Tag Archives: Regulations

Immediate Vault Immediate Access

Court Overturns Prop 22, California’s Gig Worker Classification Law

Posted on by

On August 25, the Alameda County Superior Court in California declared that Proposition 22 (better known as Prop 22) violated the state’s constitution, overturning it and potentially putting a portion of the state’s gig work industry in peril. The controversial California ballot measure designated app-based gig workers like rideshare and food delivery drivers as independent contractors, meaning that the companies they ostensibly work for would not have to provide a minimum wage, health insurance, unemployment, sick leave or other benefits. Because the initiative was a ballot measure, the court found the law restricted the state legislature’s ability to regulate compensation rules, and said the measure also illegally prevented workers from collective bargaining and unionization. However, this ruling does not mean that gig workers will automatically be considered employees, as no previous law mandated that classification.

Before Prop 22’s passage in November 2020, California passed AB 5 in May 2019, which instituted a more rigorous test to determine whether workers were employees or independent contractors: if “the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work,” the work was outside the company’s usual business, and if the worker “customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.”

Rideshare companies like Uber and Lyft essentially ignored AB 5 and poured $224 million into fighting for Prop 22, making it “the most expensive ballot measure in California history,” according to the Los Angeles Times. The measure passed with around 59% of the vote.

In a small concession for workers, Prop 22 did provide for a health insurance stipend, but an August 2021 UC Berkeley Labor Center survey of 500 drivers showed that only around 10% of workers were receiving it, and 40% had not heard about it at all. Since work hours are only defined by the time spent driving with a passenger, others do not work the required 15 hours per week on one app to qualify for the stipend. These and other factors prompted drivers and the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to sue the state seeking to overturn the law.

For now, the Superior Court ruling will likely not change much for gig workers in California, as Uber and other companies have announced their intention to challenge it in higher courts and may ignore any of its other legal implications, leaving everyone involved with a shaky status quo: an overturned law that is effectively still being followed.

As Risk Management wrote in May, one danger of the continuing ambiguity surrounding gig worker classification is misclassifying workers, which can lead to heavy fines or lawsuits. For example, in January 2020, D.C.-based contractor Power Design Inc. agreed to pay $2.5 million for misclassifying 500 workers as independent contractors rather than employees. In August, food delivery app company Postmates settled with the city of Seattle for nearly $1 million for violating the city’s Gig Worker Paid Sick and Safe Time (PSST) ordinance. The payment will go to cover city fines and compensate more than 1,600 workers for back wages. Additionally, withholding benefits, overtime, and meal and rest breaks (whether a result of misclassification, or in general) can result in workers filing class action lawsuits against the company, potentially resulting in significant costs, impacting productivity and damaging the organization’s reputation.

Another risk for gig work companies is insufficient safety measures for workers. Unlike with formal employees, companies often do not provide gig workers with safety training and may not offer formal ways to report safety concerns. This creates an environment where workers who are often under pressure to complete as many rides or tasks as quickly as possible may get into accidents or leave dangers unreported, creating liabilities for themselves and the company.

online pharmacy reglan with best prices today in the USA

Other states have their own gig work regulations either on the books or in the works and President Joe Biden has expressed support for gig worker classification as employees, but there is currently no national legislation on this issue. However, in March, the House of Representatives passed the Protect the Right to Organize Act (or PRO Act), which would reclassify gig workers as employees, affording them all the benefits included in that status.

online pharmacy spiriva inhaler with best prices today in the USA

The Senate has not yet taken up the measure.

‘Take-Home COVID-19’ Claims: Preparing for a Second Wave of Coronavirus Litigation

Posted on by

The Spanish Influenza epidemic came in three waves, with the first hitting in March 1918, the second in the fall and the third in the winter of 1919. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers the second wave to have been the most deadly. In the United States, well over half of the epidemic’s death toll of 675,000 occurred during the second wave. It is no surprise then that public health experts were already warning of the possibility of a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic when the world was just beginning to acknowledge that the first wave was upon it in February.

Personal injury mass litigation also comes in waves. Consider asbestos: In the first wave, individuals who worked directly with asbestos filed workers compensation claims. Workers exposed to asbestos in products filed products liability suits during the second wave. A third wave included “take-home asbestos” claims in which workers’ children and spouses sued for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos fibers taken home from work. A fourth wave is now underway with the alleged asbestos contamination of consumer talc products.

The first wave of personal injury coronavirus litigation emerged in early March when a married couple sued Princess Cruise Lines for gross negligence for placing “…profits over the safety of its passengers, crew, and the general public in continuing to operate business as usual.” Many similar individual and class action lawsuits have followed. According to an analysis by the Miami Herald, some 3,600 cruise line passengers have contracted COVID-19 and more than 100 have died. 

The situation in nursing homes is far worse. Nursing home residents account for an estimated 40% of U.S. coronavirus deaths thus far. Predictably, wrongful death suits filed by the family members of nursing home residents are surging, even as some states move to shield nursing home operators from liability. Personal injury lawsuits have also been filed against hospitals, meatpackers, restaurants, grocery stores and warehousing operations.

However, as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic subsides, personal injury litigation may subside along with it. But what if the pandemic has a second wave? Although there is a great deal of uncertainty, public health experts now believe that there is no inherent seasonality to COVID-19 itself, but they remain deeply concerned that a combination of complacency and greater indoor activity could lead to a second wave of infections in the coming months.

What would a second wave of coronavirus personal injury litigation look like? One possibility that modelers at Praedicat are considering is a wave of “take-home COVID-19” litigation arising from occupational infection, coupled with high rates of intra-family transmission. Praedicat modelers estimate that 7-9% of COVID-19 deaths in the first wave have been family members of workers in essential industries who acquired coronavirus at work. With widespread testing and improved contact tracing, take-home transmission could be relatively easy to demonstrate during a second wave. The first take-home COVID-19 lawsuits were filed in August against an electrical supply company and a meatpacking facility, and the precursors to these complaints are present in earlier lawsuits filed against Amazon and McDonald’s.

Many public health officials believe that it is entirely within our power to keep a second wave of the virus from forming while we wait for a vaccine to be developed and deployed. A unified and steadfast public health campaign is critical if we are to avoid a second wave, individual companies working to limit transmission among their workers and customers is as well. First and foremost, this means closely adhering to federal, state, and local guidelines and industry best practices regarding disinfection, screening and testing, social distancing, and the use of masks and other personal protective equipment. Employers might also work to raise awareness of take-home exposure and the risk to vulnerable older family members or those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes that have been shown to elevate the risk of life-threatening complications associated with COVID-19.  Depending on the circumstances, maintaining social distance at home may be just as critical as maintaining social distance at work.

While a second wave of the pandemic may be unlikely, some level of infection, illness, and litigation is sure to be with us until there is a vaccine. The best protection against liability is making the safety of workers and customers paramount. But risk managers need to prepare for the worst and should also be reviewing the availability of coverage for employment related coronavirus claims, including take-home exposure. The employers liability exclusion under a general liability policy, for example, might exclude claims made by the family members of workers.

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.

New Bill Would Toughen Calif. Dam Inspections

Posted on by

DWR Photo: Lake Oroville on Jan. 19, 2018 with lake levels at 707 feet.

A year after the spillway collapse at the Oroville Dam, leading to evacuations of almost 200,000 residents and a beat-the-clock patching job to avoid a break in the tallest dam in the United States, new legislation to strengthen inspections of dams awaits approval of California Gov. Jerry Brown.

The bill would require annual inspections for high hazard dams, raise inspection standards and require consultation with independent experts every 10 years, according to ABC News.

As reported by Risk Management Magazine, problems at the Oroville Dam began when the dam’s main sluice was damaged after a winter season of record rain and snowfall, following five years of drought. Torrential rainfall caused water levels to rise so quickly that large amounts needed to be released to prevent the dam from rupturing and sending a wall of water to the communities below.

A recent report of the root-cause of the spillway failure by the Independent Forensic Team (IFC), which includes members of the Association of State Dam Safety Officials and the United States Society of Dams, notes that:

There was no single root cause of the Oroville Dam spillway incident, nor was there a simple chain of events that led to the failure of the service spillway chute slab, the subsequent overtopping of the emergency spillway crest structure, and the necessity of the evacuation order. Rather, the incident was caused by a complex interaction of relatively common physical, human, organizational, and industry factors, starting with the design of the project and continuing until the incident. The physical factors can be placed into two general categories:

  • Inherent vulnerabilities in the spillway designs and as-constructed conditions, and subsequent chute slab deterioration

  • Poor spillway foundation conditions in some locations

The IFC report concludes that all dam owners in the state need to “reassess current procedures” in light of its findings.

According to the IFC:

“The fact that this incident happened to the owner of the tallest dam in the United States, under regulation of a federal agency, with repeated evaluation by reputable outside consultants, in a state with the leading dam safety regulatory program, is a wake-up call for everyone involved in dam safety. Challenging current assumptions on what constitutes ‘best practice’ in our industry is overdue.”

Initial response to the spillway failure included erosion mitigation for both spillways during the incident, sediment removal and installation of temporary transmission lines at a cost of $160 million, According to the DWR. Phase-two includes removal of the original 730 feet of the upper chute, replacing it with structural concrete.