Category: Labor & Employment

NYC Announces Private-Sector Vaccine Mandate

On December 6, 2021, outgoing New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced major expansions to New York’s “Key to NYC” program, which was implemented through Emergency Executive Order 225 and became effective on August 17, 2021. The mayor also announced a first-in-the-nation vaccination mandate for private-sector workers in New York City, which is set to take effect on December 27, 2021. Additional guidance on these expansive mandates is expected on December 15, 2021.

Private-Sector Vaccine Mandate

The mayor has announced that New York City will implement a “first-in-the-nation,” vaccine mandate for private-sector workers. The mandate is currently set to take effect on December 27, 2021. The mayor estimates that approximately 184,000 businesses would be affected. A spokesperson for Mayor-elect Eric Adams, who is due to take office on January 1, 2022, just days after the mandate is set to take effect, has indicated that the mayor-elect will evaluate the mandate when he takes office and will “make determinations based on science, efficacy and the advice of health professionals.”

Key to NYC Expanded

Under the existing Key to NYC program, staff and patrons who enter certain types of indoor entertainment, recreation, dining, and fitness establishments are required to have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Previously, children under the age of 12, along with certain other individuals were exempt from showing proof of vaccination.

Beginning on December 14, 2021, children ages 5-11 will be required to show proof of at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine in order to enter the covered establishments mentioned above. While individuals were previously only required to show proof of one dose of the vaccine, beginning on December 27, individuals in New York City over the age of 12 will now be required to show proof of two doses of the vaccine.

High-Risk Extracurricular Activities

The mayor also announced that vaccinations would be required for children ages 5-11 if they wish to participate in “high-risk extracurricular activities.” These activities are currently defined as “sports, band, orchestra, and dance.” Children in this age group will be required to have the initial vaccine dose by December 14, 2021.

Key Takeaways

Employers in New York City may wish to review the above requirements to ensure that their practices comply with the obligations articulated in the anticipated mandates. Employers may also want to stay updated as the Key to NYC and the private-sector vaccine mandate continues to evolve.

Article By Kelly M. Cardin and Jessica R. Schild of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Sixth Circuit Deals Blow to OSHA’s Proposed Expedited Briefing Schedule, Says it Will Keep ETS Case

In what is getting to be habit in the OSHA ETS litigation with courts issuing orders late Friday afternoons, the Sixth Circuit on December 3, 2021 tersely denied a petition to transfer the case back to the Fifth Circuit.  In the same order, the Sixth Circuit also denied, without explanation, the union petitioners’ bid to transfer the case to the D.C. Circuit where there is pending litigation of the OSHA Healthcare ETS issued in June 2020.

The order perfunctorily addressed several pending motions on the docket, including OSHA’s motion for an expedited briefing schedule, which would have set the close of briefing on the merits for December 29, 2021 with oral argument held as soon as practicable thereafter.  In denying the motion, the Sixth Circuit stated little more than it was reserving judgment on setting a merits briefing schedule.  Obviously, there are a tremendous number of parties with varied interests and a multitude of legal arguments both statutory and Constitutional, which the court clearly recognizes are at play and likely require a schedule that is not rushed.

The next big issue for the court to tackle will be OSHA’s motion to dissolve the stay with the close of briefing just a week away on December 10, 2021.  Whether the court will dole out more good news for employers, states, and other challengers to the ETS for the holiday season is anybody’s guess, but a decision before the holidays seems imminent.

Article By Melanie L. Paul of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Ontario’s Employment Laws: Several Significant Changes Coming Under Bill 27, the Working for Workers Act, 2021

On November 30, 2021, the Government of Ontario passed Bill 27, the Working for Workers Act, 2021. Bill 27 amends a number of statutes, including the Employment Standards Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

According to the government, this legislation achieves a number of goals, including improving employees’ work-life balance, prohibiting noncompete agreements to increase competition in business and labour markets, facilitating the registration of internationally trained professionals, and implementing a licensing regime for temporary help agencies and recruiters.

Amendments to the Employment Standards Act, 2000

Right to Disconnect from Work

The Working for Workers Act, 2021requires that employers with 25 or more employees at the beginning of the year implement a written “disconnect from work” policy regarding disconnecting from work during nonworking hours. Under the act, the term “disconnecting from work” is defined as “engaging in work-related communications, including emails, telephone calls, video calls or the sending or reviewing of other messages, so as to be free from the performance of work.” Once an employer prepares or amends a policy, employers will have 30 days to share copies of this policy with employees. Employers must also provide new employees this policy within 30 days of being hired.

Once the act receives Royal Assent, employers will have six months from that date to develop their written policies. Following this initial year, employers will have to prepare their policies by no later than March 1 of each year.

The regulations that will be promulgated to establish the content of the policy have not yet been published. As such, it is not yet known what specific steps employers must take to prohibit after-hours work and whether they will be restricted in terms of which employees may or may not be permitted or required to perform after-hours work, in addition to other unsettled issues.

Prohibition of Noncompete Agreements

The act prohibits employers from including noncompete clauses in any agreement they form with an employee. If this provision is violated, the noncompete agreement will be void.

There are two exceptions to this rule.

  1. Employees in an executive role are excepted from this provision. An “executive” is an employee who holds the office of a chief executive position, including that of president, chief executive officer, and chief administrative officer.
  2. There is also an exception when there has been “a sale of a business or part of a business” (which includes a lease). If the purchaser and seller enter into a noncompete agreement, and the seller becomes an employee of the purchaser immediately after the sale, this prohibition will not apply.

Once Royal Assent is received, the noncompete prohibition is deemed to come into force on October 25, 2021.

With the passing the act, Ontario has become the first province to require “disconnect from work” policies and to prohibit noncompete agreements outright.

Licensing Requirements for Temporary Help Agencies

The act specifies that temporary help agencies and recruiters must now apply for a license. Anyone wishing to engage with a temporary help agency or recruiter must ensure that they are licensed, as knowingly doing business with an unlicensed agency or recruiter is prohibited under the act.

Temporary help agencies or recruiters may be refused a license and may have their licenses revoked or suspended for a number of reasons, including:

  • using recruiters that charge fees to foreign nationals;
  • providing “false or misleading information in an application”; and
  • situation in which the director of Employment Standards has reasonable grounds to believe that “the applicant will not carry on business with honesty and integrity and in accordance with the law.”

If applicants dispute the refusal, revocation, or suspension of their licenses, they can seek a review at the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Employment Protection for Foreign Nationals Act, 2009

Prohibition on the Collection of Recruitment Fees

To protect foreign nationals from predatory recruitment practices, the act prohibits employers and recruiters from knowingly using the services of recruiters that charge foreign nationals for their services.

A recruiter that charges a fee, and an employer or recruiter that violates this prohibition will be liable for repaying the fees charged to the foreign national.

These amendments will come into force on the day the Working for Workers Act, 2021 receives Royal Assent.

Amendments to the Fair Access to Regulated Professions And Compulsory Trades Act, 2006

Facilitating the Registration of Internationally Trained Professionals

To facilitate the registration of internationally trained professionals, the act specifies that Canadian experience will not be a qualification for registration in a regulated profession. Regulated professions may apply to be exempted from this rule “for the purposes of public health and safety in accordance with the regulations.” Regulated professions will also be required to develop accelerated registration processes to aid with emergency preparedness.

The fairness commissioner will also evaluate language proficiency requirements to ensure that any French or English testing does not contravene the regulations.

These amendments will come into force on the day the act receives Royal Assent.

Amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act

Mandating Washroom Access for Delivery Persons

Under the act, a new requirement is created that if a person requests washroom access in the course of delivering or picking up a package from a business. Business covered by the act must allow use of their washrooms.

Businesses will be exempt from this requirement if:

  • Sharing the washroom is unreasonable or impractical because of health and safety reasons;
  • The context makes sharing the washroom unreasonable or impractical; or
  • The delivery person would have to enter a dwelling to use the washroom.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997

Distribution of Surplus Insurance Fund

The act includes a provision that specifies that if there is a surplus in the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board’s insurance fund, this surplus may be distributed among eligible employers. The insurance board will have discretion to determine the timing and the amounts to be granted to eligible employers, based on factors such as adherence to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. Based on these factors, the insurance board will also be empowered to exclude any eligible employers from the distribution of surplus funds. Employers will not be able to appeal the funding decisions made by the insurance board in this respect.

These amendments will come into force on a day to be proclaimed by the lieutenant governor.

Amendments to the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs Act

Increasing Information Gathering in Relation to “agriculture, food or rural affairs”

Under the act, the minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is granted the authority to “collect information, including personal information, directly or indirectly” related to “agriculture, food or rural affairs” for the purposes of emergency response and public health. Personal information will not be collected, used, or disclosed in cases where other sources of information are available to fulfil the same purpose.

These amendments will come into force on the day the act receives Royal Assent.

Next Steps

Bill 27 passed its third reading on November 30, 2021. At the time of publication of this article, the legislation has not received Royal Assent, but it likely will shortly. Once Royal Assent is received, some amendments come into force immediately, while others follow different timelines. Employers may want to begin reviewing the new legislation, noting any important dates and features relevant to their organizations. In addition, employers may want to review their policies, practices, and contracts to ensure compliance.

Article By Michael Comartin and Gloria Ilunga of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.
© 2021, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

DOL Publishes Final Rule Implementing President Biden’s $15 Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Executive Order 14026

The Department of Labor (DOL) has published its Final Rule implementing President Biden’s April 27, 2021, Executive Order 14026 raising the minimum wage from $10.95 an hour to $15 an hour (with increases to be published annually). The new wage rate will take effect January 30, 2022, though as discussed below, the rate increases will not be applied to contracts automatically on that date.

The Final Rule is substantially similar to the DOL’s proposed Notice of Rulemaking issued in July 2021 and is more expansive in coverage than the current federal contractor minimum wage requirements in effect under former President Obama’s Executive Order 13658.

$15 Wage Rate Does Not Apply to All Federal Contractors, All Federal Contracts, or All Workers

Covered Contracts

The $15 wage rate will apply to workers on four specific types of federal contracts that are performed in the U.S. (including the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and certain U.S. territories):

  • Procurement contracts for construction covered by the Davis-Bacon Act (DBA), but not the Davis-Bacon Related Acts
  • Service Contract Act (SCA) covered contracts
  • Concessions contracts – meaning a contract under which the federal government grants a right to use federal property, including land or facilities, for furnishing services. The term “concessions contract” includes, but is not limited to, a contract the principal purpose of which is to furnish food, lodging, automobile fuel, souvenirs, newspaper stands, or recreational equipment, regardless of whether the services are of direct benefit to the government, its personnel, or the general public
  • Contracts related to federal property and the offering of services to the general public, federal employees, and their dependents

The Executive Order does not apply to contracts or other funding instruments, including:

  • Contracts for the manufacturing or furnishing of materials, supplies, articles, or equipment to the federal government
  • Grants
  • Contracts or agreements with Indian Tribes under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
  • Contracts excluded from coverage under the SCA or DBA and specifically excluded in the implementing regulations and
  • Other contracts specifically excluded (See NPRM Section 23.40)

Effective Date; Definition of “New” Contracts Expanded

The Final Rule specifies that the wage requirement will apply to new contracts and contract solicitations as of January 30, 2022. Despite the “new contract” limitation, the regulations, consistent with the language of the Biden Executive Order, strongly encourage federal agencies to require the $15 wage for all existing contracts and solicitations issued between the date of the Executive Order and the effective date of January 30, 2022.

Similarly, agencies are “strongly encouraged” to require the new wage where they have issued a solicitation before the effective date and entered into a new contract resulting from the solicitation within 60 days of such effective date.

Pursuant to the Final Rule, the new minimum wage will apply to new contracts; new contract-like instruments; new solicitations; extensions or renewals of existing contracts or contract-like instruments; and exercises of options on existing contracts or contract-like instruments on or after January 30, 2022.

Geographic Limitations Expanded

The Final Rule applies coverage to workers outside the 50 states and expands the definition of “United States” to include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Outer Continental Shelf lands as defined in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Wake Island, and Johnston Island.

Workers Performing Work “On or In Connection With” a Covered Contract

Only workers who are non-exempt under the Fair Labor Standards Act and performing work on or in connection with a covered contract must be paid $15 per hour. The wage requirement applies only to hours worked on or in connection with a covered contract.

A worker performs “on” a contract if the worker directly performs the specific services called for by the contract. A worker performs “in connection with” a contract if the worker’s work activities are necessary to the performance of a contract but are not the specific services called for by the contract.

The Final Rule includes a “less-than-20% exception” for those workers who only perform work “in connection with” a covered contract, but do not perform any direct work on the contract. For workers who spend less than 20% of their hours in a workweek working indirectly in connection with a covered contract, the contractor need not pay the $15 wage for any hours for that workweek.

Tipped Employees

Under the Final Rule, DOL is phasing out lower wages and tip credits for tipped employees on covered contracts. Employers must pay tipped employees $10.50 per hour in 2022 and increase those wages incrementally, under a proposed formula in the NPRM. Beginning in 2024, tipped employees must receive the full federal contractor wage rate.

$15 Wage Contract Clause Requirements, Enforcement Obligations

The Final Rule provides that a Minimum Wage contract clause will appear in covered prime contracts, except that procurement contracts subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) will include an applicable FAR Clause (to be issued by the Federal Acquisition Regulation Council) providing notice of the wage requirement.

In addition, covered prime contractors and subcontractors must include the Contract Clause in covered subcontracts and, as will be in the applicable FAR Clause, procurement prime contractors and subcontractors will be required to include the FAR clause in covered subcontracts.

In addition, the Final Rule provides that contractors and subcontractors:

“… shall require, as a condition of payment, that the subcontractor include the minimum wage contract clause in any lower-tier subcontracts … [and] shall be responsible for the compliance by any subcontractor or lower-tier subcontractor with the Executive Order minimum wage requirements, whether or not the contract clause was included in the subcontract.”

The DOL will investigate complaints and enforce the requirements but under the Final Rule, contracting agencies may also enforce the minimum wage requirements and take actions including contract termination, suspension and debarment for violations.

Preparation for the $15 wage

To prepare, contractors and subcontractors of covered contracts should consider taking the following steps:

  • Review existing multi-year contracts with options or extensions that may be exercised on or after January 30, 2022, to plan for wage increases at the exercise of the option or extension, but also review any contract modifications to see if an agency is including the requirement early than required, as is allowed under the Final Rule
  • Identify job titles that typically perform work directly on covered contracts and those that perform indirect work above 20% in a workweek
  • Plan for wage increases for covered workers who are not already making $15 per hour
  • Determine impact on existing collective bargaining agreements particularly on SCA-covered contracts
  • Prepare for submission of price/equitable adjustments based on wage increases if allowed under the contract terms

Article By Leslie A. Stout-Tabackman of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more labor and employment legal news, read more at the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

USCIS Announces Policy Changes for H-4, L-2, and E-1/E-2/E-3 Dependent EAD Workers

Since the publication of our November 12, 2021 alert, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued policy guidance following the November 10, 2021 settlement agreement and updated the I-9 Handbook providing for automatic extensions of Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cards for H-4, L-2, and E-1 Dependent, E-2 Dependent, or E-3 Dependent visa holders. The USCIS policy guidance can be found here.

As described in our previous alert, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) entered into a settlement agreement following a lawsuit brought by H-4 and L-2 spouses suffering from long-delayed adjudication for the processing of applications for Employment Authorization Document (EAD) cards. Effective November 12, 2021, USCIS allows for automatic extensions of employment authorization, in certain circumstances, while an EAD renewal application has been filed and is pending with USCIS for H-4, L-2, and now E-1/E-2/E-3 dependent (“E dependent”) spouses. In addition, USCIS has now changed its statutory interpretation and will soon afford employment authorization incident to status for L-2 spouses, E-1 Treaty Trader dependent spouses, E-2 Investor dependent spouses, and E-3 specialty occupation professionals from Australia dependent spouses. Once this policy takes effect, L-2 and E dependent spouses will no longer need to apply for an EAD card in order to be authorized to work.

Automatic Extension of EADs for H-4, L-2, and E Dependent Spouses

USCIS has officially issued guidance and updated the I-9 Handbook to provide for automatic extensions of EADs for H-4 and L-2 spouses. In this new policy alert, USCIS is granting these benefits to spouses of E-1 Treaty Traders, E-2 Treaty Investors, and E-3 specialty occupation professionals from Australia in the respective E dependent classification as well.

H-4, L-2, and E dependent spouses will qualify for automatic extension of their valid EAD for 180 days beyond the date of the EAD expiration if the nonimmigrant spouse:

  • Properly files a Form I-765 EAD renewal application to USCIS before the current EAD expires; and
  • Continues to maintain H-4, L-2, or E dependent status beyond the expiration of the existing EAD as evidenced on Form I-94.

The validity of the expired EAD will be extended until the earliest of:

  • 180 days following the EAD expiration;
  • The expiration of the H-4 / L-2 / E dependent nonimmigrant’s I-94 record; or
  • When a final decision is made on the EAD extension application by USCIS.

For I-9 purposes, an H-4, L-2, or E dependent employee may present: a facially expired EAD indicating Category C26, A18, or A17; Form I-797, Notice of Action for Form I-765 with Class requested indicating (c)(26), (a)(18), or (a)(17) and showing that the I-765 EAD renewal application was filed before the EAD expired; and an unexpired I-94, showing valid H-4, L-2, or E dependent nonimmigrant status.

L-2 and E-1/E-2/E-3 Dependent Spouses Will Be Granted Work Authorization Pursuant to Status

USCIS’ new policy guidance provides that both L-2 and E dependent spouses will be employment authorized incident to status, meaning that a separate Form I-765 EAD application will not need to be filed to obtain work authorization, and that the L-2 or E dependent spouse is authorized to work upon being admitted to the United States. USCIS, in cooperation with CBP, will change Form I-94 to indicate the individual is an L-2 spouse so that the I-94 can be used for I-9 purposes. DHS will, within 120 days, take steps to modify Form I-94. However, please note that until USCIS can implement changes to the I-94 to distinguish L-2 and E dependent spouses currently in the U.S. from L-2 and E dependent children, E and L spouses will still need to rely upon an EAD as evidence of employment authorization to present to employers for completion of Form I-9.

Obtaining an Extended I-94

As it is required for H-4, L-2, and E-3 spouses to have a valid I-94 for the automatic extension of the EAD, we are outlining two possible ways that a person applying for an H-4 or L-2 EAD extension can obtain an extended I-94:

  1. File the H-1B or L-1 extension using premium processing and wait for the H-1B or L-1 approval. The H-4 or L-2 spouse then departs the U.S. and obtains a new visa and returns with an extended I-94. Once the spouse returns, he or she will file the EAD extension upon return to the U.S.
  2. File the H-4 or L-2 and EAD extensions with the principal’s H-1B or L-1 extension. After the H-1B or L-1 is approved, the spouse departs the U.S. and obtains a new visa and returns with an extended I-94. The Form I-539, request for extension of status, will be abandoned, but Form I-765 will not and will continue to be processed by USCIS.

Regarding E dependent spouses, anyone entering the U.S. with an E visa is admitted for two years, so he or she may already have an extended I-94 card. If an E dependent spouse has an expiring I-94, he or she can follow one of the above steps to extend their I-94.

Article By Angel Feng, Shannon N. Parker, and John F. Quill of Mintz.

For more immigration law news, read more at the National Law Review.

©1994-2021 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

Tennessee Enacts Law Restricting Enforcement of Vaccine Mandates

On November 10, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced that he would sign legislation that addresses various COVID-19–related issues, including vaccine mandates and mask mandates. The law is effective immediately. There are several major issues for employers regarding COVID-19 prevention measures addressed in the new law. Below is an overview of the law’s key points.

Vaccine Mandates

The law does not prohibit private employers from adopting vaccine mandates. It seeks, in an indirect manner, to restrict employers from mandating vaccines… The law focuses on prohibiting employers from requiring proof of vaccination status. The express language of the new law is as follows: “A private business, governmental entity, school, or local education agency shall not compel or otherwise take an adverse action against a person to compel the person to provide proof of vaccination if the person objects to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for any reason.”

It would appear that the law potentially creates a perverse “don’t ask/don’t tell” incentive for both employers and employees. If an employee openly objects to receiving a vaccine, an employer can still ask why—to determine if there is a bona fide Title VII religious or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation issue—but the employer would appear to be able to discharge or discipline the employee for the employee’s objection (absent accommodation issues). What a Tennessee employer cannot to do is ask employees for proof of vaccination status and then take an adverse action if the employees fail or refuse to provide proof of their vaccination status. By contrast, an employee might have an incentive to keep quiet and not answer (or lie) if asked about vaccination status.

Mask Mandates

An earlier version of the legislation sought to prohibit mask mandates entirely. The version that has become law limits the prohibition on mask mandates to government employers: “An employer that is a governmental entity shall not require an employee to wear a face covering as a term or condition of employment, or take an adverse action against an employee for failing to wear a face covering, unless severe conditions exist at the time the requirement is adopted and the requirement is in effect for not more than fourteen (14) days.” (Emphasis added.)

Unemployment Benefits

The law allows employees discharged for refusing to be vaccinated to receive unemployment benefits—and it is retroactive.

Medicare and Medicaid Vaccine Requirements

The law excludes from its coverage healthcare providers that are subject to Medicare or Medicaid vaccine requirements.  On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published their interim final vaccine mandate rules.

Exemptions

The new law allows employers, private businesses, schools, and state and local governmental entities to apply to the state comptroller for exemption from the requirements of the statute if compliance would result in a loss of federal funding. This exemption process would allow employers that are federal contractors to seek exemption.

Federal Emergency Temporary Standard

The law may set up a potential showdown between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the implementation and enforcement of OSHA’s recently issued COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for large employers (100 or more employees). The Tennessee law’s prohibition on compelling employees to provide proof of vaccination status is in direct conflict with the federal ETS (which requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, including requiring each vaccinated employee to provide “acceptable proof of vaccination status”).

State OSHA plans, such as Tennessee’s, have 30 days to adopt the federal standard. However, the Tennessee law includes a provision that prohibits any state funds from being allocated to implement or enforce any “federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that mandates the administration of a COVID-19 countermeasure” (including vaccines, testing, and masking). TOSHA receives funding from both the state government and the federal government. It is unclear whether TOSHA will be eligible to seek an exemption as described above. While the language of the exemption provision would appear to apply to TOSHA, the statements of proponents of the Tennessee law during the special session of the Tennessee General Assembly during which the legislation was approved made it clear that their efforts were aimed at curbing the impact of the federal ETS in Tennessee.

On Monday, November 8, 2021, TOSHA issued the following statement:  “Tennessee OSHA is currently reviewing the latest OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard regarding vaccines in the workplace.  As the agency did with the prior ETS, staff will review the OSHA standards and then determine how Tennessee will move forward. This process could take multiple weeks to complete.”

Key Takeaways

Business groups were strongly opposed to this new law, and that opposition contributed to the legislative shift away from an outright ban on vaccine mandates and to the narrowing of the anti-mask provision. There are still questions to be answered regarding this new law, including whether it will be challenged in court, what the process for requesting an exemption will look like, and whether Tennessee will adopt the federal COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS.

This article was written by William Rutchow of Ogletree Deakins Law firm. For more information regarding vaccine mandate challenges, please see here.

Mandatory Retirement – Can You Toss the Old Guy Out?

A common trope of a 1930’s film is the callous boss handing a wizened older Wallace Barry looking man a gold watch and showing him the door as a young up-and-comer sits himself down at his desk. Is mandatory retirement legal in 2021?

With a few exceptions, the answer is no. For those employers covered by the Federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), it is unlawful to discriminate against employees who are 40 or more years of age. A mandatory retirement age is a form of discrimination since it is tantamount to an involuntary termination. That is the case even where the employer has a retirement policy to which the employee agrees when hired.

The ADEA has two exceptions:

A.   The first exception allows a mandatory retirement age if the employer can show that age is a “bona fide occupational qualification;” (BFOQ). Generally, to establish a BFOQ, the employer must demonstrate an objective safety issue such as police or fire fighter work.

B.    The second exception applies to workers in a “bona fide executive or high policymaking position”. This does not generally apply to every executive or vice president, but only those who have overall authority over the enterprise or a portion such as those occupying “c-suite” positions or who lead divisions of a larger company. Furthermore, the executive or policy maker must have been in such a position for at least two years before retirement and must be entitled to receive a pension or similar retirement benefit of at least $44,000 per year post-retirement.

The issue of mandatory retirement becomes more complex when the older worker is an equity partner and not technically an employee. This often arises in the context of law, accounting, and consulting firms. The ADEA only protects employees and not partners, who are the owners of the enterprise. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court created a six-part test for determining whether a shareholder of a medical practice was an employee or an owner. Some federal courts have extended the protection of the ADEA to partners particularly where the partnership is large and the partner has minimal authority and autonomy. Those courts found little to distinguish the ordinary partner in a large partnership from the ordinary employee.

While an employer may not enforce a mandatory retirement policy or use age as a criteria for termination, subject to the limited exceptions described above, the courts cut some slack regarding asking an older employee about plans for retirement. Whether such an inquiry is lawful will depend on how and why the question is asked. If asked so that the employer can engage in succession planning, the question is likely lawful. However, if it is posed as a not-so-subtle suggestion that the employer wants to employee to leave because he is older, it might be regarded as evidence of age bias.

© 2021 Foley & Lardner LLP

Article By Bennett L. Epstein of Foley & Lardner LLP

For more articles on retirement, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

CMS Requires COVID-19 Vaccine for Health Care Workers at all Facilities Participating in Medicare and Medicaid

On Nov. 4, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) released a new Interim Final Rule (IFR) regarding staff vaccination at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The IFR requires covered employers to ensure that staff receive their first dose no later than Dec. 5, 2021 and achieve full vaccination no later than Jan. 4, 2022.

The vaccine rule that was also released on Nov. 4, 2021 by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not apply to employees of health care entities who are covered under the CMS IFR. However, employees of health care providers who are not subject to the CMS IFR may be subject to the OSHA vaccine rule if the facility has more than 100 employees. For more information on the OSHA vaccine rule, please click here.

Justification for the Rule

CMS cited a number of reasons for the IFR, including the risk unvaccinated staff pose to patients, reports of individuals foregoing health care due to concerns of contracting COVID-19 from health facility staff, disrupted health care operations due to infected staff, and low vaccination rates among health care staff.

Scope of Coverage

The requirements of the IFR apply to health care facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid and that are subject to Conditions or Requirements of Participation, including but not limited to:

  • Ambulatory surgical centers;
  • Hospices;
  • Hospitals, such as acute care hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, hospital swing beds, long-term care hospitals, and children’s hospitals;
  • Long-term care facilities;
  • Home health agencies;
  • Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facilities;
  • Critical access hospitals;
  • Home infusion therapy suppliers; and
  • Rural health clinics/federally qualified health centers.

While the IFR does not directly apply to physician offices, which are not regulated by CMS Conditions or Requirements of Participation, physicians may nevertheless be required to vaccinate as a result of their relationships with other health care entities. For example, the IFR requires hospitals to implement policies and procedures to ensure “individuals who provide care, treatment, or other services under contract or by other arrangement” are fully vaccinated.

Covered Personnel

The IFR requires vaccinations for staff who routinely perform care for patients and clients inside and outside of the facility, such as home health, home infusion therapy, hospice, and therapy staff. CMS’s vaccination requirement also extends to all staff who interact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients, at any location, and not just those who enter facilities. However, staff who provide services 100% remotely—that is, staff who never come into contact with other staff, patients, residents, or clients—are not subject to the IFR vaccination requirements. Additionally, providers and suppliers are not required to ensure IFR vaccination compliance of one-off vendors, volunteers, or professionals, such as (a) those who provide infrequent ad hoc non-health care services (e.g. annual elevator inspectors), (b) those who perform exclusively off-site services (e.g. accounting services), or (c) delivery and repair personnel.

Definition of Full Vaccination

CMS considers “full vaccination” as 14 days after receipt of either a single-dose vaccine (such as the Johnson & Johnson vaccine) or 14 days after the second dose of a two-dose primary vaccination series (such as the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines). At this time, CMS is not requiring the additional (third) dose of mRNA vaccine for moderately/severely immunosuppressed persons or the “booster dose” in order for staff to be considered “fully vaccinated.” Additionally, CMS considers individuals receiving heterologous vaccines—doses of different vaccines—as satisfying the “fully vaccinated” definition so long as they have received any combination of two doses. In order to gauge compliance, CMS is requiring that providers and suppliers track and securely document the vaccination status of each staff member as well as vaccine exemption requests and outcome. The IFR does not specify that weekly testing, masking, and social distancing are an alternative to vaccination, meaning employers must ensure all employees are either (1) fully vaccinated or (2) exempted under a permissible exemption.

Exemptions

The IFR explicitly provides that employers must continue to comply with anti-discrimination laws and civil rights protections which allow employees to request and receive exemption from vaccination due to a disability, medical condition, or sincerely held religious belief or practice. Exemptions should be provided to staff with recognized medical conditions for which a vaccine is contraindicated as a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act. For exemptions for a sincerely held religious belief or practice, CMS encourages health care entities to refer to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination. Despite the ability to provide an exemption, CMS states that exemptions may be provided to staff only to the extent required by law, and that requests for exemption should not be provided to those who seek solely to evade vaccination. CMS also notes at length that the Food and Drug Administration considers approved vaccines safe. Accordingly, CMS will likely be unwilling to excuse provider and supplier noncompliance due to employees refusing vaccination based on fears about safety.

Penalties

Although the IFR does not identify specific penalties for non-compliance, CMS is expected to use enforcement tools such as civil money penalties, denial of payment for new admissions, or termination of the Medicare/Medicaid provider agreement. CMS will utilize State Survey Agencies to review compliance with the IFR through standard recertification surveys and complaint surveys. Noncompliance with the IFR will be addressed through established classification channels of “Immediate Jeopardy,” “Condition,” or “Standard” deficiencies.

Preemption

While CMS recognizes that some states and localities have established laws to prevent mandatory compliance with vaccine mandates, CMS ultimately considers the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution as preempting inconsistent state and local laws as applied to Medicare- and Medicaid-certified providers and suppliers.

© 2021 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP. All rights reserved.
For more updates on COVID-19, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

Ninth Circuit Rejects Ex-Tinder Employee’s Attempt to Avoid Arbitration

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that an ex-Tinder employee must arbitrate her claims against her former employer and cannot pursue her claims in court, even though her claims arose before she executed an arbitration agreement. In reaching this decision, the Ninth Circuit not only enforced the broad language of the parties’ arbitration agreement, but also held that a unilateral modification clause (granting the employer the right to make changes to the agreement) does not, in and of itself, render an arbitration agreement unenforceable. Elizabeth Sanfilippo v. Match Group LLC et al., Case No. 20-55819, 2021 U.S. App. Lexis 29263 (9th Cir. Sept. 28, 2021).

In this case, the chronology of events is important to understanding how this lawsuit arose.  In September 2016, Tinder hired the plaintiff as a brand manager.  According to the plaintiff, in mid-2017 and January 2018, she complained to human resources about sexual harassment by her coworkers and supervisors. During that same time period, in July 2017, Tinder was acquired by Match Group, Inc. After acquiring Tinder, Match Group sent its employees a mandatory arbitration agreement. The plaintiff signed the agreement and continued to work for Match Group until Match Group discharged her in March 2018. The plaintiff sued in California state court for sexual harassment and retaliation.  The case was removed to federal court at which point Match Group successfully moved to compel arbitration. The plaintiff appealed, arguing that the arbitration agreement (1) is unenforceable, and (2) does not cover her claims, which predated the agreement.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held the arbitration agreement was enforceable and applicable to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment allegations, even though the plaintiff did not sign the agreement until after her claims arose. In ruling for Match Group, the court highlighted the broad nature of the arbitration agreement’s language that required arbitration for “all claims and controversies arising from or in connection with [the plaintiff’s] application with, employment with, or termination from the Company.” In enforcing the agreement, the court noted that the agreement’s reference to “all claims and controversies” arising out of the plaintiff’s employment necessarily included her claims that predated the arbitration agreement.

Moreover, the Ninth Circuit was not swayed by the fact that the arbitration agreement included a provision that allowed Match Group to modify the terms of the agreement unilaterally. While the court recognized that such a provision could be substantively unconscionable, it explicitly discussed how Match Group had not actually modified the agreement but was rather seeking to enforce the agreement as written. But the court went even further in enforcing the agreement. In addition to upholding the agreement, the Ninth Circuit determined that even if it assumed that a provision permitting unilateral modifications by the employer is substantively unconscionable, such a provision alone does not render the entire agreement unenforceable. Therefore, even taking the plaintiff’s argument as true, the agreement, as a whole, was still enforceable.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision is encouraging for employers seeking to enforce their arbitration agreements for a few reasons. First, the court made clear that a unilateral modification clause will not, in of itself, render the agreement unenforceable. Second, the court  enforced the broad language in the employer’s arbitration agreement and compelled arbitration of claims that pre-date the execution of the agreement.

Co-authored by Spencer Ladd.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021

Immigration and Compliance Briefing: Fall Travel & COVID-19 Policy Update

On October 25, 2021, the Biden Administration issued a Presidential Proclamation to lift the travel bans which currently restrict entry into the U.S. directly from specific geographic areas (for a full list of restricted countries, see our prior client alert here), to be effective November 8, 2021. Instead of banning entry from specific locations abroad, the U.S. will utilize vaccine status-based restrictions for incoming travelers entering the country as noncitizen nonimmigrants (i.e., temporary visa holders or visa-free travelers). Once the new rules go into effect, most travelers will be required to provide proof of being fully vaccinated for COVID-19 prior to boarding an airplane, regardless of recent travel history (“fully vaccinated” refers to individuals who received the final dose of the COVID-19 vaccine more than 14 days prior).

Currently, the list of acceptable vaccines approved/authorized by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and World Health Organization (WHO), are as follows:

  • Pfizer-BioNTech

  • Moderna

  • Johnson & Johnson

  • Oxford-AstraZeneca/Covishield

  • Sinopharm

  • Sinovac

  • Mixed doses comprising of any two authorized/approved vaccines

As additional vaccines receive authorization/approval by either the FDA or WHO, it is anticipated that they will be added to the list of acceptable vaccines. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control will implement contact-tracing protocols. Mask mandates for airlines and airports, as well as the pre-travel negative COVID-19 test requirements, will remain in place until at least mid-January.

Exceptions include, but are not limited to, the following types of noncitizen nonimmigrants:

  • Certain noncitizen nonimmigrants traveling in an official capacity (i.e., foreign government officials and their family, individuals entering pursuant to a NATO visa classification, or individuals traveling pursuant to the United Nations Headquarters Agreement)

  • Children under the age of eighteen (18) years

  • Individuals participating in COVID-19 clinical trials*

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication, as determined by the CDC

  • Individuals unable to receive the vaccine due to unavailability in their country of residence who are seeking to enter the U.S. on a nonimmigrant visa except B-1/B-2

  • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces

  • Sea crew members

  • Individuals whose entry is in the national interest

  • Individuals granted exceptions for humanitarian or emergency reasons

*The CDC will determine the qualifying criteria for individuals seeking to enter under this exception.

In addition to the restrictions above, all unvaccinated travelers traveling to the U.S. must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test taken within one day of travel. This requirement includes unvaccinated U.S. citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (“green card” holders).

Vaccinated U.S. citizens and Green Card holders must show proof of a negative COVID-19 test within three days of travel.

Finally, additional measures may be required for certain types of travelers, including self-quarantine and vaccination within sixty (60) days of entry.

This policy will remain in place for an initial period of sixty (60) days and may be renewed on a monthly basis after that.

U.S. Land Border Updates

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced that it will lift travel restrictions for land and ferry border crossings from Canada and Mexico in two phases, beginning November 8, 2021. Instead of keeping the land borders closed to nonessential travel, the Biden administration will implement the same policy as for air travel. Beginning November 8, nonessential travel will be permitted for fully vaccinated individuals, as described above. Nonessential travel will continue to be permitted regardless of vaccination status. However, beginning in early January 2022, all individuals entering the U.S. via the land border or ferry will be required to be fully vaccinated. This decision will permit nonessential travel via the land border between Canada and Mexico for the first time since March 21, 2020.

Vaccine Requirement for Individuals Seeking Permanent Immigrant Status

Effective October 1, 2021, applicants for immigrant status (i.e., a “green card”) in the U.S. who are subject to submitting Form I-693, Report of Medical Examination and Vaccination Record must be fully vaccinated as described above against COVID-19, before a civil surgeon designated by the Immigration Service can complete and sign the Form I-693 medical exam.

Waivers may be granted in certain circumstances, including where the COVID-19 vaccine is:

  • Not age appropriate;

  • Contraindicated due to a medical condition;

  • Not routinely available where the civil surgeon practices; or

  • Limited in supply and would cause significant delay for the applicant to receive the vaccination.

    © 1998-2021 Wiggin and Dana LLP

For more articles on COVID-19 Immigration, visit the NLR Immigration section.