

The April 10 memorandum essentially provided most employers latitude to assume that cases of COVID-19 were not work-related, absent evidence to the contrary. The May 19 memorandum revises OSHA’s position, requiring employers to investigate COVID-19 cases more heavily before concluding whether they are work-related.

The primary thrust of the agency’s revised position is that OSHA enforcement officers should consider three primary factors when evaluating whether an employer’s determination of work-relatedness was reasonable:

  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation into work-relatedness;
  • The evidence available to the employer; and
  • The evidence that a COVID-19 illness was contracted at work.

Regarding the first, OSHA stated that it is sufficient in most circumstances for an employer, when it learns of an employee’s COVID-19 illness, to (1) ask the employee how he or she believes they contracted COVID-19; (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee his or her work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness, and (3) review the employee’s work environment for potential COVID-19 exposure.

Employee privacy rights are a potential trap for unwary employers when inquiring about exposure outside of the workplace. Such discussions could implicate a variety of employment laws, including state-specific laws.

Regarding the second factor, OSHA directed employers to consider the evidence “reasonably available” at the time they makes their work-relatedness determination. If employers later learn more information related to an employee’s COVID-19 illness, then employers shall also consider that information.

OSHA elaborated on the third factor by listing certain types of evidence that weigh in favor of or against work-relatedness. For example, OSHA stated that COVID-19 illnesses are likely work-related when several cases develop among employees who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation. OSHA also stated that an employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if it was contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation.

OSHA justified its revised position on work-relatedness by stating that the nature of COVID-19 and the ubiquity of community spread frequently make it difficult to accurately determine whether a COVID-19 illness is work-related, especially when employees have experienced potential exposure both in and out of the workplace. OSHA might also have been motivated by some organizations calling for it to take a more aggressive response to COVID-19.

Complaints, Referrals and Illness Reports

The second memo, also issued on May 19, 2020, was related to complaints, referrals, and severe illness reports. Specifically, in geographic areas where community spread of COVID-19 has significantly decreased, OSHA will return to its normal pre-COVID-19 methods for prioritizing reported events for inspections. 

OSHA will continue to prioritize cases of COVID-19 to some degree, but will increasingly conduct these efforts by phone or other remote methods. In geographic areas experiencing either sustained elevated community transmission or a resurgence in community transmission, OSHA will continue to heavily prioritize COVID-19, including conducting on-site inspections, especially in high-risk workplaces.

Action Items and Final Takeaways

OSHA’s enforcement approaches regarding the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve. The agency will likely continue to closely monitor employers’ compliance with COVID-19-related requirements even after states and localities lift stay-at-home orders.

Professionals with questions on how OSHA’s recent enforcement policies affect a business or organization should consider consulting with legal counsel. Also, OSHA distributes by email an informative twice-monthly newsletter called “QuickTakes,” open for subscription. OSHA’s regulations on injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting, found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1904, also include helpful questions and answers about these topics.

Finally, employers should bear in mind that the negative consequences of choosing not to comply with OSHA’s record-keeping and reporting requirements often outweigh the potential negative consequences of bringing injuries and illnesses to OSHA’s attention.

FIU Bridge Collapse Due to Negligence, OSHA Claims

Posted on by

According to a new Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) report, negligence from almost every party involved led to last year’s collapse of a pedestrian bridge at Miami’s Florida International University, killing 6 and permanently disabling one other. The pedestrian bridge project was supposed to pose lower risk of disruption thanks to a construction method called “accelerated bridge construction,” intended to minimize the time and risk involved on-site by performing much of the work off-site and then relocating it. Yet, according to the report, almost all parties involved shared some fault for the collapse, most notably FIGG Engineering-Bridge Group, the firm that designed the bridge.

On March 15, 2018, the bridge collapsed onto the street below, where multiple cars were waiting at a stoplight. FIGG Engineering-Bridge Group had designed the bridge and engineering firms Louis Berger and Bolton Perez and Associates provided additional design checks. Miami-based construction firm Munilla Construction Management (MCM) managed the bridge’s construction off-site and relocated it to the school using the accelerated bridge construction method.

OSHA says that FIGG produced a “deficient” design and the company’s attempts to seal cracks in the bridge led to its collapse.

buy xifaxan online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/xifaxan.html no prescription pharmacy

FIGG reportedly also ignored MCM workers’ concerns about the bridge’s growing cracks, saying that it had examined them and did not find anything troubling. Given this response from FIGG, OSHA wrote that MCM should have exercised “independent judgment with regard to implementing necessary safety measures” to address those growing cracks and close the street below. OSHA also said that the road should have been closed immediately as FIGG attempted to repair the cracks—work that, as the Miami Herald reported, put additional stress on already-faulty and weak internal support cables.

According to the OSHA report, at a meeting with all construction participants on the day of the collapse, FIGG’s lead engineer “acknowledged that his computations could not replicate the cracks and, therefore, he did not know why the cracks were occurring.” Upon being told that the cracks were widening daily, he “stated more than once that the cracks did not present any safety concerns.
buy amoxicillin online https://royalcitydrugs.com/amoxicillin.html no prescription

” The engineer had also reportedly called the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) three days before the collapse to claim the same.

The report also calls into question Louis Berger’s independent review of the bridge’s designs, noting that the firm’s “constrained” budget and time led to deficiencies in the firm’s analysis, including not examining the post-installation construction phase, during which the collapse happened. OSHA said FIGG violated FDOT requirements by not requiring Louis Berger to conduct the full examination and failing to provide the firm with necessary documents.

buy biaxin online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/biaxin.html no prescription pharmacy

Bolton Perez and Associates was reportedly aware of the cracks in the bridge, but failed to follow DOT requirements to “exercise its own independent professional judgment,” and did not recommend that the street be closed.

After the incident, victims filed 18 lawsuits against 25 companies connected with the collapse, with depositions beginning in May 2019. According to the Miami Herald, MCM declared bankruptcy and in May, the judge overseeing its bankruptcy approved a $42 million insurance settlement for victims and their families. Additionally, FIU has designated that its $5 million insurance payment should go to the victims. FIGG released a statement this week calling the OSHA report “factually inaccurate and incomplete,” citing “flawed analysis.” A National Transportation Safety Board report is forthcoming, but may not be released until 2020.

buy priligy online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/priligy.html no prescription pharmacy