Category: COVID-19

IT Security Trends in the Era of COVID: Our Top Five Tips for Making Your Network Safer in 2021

As the COVID era drags on, it is clear that work life “post-COVID” may be very different from life “pre-COVID.” This is especially true as it relates to IT security. More and more employees have shifted to a telecommuting work model, and for many businesses that may be the case for an indefinite period of time. This raises important questions as to which security improvements or other changes IT departments need to make in 2021 to keep their businesses and client data safer from cyberattacks.

Here are five potential IT defense measures that your business can implement to protect your organization’s data as well as your clients’ data:

  1. Ensure your network only accepts connections through an encrypted Virtual Private Network (VPN). Preparing your network for long-term telecommuting connectivity and ensuring that your employees can only access your company’s network by using an encrypted VPN is an important first step. When properly configured, VPNs provide an encrypted “tunnel” between an employee and the company’s internal network (and back), which provides a secure connection as employees continue to remotely access their employers’ networks over the long haul.
  2. Invest in and enact mandatory multi-factor authentication techniques. Multi-factor authentication (MFA) involves validating the identity of a person and is critical to defending a network against many types of cyber threats, including phishing and credential stuffing attacks. MFA helps to protect against unauthorized network access even if an employee has had their account log-in credentials compromised. According to TechRepublic, the use of MFA increased by 18% in 2020. This also includes a 27% increase in the use of biometric data for security purposes. MFA has emerged as a key tool to combat the threat and expense of cyberattacks; as such, organizations of all sizes would be well served in making MFA implementation a top priority.
  3. Implement mandatory employee social awareness training. According to the 2019 Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report, approximately one-third of all cybersecurity breaches stemmed from phishing attacks, with that number rising to almost 80% in cyber espionage attacks. There is no better time to prepare your employees on how to recognize and avoid phishing attacks. One cost-effective measure to combat phishing attacks is to tag all emails originating outside the company as “external.” This creates more awareness and helps to prevent employees clicking on bad links or opening infected attachments that appear to come from fellow colleagues.
  4. Implement “layered” security for your network, also known as “Defense in Depth.” In addition to requiring a user to log in with solely their credentials, consider “layering” your network security by encompassing additional security measures such as MFA, password hashing and salting, biometric verification, application whitelisting and/or secure network logging and auditing. According to Help Net Security, in the second quarter of 2020, approximately 70% of all cyber-attacks involved “zero day” malware. This means 70% of all cyberattacks are using malware that does not yet have an anti-virus signature – a 12% increase from just the first quarter of 2020. To help defeat these “zero day” attacks, the more “layers” of network defense will work to strengthen a company’s ability to detect and prevent a developing cyberattack. Diversifying network defenses can pay dividends.
  5. Recognize and minimize the insider threat. “Insider” cyberattacks have increased by approximately 50% over the last two years. According to the Verizon Data Breach Report, over 30% of all reported cyberattacks and data breaches are directly attributable to company insiders. To alleviate this threat, it is critical to have your IT department identify and eliminate employee “privilege creep.” Insider attacks often stem from employees having excessive access and privileges to parts of the company network to which they do not need access. In short, it is critical to take the time to ensure that employees only have access to the data they actually need, and nothing more.

This list is by no means exhaustive, and there are certainly many other tactics, defenses and strategies companies can implement to protect their networks and data from external and internal cyber threats and attacks. Nevertheless, these “top five” recommendations are foundational to any type of network security improvements and should be considered as part of any upgrades for network cyber defenses in 2021.

© 2020 Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. All Rights Reserved.

ARTICLE BY Jason G. Weiss, Peter Baldwin and Amy Grewal Dunn of Faegre Drinker
For more, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

Legal Ramifications of Flouting Mask Rules by Members of Congress

During the invasion of Congress on January 6, 2021, members of Congress were forced to take shelter for a few hours with a large group of their colleagues. Several Democratic members of Congress—Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.), Pramila Jayapal (Wash.), and Brad Schneider (Ill.)—have revealed that they have tested positive for COVID-19 after sheltering with colleagues who refused to wear masks. There have been rules in place since July 2020 that require masks in House office buildings and on the floor of the House, but those rules have not been consistently enforced. A number of House Republicans did not wear masks during the emergency sheltering and refused to accept masks offered by Rep. Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.). House leadership has committed to enforce the rules more stringently going forward and impose fines starting at $500 on members who do not wear masks on the House floor. Democratic Representatives Debbie Dingell (Mich.) and Anthony Brown (Md.) have introduced legislation that would go farther, imposing fines of $1,000 per day on House members who do not wear masks on the Capitol grounds.

But do representatives who have contracted COVID-19 have any legal remedy for holding the House or other individual House members liable for their having contracted the virus?

First, it is important to note that no one can say with certainty when, where, or how they contracted the virus. Representative Schneider has acknowledged directly that he does not know that he contracted the virus during the insurrection, but that his exposure during the shelter in place was the greatest exposure he has experienced during the pandemic. He surmises that the fact that three people (thus far) have tested positive points to the forced sequestering with unmasked colleagues as the probable source of infection. There has been no reporting on whether the Republican members who refused to wear masks have tested positive for the virus, making the proof of the source of the infection more challenging.

Second, even assuming the newly infected Representatives could establish they contracted the virus from unmasked colleagues on January 6, their legal remedies are extremely limited. While employees in the private sector could complain to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) about unsafe working conditions, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C.§ 654) does not apply directly to the U.S. Congress. Under the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA), 2 U.S.C. § 1341, the legislative branch is required to comply with OSHA standards mandating that the workplace be free from recognized hazards likely to cause death or serious injury. Under the CAA, a member of Congress or a staff person can request that the General Counsel of the Office of Congressional Workplace Rights (OCWR) conduct an inspection of unsafe working conditions. If the inspection determines there are unsafe working conditions, the OCWR General Counsel can issue a citation or notice of violation. If the violation has not been corrected after that notice, the General Counsel may file a complaint to be submitted to a hearing. Currently, even without a formal complaint to the OCWR, Congress has taken steps to more rigorously enforce its rule requiring masks in congressional workplaces.

Third, assuming a member of Congress who contracted COVID-19 could prove he or she was infected by a specific colleague who was not wearing a mask, legal recourse against that colleague would likely be barred by the terms of the Speech or Debate Clause of the U.S. Constitution, contained in Article I, Section 6. This clause states that members of both Houses of Congress “shall not be questioned in any other Place” about any speech or debate and shall be “privileged from Arrest” during attendance at a session of Congress. The limitation on questioning a member of Congress about speech or debate is intended to protect them from efforts by members of the Executive branch or members of the public to interfere with their exercise of their legislative duties. The refusal to wear a mask might not be seen as an aspect of legislative debate, but at least one Republican who refused to take the mask offered by Representative Rochester was heard to say she did not want to make this “political,” and those who refuse to wear masks may assert that they do so for political reasons.

If the Speech or Debate Clause did not bar a suit by one Representative against another, the legal claim would likely be one for tort damages related to an intentional assault, which requires proof that an individual deliberately acted to cause another to fear imminent harm. There have been numerous tort cases filed against cruise ships, nursing homes, and entertainment venues by people exposed to COVID-19. Suits against individuals are rare, but might follow the theories advanced by individuals exposed to the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). HIV cases ordinarily involved battery claims because of the means of transmission through close bodily contact, but because COVID-19 is transmitted through airborne particles, liability would not necessarily be predicated on physical contact but merely the apprehension of contracting the airborne virus.

Establishing liability for COVID-19 infection is difficult in any workplace. As in many other areas of employment and tort law, imposing liability on members of Congress is even more challenging. In the absence of targeted legislation, members of Congress may have little recourse against colleagues who expose them to a greater risk of infection by their refusal to comply with basic health and safety practices during the pandemic.

ARTICLE BY Carolyn Wheeler of Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP
For more, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Costs of COVID-19 Vaccines: What We Do and Don’t Yet Know

The roll-out of vaccine approvals has led to some confusion over what charges consumers might be asked to cover. This echoes the confusion previously discussed with respect to COVID-19 diagnostic and antibody test pricing. But consumers, providers, and others that will have any involvement with vaccine production, distribution, or administration should be aware that the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act provides different rules for treatment (including testing) than it does for preventative care, like the recently approved vaccines.

The CARES Act provides that all insurance plans that are subject to the Affordable Care Act’s preventative services coverage standards must cover any qualifying coronavirus preventive services, including approved vaccines, without cost-sharing. It also provides that Medicare plans must cover the cost of the COVID-19 vaccine and its administration, without cost-sharing. This coverage applies to both in- and out-of-network providers. In short, if the primary purpose of a medical visit is to receive a covered vaccine, then the vaccine recipient should not be responsible for any out of pocket costs. However, if their appointment or doctor’s visit includes health services unrelated to COVID-19—such as bloodwork—the recipient may be charged for those services.

Notably, federal rules require that coverage must begin to apply within 15 days of a vaccine’s approval by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), accelerating the usual timeline required for plans to incorporate a new recommendation. Insurance plans are therefore currently required to cover the cost of both of the vaccines that have been approved in the United States. (The ACIP provided its interim recommendation for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine on December 12, 2020 and subsequently issued its interim recommendation for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine on December 19, 2020.)

Not all health care plans are covered by these requirements. Plans that are not subject to the ACA’s preventative services coverage standards are not subject to the CARES Act and its vaccine coverage requirement. These plans—which could include short-term health plans, fixed indemnity plans, or some grandfathered plans—may take varying approaches to vaccine coverage. It appears that these plans can require that beneficiaries pay cost sharing for vaccines or can exclude recommended vaccines from coverage altogether. Individual states may ultimately require plans to cover the vaccine and waive cost-sharing. Alternatively, the plans may decide, for any number of reasons (including, e.g., concerns about employee health and safety) to provide coverage, though they may or may not decide to waive cost-sharing. At least one such plan has already said that COVID-19 vaccine costs will be “shareable.”

Several open questions remain. First, it is unclear how much the vaccine could cost (either to recipients or to insurers) in the future, following the conclusion of the public health emergency.

Second, uninsured vaccine recipients may see differences in billing in the long term. Providers that administer an approved COVID-19 vaccine to uninsured recipients will be reimbursed for vaccine administration costs through a provider relief fund created by the CARES Act. The federal government has not indicated how it will handle these reimbursements if that relief fund should be depleted.

Third, because vaccine coverage arises from the ACA’s preventative services coverage standards, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision on a pending challenge seeking to invalidate the law’s individual mandate could greatly impact this area, and potentially eliminate or reduce cost coverage.

Finally, and of particularly salience for price gouging concerns, even though the vaccine itself is free, vaccine recipients might still see bills. Some providers can legally charge an administration fee for giving the shot, according to the CDC. Those providers can seek reimbursement for such a fee from either the recipient’s “public or private insurance company or, for uninsured patients, by the Health Resources and Services Administration’s Provider Relief Fund.” Several states prohibit price gouging for medical services, and it remains to be seen whether and how any fees could be justified or challenged under different state laws.

In summary, most but not all COVID vaccines costs should be covered without cost sharing to recipients, related additional charges for the treatment visit might not be covered, and all the non-covered charges likely are subject to state price gouging laws.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Mixed-Status Families to Finally Receive Stimulus Checks

Last week, Congress passed the $900 billion coronavirus relief package that was signed into law by President Donald Trump on December 27, 2020. In this package, the U.S. government will allow mixed-status households to receive stimulus checks. In mixed-status families, at least one member of the household must have a Social Security number (SSN). These families were denied stimulus checks in the first round of payments offered in late March this year.

Who Can Expect Stimulus Checks?

United States citizens and legal permanent residents (green card holders) will receive $600 in direct aid, even if they previously filed their taxes jointly with an undocumented spouse. An additional $600 checks will be sent for each dependent child. The new compromise is also retroactive to the mixed-status families where at least one household member has an SSN. These families will receive checks for $1,200 per household and $500 per child as previously allocated by the CARES Act.

Individuals with an adjusted gross income higher than $75,000 in 2019, heads of household who earned more than $112,500, and couples who made $150,000 will not be eligible for the checks. Undocumented immigrants and other non-citizens who do not have an SSN and file individual tax returns are ineligible for aid. U.S. Citizen children will not receive this aid at least one parent has an SSN.

Many undocumented immigrants and some non-citizens are ineligible for Social Security Numbers. They use government-issued Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITIN) to pay taxes. Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries have Social Security Numbers.

Reactions to the Coronavirus Relief Package

“It was unfair and absurd that millions of taxpayers in need of assistance to feed their families, many in the immigrant community with U.S. citizen children and working on the frontlines, were previously denied access to these survival funds,” said Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer. “I am pleased we were able to extend this economic lifeline to additional families in need.”

“Given there are 5.5 million immigrants working at the front lines of this crisis as essential workers, Congress should provide protection to all tax filers in the U.S regardless of immigration status,” Kerri Talbot, the Director of Federal Advocacy at The Immigration Hub, a lobbying group, said in a statement.

The nonprofit Migration Policy Institute estimated that 14.4 million people in mixed-status families were excluded from relief. This included 5.1 million who are either citizens or green cardholders. Specifically, the figure includes 1.4 million spouses and 3.7 million children who are citizens or legal residents.

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved
For more, visit the NLR Election Law / Legislative News section.

Congress Passes COVID-19 Relief and Stimulus Package

On Monday, December 21, Congress enacted a $900 billion stimulus package to support American workers and businesses impacted by COVID-19. The measure represents a last-minute bipartisan agreement by a lame duck Congress to provide much-needed support as COVID-19 cases continue to rise across the country. Notably, the bill does not include funding to states and local governments, and does not provide any liability protections for businesses related to COVID-19. Those are issues favored by Democrats and Republicans respectively, and were dropped in the compromise.

The legislation includes funding for individual stimulus checks, a restart and expansion of the popular Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) (including clarification that business expenses paid with PPP loan funds are tax deductible), other new and expanded SBA loan programs, direct targeted funding to certain industries, unemployment compensation program extensions, payroll and other tax credits and deductions. The overall legislation will take effect when signed, but individual programs and provisions may have unique effective dates that are separate from the general effectiveness date.

While President Trump has until December 28 to sign the legislation into law, on Tuesday evening, December 22, he called upon Congress to enact an amendment to increase the amount of payments to individuals from $600 to $2000.  He has also expressed discontent with other provisions of the bill, causing some uncertainty as to whether he will sign it or force Congress to take further action.

​Given this uncertainty, we recognize that certain provisions of the bill may change. However, we know that these Congressional stimulus and relief efforts are of great interest to our clients, and we will continue to keep you apprised of any changes to the legislation and its final outcome. The following summaries are based on the version of the law enacted by Congress on December 21.

For a comprehensive review of these provisions and more, please see the following Pierce Atwood alerts:

Business and Tax Relief – including the PPP, other SBA lending, targeted financial aid to certain industries, and payroll and business tax credits and deductions.

Energy Investment Stimulus – including clean energy reforms, research and development, and extension and enhancement of renewable energy tax credits.

Individuals, Families and Workers Relief – including direct stimulus payments and unemployment programs.

Health Care Providers, Patients, COVID-19 Mitigation, and Vaccination – including additional grant money for providers, ending surprise medical billing, and additional support for COVID-19 mitigation.

©2020 Pierce Atwood LLP. All rights reserved.
For more, visit the NLR Election Law / Legislative News section.

The Vaccines are Coming: Should Employers Mandate?

As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available, employers wishing to implement a COVID-19 vaccination policy must consider, among other things, two important questions.  This alert addresses these two fundamental questions.

Can employers implement a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy?

The EEOC recently released COVID-19 vaccination-related guidance for workplace vaccination policies and implied that employers can implement a mandatory vaccine policy, but that they must consider the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when doing so. For example, pre-screening vaccination questions may implicate the ADA’s general prohibition on disability-related inquiries.  An employer can avoid having to establish that such pre-screening questions are job-related and necessary by:

  • Implementing a voluntary policy
  • Arranging for employees to receive the vaccine from a third party that is not contracted with the employer

Additionally, both the ADA and Title VII provide grounds for an employee to be exempted from a mandatory vaccination policy. Under the ADA, an employee can seek a medical exemption if the employee has a disability covered by the ADA that prevents the employee from taking the vaccine. Also, under Title VII, an employee can seek a religious exemption if compliance with the mandatory vaccination policy would violate the employee’s sincerely held religious belief. Employees qualifying for a medical or religious exemption are entitled to a reasonable accommodation unless the employer cannot accommodate the employee without undue hardship. Reasonable accommodations under the ADA and Title VII may include:

  • Personal protective equipment
  • Temporary reassignment
  • Telework

Discussion of medical and religious exemptions, however, risks getting the proverbial cart before the horse.  The way in which the vaccines are now coming “onto the market” introduces considerable doubt as to whether an employer can currently mandate vaccination of its employees.  We now turn to that question.

How does the FDA’s emergency use authorization (EUA) affect the ability of employers to mandate vaccinations?

Given the unprecedented scope of this world-wide pandemic, the FDA, as it has authority to do in times of national emergency, used an expedited process to authorize the two available COVID-19 vaccines for “emergency use.” It is not entirely clear at this time what ramifications the emergency use authorization (EUA) will have for employers who want to mandate the vaccines for their employees.

Under FDA rules, any drug (or vaccine) approved for emergency use must be accompanied by a patient “fact sheet.”  As stated on the FDA website, the “FDA must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances, that FDA has authorized the emergency use of the vaccine, of the known and potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.”

What can employers make of this language on opting to refuse or accept?  Generally speaking, the FDA does not have jurisdiction over employer-employee relations. Other agencies, such as the EEOC and the Department of Labor, have primacy in that sphere.

The EEOC took note of the EUA status of the vaccines in its recent guidance, but did not ban mandatory vaccination policies.  It is not the place, however, of the EEOC to enforce FDA statutes or policy.  Instead, the EEOC seemed to proceed with an acknowledgment that some employers might mandate vaccinations. It is as if the EEOC is unwilling to either sanction or disavow the FDA’s position on EUA rights of refusal.  Rather, the EEOC was addressing employment issues within its purview should an employer mandate vaccination.

Where does this leave the employer? 

Employers choosing to implement a mandatory vaccination policy ought not ignore the FDA’s edict that a candidate for a vaccine shot must be told that they have the option to refuse the vaccine authorized under an EUA.  That right has its source in federal law and reflects the balancing act that the FDA undertakes when it shortcuts its process to get a vaccine or drug out to the people in times of emergency.  If an employer terminates the employment of an employee who has asserted their right to refuse the vaccine (due to the EUA), the employer may face a wrongful discharge suit in state court alleging a violation of public policy.  These causes of action have, at their core, the principle that an employee should not have to choose between a right conferred by law and keeping their job.

In expressing caution on the implementation of mandatory vaccination policies, we are quite aware of the extraordinary nature of this pandemic.  It may be that a court will limit the reach of the FDA’s requirement of “a right of refusal,” and hold that such does not override an employer’s interest in having a safe workplace.  There just is not much guidance for an employer at this time.  As a practical matter, for most employers there will not be enough vaccines available in the next couple of months to worry over mandation issues.  Also, although there is no timetable for full FDA approval of the vaccines, once that occurs, then the requirement of the vaccine dispenser to affirmatively advise the patient of the option to refuse drops out of the picture.  Thereafter, the employer may mandate vaccination, subject to the medical and religious exemptions discussed above.

The severe and pervasive nature of the COVID-19 pandemic has created unprecedented challenges for employers.  We continue to monitor developments at the national and state level.  We will continue to update our clients on a regular basis.

© Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. All Rights Reserved.
For more, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Phishing Attack Messaging Targets COVID-19 Vaccine

In April of this year, which seems far longer than eight months ago, we posted about an alert from federal agencies warning that cyber threat actors were exploiting the coronavirus pandemic to fuel phishing and other attacks. Those efforts have continued throughout the year with attackers now retooling their messaging around the COVID-19 vaccine. Criminal threat actors know millions are clamoring for information about the vaccine and are working to meet that demand with false information, largely through phishing attacks.

According to an alert from the New Jersey Cybersecurity & Communications Integration Cell (NJCCIC):

COVID-19 vaccine-themed phishing emails may include subject lines that make reference to vaccine registration, information about vaccine coverage, locations to receive the vaccine, ways to reserve a vaccine, and vaccine requirements.

For business and/or personal reasons, millions are clamoring for vaccination information and may let their guard down when they see it. In the process, they may divulge sensitive or financial information, or open malicious links or attachments. Phishing campaigns may employ brand spoofing and impersonate well-known and trusted entities, such as government agencies playing a central and critical role in the response to COVID-19 and the vaccination rollout. Messages such as the one below, for example, can lure an individual to want to participate and provide helpful information.

Other forms of attack target individuals who want a vaccine with advertisements for supposed “legitimate” vaccines, but which are nothing of the sort.  Organizations such as New Jersey’s Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness are working to get accurate information about COVID-19 to the public, such as through its Rumor Control and Disinformation web page. However, having accurate information available may not do enough to foil these attacks.

Organizations may not be able to prevent all attacks, but there are steps they could take to minimize the chance and impact of a successful attack, and to be prepared to respond. Among those steps is the critical need to maintain a level of security awareness, in addition to training. Annual trainings are a start, but may not be enough to keep up with nimble threat actors who deftly reshape their messaging and methods to improve their chances of success. They take in developments around the world and adapting on a far more frequent basis than annually.

Employees should be trained to recognize phishing attacks and dangerous sites, and instructed not to reveal personal, financial or other confidential information about themselves, other employees, customers, and the company. However, ongoing reminders about the morphing nature of these kinds of attacks can be instrumental in preventing them. Considering the past year and the more recent rise in COVID-19 cases, it is easy to understand how compelling information about a vaccine can be, so much so that it may be easy to forget the warnings given during that annual training on an early Monday morning in February.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020
For more articles on phishing, visit the NLR Communications, Media & Internet section.

Congress Seeks to Extend Many CARES Act Unemployment Benefits in Pandemic Relief Package

Facing a government shutdown and the expiration of many of the relief programs included in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”) enacted in March 2020, on December 21, 2020, Congress passed a $900 billion pandemic relief package as part of a broader $1.4 trillion government funding bill.  Along with other relief measures, the new legislation includes additional funding for unemployment benefit programs that had previously been funded in the CARES Act.

Unemployment Benefits under the CARES Act

The CARES Act expanded unemployment insurance benefits available to workers, including through the following three programs: (1) Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC”); (2) Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (“PEUC”); and (3) Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (“PUA”).  In short:

  • FPUC provided an extra $600 weekly benefit for all weeks of unemployment between April 5, 2020 and July 31, 2020, in addition to the benefit amount an individual would otherwise be entitled to receive under state law.
  • PEUC provided for an additional 13 weeks of unemployment benefits for individuals who had exhausted unemployment benefits otherwise available under state law.
  • PUA extended unemployment benefits to certain workers traditionally not eligible for unemployment benefits under state law, such as those who self-employed workers, independent contractors, or workers who have a limited work history.

These expanded benefits were all 100% federally funded under the CARES Act.  The CARES Act also provided additional funds and incentives for states to promote short-time compensation (“STC”) or work share programs, which provide employers with an alternative to layoffs.  (For more information about these programs, see our previous post, here: “CARES Act Expands Unemployment Insurance Benefits”).

The Expiration of CARES Act Funding of Unemployment Insurance Benefits

The PEUC and PUA benefit programs were slated to end on (or in many states, shortly before) December 31, which mean that these payments would soon expire without any gradual diminution or replacement benefit.

In addition, the $600 weekly supplement benefit payment under FPUC expired at the end of July.  Although the President signed into law a lesser benefit called Lost Wage Assistance earlier this year, such benefits were only available for a limited time and there has otherwise been no replacement for the weekly supplemental payments.

CARES Act Unemployment Programs under the New Bill

  • FPUC: The bill revives FPUC, but reduces the supplemental weekly benefit by half. As a result, individuals who are unemployed and receiving any unemployment benefits will now be entitled to an additional $300 in benefits for each week of unemployment between December 26, 2020 and March 14, 2021.
  • PEUC: The bill extends PEUC by providing for up to 24 weeks of additional unemployment benefits to eligible individuals who have exhausted the unemployment benefits available under state law. Before the CARES Act, many states capped their benefits at 26 weeks.  The CARES Act provided an additional 13 weeks of PEUC benefits.  With the newest extension to 24 weeks, eligible recipients in many states can now can now receive up to 50 weeks benefits between state programs and PEUC.  These extended benefits are also available through March 14, 2021.  After March 14, 2021, new PEUC claimants will not be eligible for the extra weeks of benefits, but individuals who had been receiving PEUC benefits as of March 14, 2021 will be eligible to continue to receive benefit payments through April 4, 2021.
  • PUA: As with PEUC, the bill extends PUA benefits until March 14, 2021. After March 14, 2021, new claimants will no longer be permitted to apply for PUA benefits, but eligible individuals who were receiving PUA benefits as of that date will continue to receive benefits until April 5, 2021.  Also like PEUC, the duration of PUA benefits for eligible individuals has been extended from 39 weeks (under the CARES Act) to a total of up to 50 weeks.

The bill also extends other CARES Act unemployment provisions to March 14, 2021, including benefits made available to non-profit organizations, incentives for states to waive any one-week waiting periods, and encouraging the use of state STC programs.

New Unemployment Provisions in the New Bill

  • Fraud Provisions: When the CARES Act went into effect, states were faced with processing significant numbers of claims through unemployment systems that in many cases had been underfunded for years, resulting in outdated technology, understaffed offices, and byzantine application processes. In particular, PUA presented a number of challenges because the program required a new application, was separate from any existing benefits, and was available to individuals who otherwise would not have been covered under unemployment programs.  As a result, it was widely reported that PUA benefits were not being properly processed and paid, either due to fraud or confusion on part of both the states and applicants as to who was eligible for certain benefits and how to apply.

In an apparent effort to address these issues, the new bill describes in detail the documentation required to apply for PUA benefits.  As of January 31, 2021, new applicants will have 21 days to submit documentation substantiating their employment, self-employment, or planned commencement of employment/self-employment.  Individuals already receiving PUA benefits prior to January 31, 2021 must provide documentation within 90 days of January 31.  In addition to the new documentation requirement, states now must have procedures in place to validate the identity of claimants and to ensure timely payments.  The federal government will cover costs of these procedures.

Additionally, states must have a process in place for employers to report to the state agency instances in which a former employee refuses to return to work or refuses to accept an offer of suitable work without good cause (which renders the individual ineligible for unemployment benefits).

  • Mixed Earner Unemployment Compensation: Individuals who receive at least $5,000 a year in self-employment income now will receive an additional $100 weekly benefit, in addition to the benefit amounts they otherwise would be entitled to receive from traditional employment under state law.  Previously, such individuals were not eligible for PUA benefits if they received some regular state unemployment benefits for traditional employment, and regular state law benefits did not consider self-employment in calculating the benefit amounts. The new federally-funded “mixed earner” benefit is in addition to the $300 supplemental weekly benefit under FPUC, and also expires on March 14, 2021.

Because the bill was not passed until the final week of the CARES Act programs, it is possible that the extensions and new benefits may not be implemented immediately.   If the CARES Act rollout is any indication, it is likely that there will be additional federal guidance released to address the implementation of these unemployment provisions and answer certain questions the states may have.  Employers and claimants should monitor state websites for any applicable unemployment programs and up-to-date guidance.  Additionally, we will continue to monitor these development and inform our readers of any new guidance in this area.

© 2020 Proskauer Rose LLP.
For more articles on the CARES Act, visit the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Mandatory or Voluntary Employee Vaccinations: EEOC Weighs In

Since well before FDA approval of the first COVID-19 vaccine, many employers have contemplated whether eventual employee vaccination should be a voluntary or mandatory condition of returning to, or remaining at, the workplace. The current legal considerations surrounding employee vaccination depend on interpretation of many existing laws and other sources of employee rights in the workplace. Such rights are not just established by laws, but also by collective bargaining relationships and, in some cases, the industry which the employer does business. In addition, there are compelling business considerations unique to each employer that should influence whether to mandate, or simply encourage, employee COVID-19 vaccination.

In addition to other previous guidance released, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has now provided its current interpretation, which certainly is subject to change, of how employers might grapple with the laws the agency enforces.1

Voluntary Employee COVID-19 Vaccination

EEOC’s new guidance generally clears the way for employers to encourage employees to receive vaccinations on a voluntary basis. Critical to this is EEOC’s clear statement that it does not consider vaccinations themselves to be “medical examinations” which require special justification under the ADA. EEOC does state that the concurrent need to answer pre-vaccination medical screening questions may implicate ADA rights, requiring employers to establish that employee vaccination is “job related and consistent with business necessity.” However, EEOC makes an exception to this justification requirement “if an employer has offered a vaccination to employees on a voluntary basis.”

Mandatory Employee COVID-19 Vaccination

EEOC’s new guidance does not prevent employers from making employee vaccination a mandatory condition of remaining in or returning to the workplace, but it does impose an obstacle course for employers if they choose to make COVID-19 vaccination mandatory.

The obstacle course starts with the medical screening questions required before employees receive the vaccination. As noted, EEOC states that answering these questions may implicate employee ADA rights, so any employer mandating vaccination which either itself administers or contracts out mandatory vaccine administration must establish that the mandatory vaccination requirement is “job related and consistent with business necessity” for each position for which the employer requires mandatory vaccination. Employers can avoid this obstacle if they are willing to accept proof of mandatory vaccination carried out by “a third party that does not have a contract with the employer, such as a pharmacy or other health care provider.” But even employers who accept such proof of vaccination are cautioned “to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof.”

The obstacle course continues in how employers mandating vaccinations must handle employees who object to receiving the vaccination either due to a disability or religious beliefs. In both cases it is necessary for the employer to channel such employees through “a flexible, interactive process” of exploring, in an open-minded manner, the nature of the objection and whether reasonable accommodation may be made to allow the employee to continue working. If the only way a disabled employee can continue working is by being present in the workplace, the employer must be able to prove, under the ADA’s legal standards, that the unvaccinated employee poses a “direct threat” causing a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health and safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Even where there is “no possible reasonable accommodation,” EEOC’s view is “this does not mean that employer may automatically terminate the worker” without first determining “if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state or local authorities.”

Practical Realities and Implications

In the opening to the new “Vaccinations” addition to its guidance, EEOC includes a disclaimer-type statement that “The EEO laws do not interfere with or prevent employers from following CDC or other federal, state, and local public health authorities’ guidelines and suggestions.” Accordingly, employers should be safe to follow such authorities. That said, neither the CDC nor any federal, state, or local public health authority has, as of today, made it mandatory for any group of employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of remaining in or returning to the workplace. Assuming this remains the case, and there is no further law or guidance on the subject, any employer who wishes to implement mandatory vaccinations should consider and determine, taking into account its business and unique circumstances, how to navigate each obstacle in the course EEOC has set up in its Dec. 16, 2020 guidance.

1 With a widely anticipated Dec. 16, 2020 update to its publication “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” EEOC addresses vaccination under the laws it enforces that supply relevant employee rights, including the rights of employees with disabilities, as protected by the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), the rights of employees who may have religious objections to receiving a vaccination, as protected under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) and the right not to disclose or allow employers the opportunity to use genetic information under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).

©2020 Greenberg Traurig, LLP. All rights reserved.
For more articles on the coronavirus vaccine, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Major Drop In Toy Safety Inspections for Over Six Months Due to COVID-19 Threat

A USA TODAY investigation found that the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) pulled its toy police from ports around the country for over 6 months because of the threat of COVID-19, causing a major drop in safety inspections. This is a follow up from our Most Dangerous Toys of 2020 post, further warning parents, grandparents, and gift-givers to research a toy’s potential hazards before clicking the “buy now” button.

CPSC inspectors are supposed to intercept bad toys and other household products before they reach the market.

“Anything that could potentially harm consumers, my job is to stop it here,”
– CPCS compliance investigator from a video posted on the agency’s website.

The leaders of the federal agency made the decision without warning consumers or full disclosure to Congress. They continued the shutdown at the ports and a government testing laboratory until September, including spring and summer months that were their inspectors’ busiest in 2019.

USA TODAY found an extraordinary lapse in safety surveillance during the pandemic which was hidden from the public. From April to September, during the COVID-19 closures, the agency issued a fourth of the violations it did during the same period a year earlier.

CPSC inspectors performed an average of 3,000 monthly screenings at the ports at the beginning of 2020, according to internal agency data. By May, that number had fallen to about 100 and in August, they only performed 47. As of December 2020, the records show inspectors were still not working in five of the 18 ports they normally patrol, Chicago, New York City, Savannah, Buffalo, New York, and Norfolk, Virginia.

Target, Dollar Tree, Walgreens, Amazon, and UPS were among the large wholesale distributors, shipping companies, and name-brand retailers who brought in products from overseas while the CSPS investigators were away from their posts this year, not screening for hazards that wholesalers and retailers are supposed to test for themselves.

Shoppers of these stores and others that import products will have no way to differentiate good products from any bad items that have slipped in. Experts fear it could take years to discover the dangerous items that have been allowed into American homes.

If you notice any problems, experts say to immediately report them to a CPSC website where such complaints are publicly posted: saferproducts.gov.

© 2020 by Clifford Law Offices PC. All rights reserved.
For more articles on toy safety, visit the National Law Review Consumer Protection section.