Tag: coronavirus

CDC: Masks Are No Longer Required in Most Settings for Vaccinated People

On Thursday, May 13, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) announced new guidance stating it is safe for fully vaccinated people to not wear masks or physically distance in any non-health care setting.1

Per this guidance, fully vaccinated people can now resume most activities without wearing a mask or physically distancing. Unvaccinated people, however, should still consider the risks of particular indoor and outdoor activities now deemed safe for vaccinated people, such as restaurant dining, exercising indoors, or attending a crowded outdoor event, and take necessary precautions.

This is only guidance. Individuals may still be required to wear masks, and businesses may still be required to enforce mask-wearing as required by federal, state, or local law. For example, travelers will still be required to wear masks on all forms of public transportation and in public transportation hubs within the United States.

Additionally, in this latest guidance, the CDC recommended that fully vaccinated people can refrain from testing and self-quarantining before and after domestic and international travel and following a known exposure if asymptomatic, unless the individual lives or works in a high-congregated setting, such as a correctional facility or homeless shelter.

As the country continues to emerge from the pandemic, individuals and businesses should be mindful of this changing landscape as federal and state agencies begin to loosen pandemic requirements. For specific questions concerning national and state COVID-19 legal developments, please contact your Dinsmore attorney.

[1] Guidance for Fully Vaccinated People, Centers for Disease Control, May 13, 2021, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated-guidance.html.

ARTICLE BY Faith C. Whittaker of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
For more articles on CDC mask guidance, visit the NLR Coronavirus News section.

OSHA Issues Updated COVID-19 Guidance in Compliance with President Biden’s Executive Order

As directed by President Joe Biden’s Executive Order issued on January 21, 2021 requiring the Federal Government to take swift action to protect workers from the COVID-19 pandemic, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has released updated guidance on how to prevent exposure and the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace.

The guidance entitled “Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace” was posted on OSHA’s website on January 29, 2021.  As with OSHA’s previous recommendations, this guidance is not mandatory and does not have the same legal effect as an OSHA standard.  However, it does give some insight into what OSHA expects to include in an emergency temporary standard (“ETS”) which the new Administration wants the agency to consider and potentially implement by March 15, 2021.

Most employers will be familiar with the elements in the guidance, but here are some of the significant new measures addressed in the guidelines:

  • Employers should provide all workers with face coverings (i.e., cloth face coverings, surgical masks), unless their work task requires a respirator.  Many states did not require this and OSHA did not previously recommend employers purchase masks.
  • Provide a COVID-19 vaccine at no cost to eligible employees.
  • Do not distinguish between vaccinated workers and those who are not vaccinated for purposes of implementing safety measures.
  • Minimize the effect of quarantine and isolations by implementing non-punitive policies, and provide paid sick leave. Employers with less than 500 employees are encouraged to provide FFCRA leave which is still available (though not mandatory) through March 31, 2021 under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.
  • Provide guidance on screening and testing.
  • Assign a workplace coordinator responsible for COVID-19 issues.

OSHA’s guidance related to the COVID-19 pandemic continues to evolve and further changes are expected with President Biden’s new Administration.  James “Jim” Frederick, a former United Steelworkers safety official, has been named by the Administration to act as the head of OSHA on an interim basis.  Mr. Frederick has indicated that in that role he will be focused on drafting and implementing an enforceable emergency COVID-19 standard.  While these efforts may be opposed by various industry groups, employers need to be aware of these potential new developments so they can take appropriate steps to ensure that they are following the best recommendations to address the pandemic and provide their employees a safe and healthy working environment.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020

ARTICLE BY Raymond Perez, II and Mary L. Bradley of Jackson Lewis P.C.
For more, visit the NLR Labor & Employment

“Hope Is On The Horizon”: California Governor Gavin Newsom Announces COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan

N.B.  Concurrent with the posting of this article, the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has decided to recommend to the FDA that the FDA approve the emergency use authorization applications submitted by Pfizer and BioNTech.  It is being reported that the FDA may formally approve the applications as soon as tomorrow, Friday, December 11, 2020.  More detail regarding the recommendation and the FDA’s decision will be discussed in a follow-up article.

California Governor Gavin Newsom announced that, “Hope is on the horizon with the [COVID-19] vaccination. We continue to accelerate our planning and preparedness for a safe and equitable vaccine distribution.”  As noted by the Governor, California expects to receive a little more than two million doses of the vaccine this month including 327,000 doses from pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, and 2.6 million doses from biotechnology maker, Moderna.

Now that there are estimated dates of delivery for both Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines and it appears that the FDA – possibly as soon as tomorrow, Friday, December 11, 2020 – will be granting an emergency use authorization to Pfizer and BioNTech for the distribution of their COVID-19 vaccines based upon today’s recommendation from the FDA’s Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee, California’s vaccine distribution plan (“Plan”) has claimed the public spotlight.

The following reviews California’s vaccine distribution strategy and highlights the populations receiving priority status for vaccination with the first round of vaccine doses scheduled to be delivered to California this month.

CALIFORNIA’S VACCINE DISTRIBUTION PLAN AND ALLOCATION GUIDELINES FOR COVID-19 VACCINE

During a December 3, 2020 online press conference, Governor Newsom described California’s “COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Plan” (the “Plan”) and the California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) “Allocation Guidelines for COVID-19 Vaccine During Phase 1A”  (the “Allocation Guidelines”) as putting healthcare workers[1] and vulnerable patient populations at the front of the line for vaccination.

A. Vaccination Priorities: A Tiered Vaccine Distribution Blueprint

According to the Allocation Guideline’s tiered vaccine distribution blueprint, vaccines will first be provided to (i) residents of skilled nursing facilities, assisted living facilities, and similar long-term care settings for older or medically vulnerable individuals; and (ii) healthcare workers who come into direct contact with patients positive for COVID-19 and those at the highest risk of exposure – e.g., paramedics, emergency medical technicians, and healthcare workers at acute care, correctional and psychiatric hospitals and nursing homes.  Next, healthcare workers in intermediate care facilities, home settings, and primary care clinics (e.g., federally qualified health centers, rural health centers, correctional facility clinics, and urgent care clinics) will be given access to the vaccine.  Finally, the Allocation Guideline’s “third tier” healthcare workers in less risky healthcare settings – e.g., dental offices, laboratories, and specialty clinics – will be eligible for vaccination.

Once vaccine is distributed to healthcare workers based upon the foregoing priority categories, the Plan directs the State to broaden vaccination access to other groups including essential workers – e.g., farm laborers, police officers, child care staff and teachers – and communities at increased risk of COVID-19, including minority communities disproportionately affected by COVID-19.  During a November 23, 2020 press conference, Governor Newsom said, “mass vaccinations are unlikely to occur anytime soon. For the back of the envelope purposes, March, April, May, June, July, where we start to scale, and we start getting into the subsequent phases (of vaccine distribution).”

B. Distribution Of Vaccine – The Mechanics.

According to the Plan, the State-wide distribution of vaccine will be based upon a multi-level and multi-step process designed to promote the equitable distribution of the vaccine and to protect, “California’s critical and vulnerable populations, especially during the early phases when vaccine supply will be limited.” See, Plan, pg. 35.

As outlined by Governor Newsom during his December 3, 2020 press conference, California’s distribution process is comprised of six distinct steps as set forth below:

Step One

Enroll Vaccine Providers and Establish Allocation Guidelines.  The first step involves enrolling healthcare providers to conduct vaccinations and developing guidelines for the allocation of the initial 327,000 doses of Pfizer’s vaccine among six vaccine regions.  As established by CDPH, the six regions and their respective allocation of Pfizer vaccine doses are as follows:

  1. Region I (126,750):  Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, Ventura;

  2. Region II (80, 497):  Alameda, Contra Costa, Del Norte, Humboldt, Lake, Marin, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, San Benito, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Shasta, Solano, Sonoma;

  3. Region III (8,592):  Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Plumas, Santa Cruz, Sierra, Siskiyou, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yuba;

  4. Region IV (35,145):  Alpine, Amador, Calaveras, El Dorado, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo;

  5. Region V (16,706):  Fresno, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Merced; and

  6. Region VI (59,910): Imperial, Inyo, Mono, Riverside, San Bernardino.

As noted above, the Allocation Guidelines were adopted and distributed by the CDPH on December 5, 2020.  In addition, the CDPH has identified the following hospitals as participating in the vaccination process: Cedars Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles; Mercy Medical Center, Redding; Rady Children’s Hospital, San Diego; UCD Health, Sacramento; UCSF Medical Center, San Francisco; Valley Children’s Healthcare, Madera; and Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital.[2]  According to CDPH, these facilities were chosen based on their ultra-cold storage capabilities, as the Pfizer vaccine must be stored in negative 80-degree freezers, at large “highest-risk” healthcare population and/or their willingness to redistribute vaccines outside their facility and network. The final criteria was one of geography, as the Department said these places were chosen to be spread across the state as evenly as possible.[3]

Step Two

Review Vaccine Orders Submitted by Local County Departments of Health.  Under the Plan, local county departments of health are obligated to submit distribution plans for their respective geographic regions.  Such plans must include various elements including a description of the region’s “vaccine administration capacity” – such capacity being determined based upon multiple factors including the number of registered vaccination providers in the region; the number of “point of dispensing” (“POD”) sites available to vaccinate emergency responders and critical infrastructure personnel in the region; and the COVID-19 vaccine storage capacity at each POD.

Steps Three and Four

Local County Orders.  Steps 3 and 4 involve the process of preparing and filling of the local county orders.

Step Five

Vaccine Delivery Logistics.  Shipping companies like UPS and FedEx will drop off the vaccine to hospitals and vaccine providers who already have approved cold-chain storage units. To increase storage capacity, the State has purchased additional cold storage units for providers to use.

Step Six

Vaccine Administration.  Once again, the 327,000 Pfizer vaccine doses will be distributed and administered in accordance with the Allocation Guidelines as described above. As explained by Governor Newsom, notwithstanding the initiative of the vaccination process, mask and social distancing rules will remain in place.  Over time, this will change; however, as an initial matter, it is still unclear as to whether vaccinated individuals are still capable of spreading the virus to others.

A CLOSER LOOK:  VACCINE DISTRIBUTION CHALLENGES.

As noted above, the execution of the Plan and the delivery of vaccine to the priority populations identified in the Allocation Guidelines fall on the shoulders of the local county departments of health. Although each county will experience its own unique challenges during the vaccination process – such challenges could vary significantly from one county to the next given the extreme demographic, geographic and other differences between the counties – experts have identified certain common challenges that will likely create significant hurdles for all counties to overcome.

1. “Colder than Winter in Antarctica.”

As has been widely reported and discussed, the Pfizer vaccine needs to be kept extremely cold: minus 70 degrees Celsius, which is, “colder than winter in Antarctica.”[4]  By contrast, Moderna has said that its vaccine needs to be frozen too, but only at minus 20 Celsius, more like a regular freezer.[5]

Given the need to maintain the Pfizer vaccine at ultra-low temperatures, the storage and transportation of the vaccine presents significant logistical challenges.  In order to meet this challenge, counties and healthcare providers in California and elsewhere have been scrambling to get their hands on ultra-cold freezers.  For example, in the case of Los Angeles County (“LAC”), the LAC Department of Public Health purchased five ultra-cold freezers in addition to three from the State and eight purchased by the LAC Department of Health Services.  These 16 freezers will be placed in strategic locations across LAC; however, the eight LAC Department of Health Services freezers will be dedicated to staff and patients at the LAC’s four public hospitals and 27 health clinics.

2. Multi-Dose Vaccines and Compliance Challenges.

In addition to the cold storage and transportation challenges described above, both the Moderna and the Pfizer vaccines present significant challenges as multi-dose vaccines – i.e., vaccines that require more than one dose to reach maximum effectiveness.

Multi-dose vaccines present a number of challenges that will likely complicate the vaccination process.  For example, vaccines with two-dose regimens will require careful tracking of doses and follow up with each individual receiving the vaccine to ensure they receive the same vaccine, with the second dose given at the proper time.[6]  The CDC and local jurisdictions are in the process of implementing a new vaccine tracking system to monitor COVID-19 vaccine administration and help with multiple dose tracking, but it is unclear if, or how, the new system will integrate with existing immunization information systems.[7]

In addition to the technical/logistical challenges posed by multi-dose vaccines, research has shown that many patients who receive their first dose of a multi-dose vaccine often fail to return for their second dose.  For example, studies conducted in both the US and UK on the hepatitis B vaccine — which, like the Pfizer and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines, is supposed to have around a one-month period between the first and second doses — found that roughly 50% of patients failed to get their follow-up shot within a year after their first.[8]   By failing to obtain the second dose, a patient may experience little or no protective effect from the vaccine.  Therefore, to the extent that the goal of vaccination in this case is to bring the current public health emergency to an end, the public will need to be educated as to why the second dose of the vaccine is as much an imperative as the first dose.  For this reason, many have argued that public education is an indispensable element of any successful vaccination plan.

We will continue to monitor State and local implementation of the Plan, the Allocation Guidelines, and the general progress of California’s efforts to distribute vaccine in California.

This article is not an unequivocal statement of the law, but instead represents our best interpretation of where things currently stand.  This article does not address the potential impacts of the numerous other local, state and federal orders that have been issued in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but which are not referenced in this article.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  As described in the Allocation Guidelines, the term “healthcare worker” includes both clinical personnel and non-clinical personnel at “direct risk of exposure in their non-clinical roles, such as, but not limited to, environmental services, patient transport, or interpretation.”  See, Allocation Guidelines, pg. 1.

[2] “Here’s where COVID-19 vaccines will be stored and distributed in California,” by Andie Judson, KXTV-TV (December 4, 2020) at https://www.abc10.com/article/news/health/coronavirus/heres-where-covid-….

[3] Id.

[4] “Why Does Pfizer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Need to be Kept Colder than Antarctica?” by S. Simmons-Duffin, Morning Edition, National Public Radio (November 17, 2020) at https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/11/17/935563377/why-does-…

[5] Id.

[6] “Distributing a COVID-19 Vaccine Across the U.S. – A Look at Key Issues” by J.M. Follow and J.K. Follow, Kaiser Family Foundation (October 20, 2020) at https://www.kff.org/report-section/distributing-a-covid-19-vaccine-acros…

[7] Id.

[8] “Compliance with multiple-dose vaccine schedules among older children, adolescents, and adults: results from a vaccine safety datalink study,” by Nelson JC, Bittner RC, Bounds L, et al., Am J Public Health. 2009;99 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S389-S397 at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4504385/.

Copyright © 2020, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.
For more articles on the coronavirus vaccine, visit the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Eight Nebraska Football Players Commence Litigation Against the Big Ten Seeking Reinstatement of Their Season and Monetary Damage

On August 27, 2020, eight Nebraska football players commenced litigation against the Big Ten Conference in the District Court of Lancaster County, Nebraska. The lawsuit asserts that the Big Ten Conference’s cancellation or possible delay of the 2020 college football season was “arbitrary and capricious.” In support of the same, the student-athletes point to the SEC’s, Big 12’s and ACC’s decisions to move forward with their college football seasons.

The lawsuit alleges the contractual procedures required to cancel or delay the season were not followed. Moreover, the lawsuit asserts that although, the players are not parties to that contract, they enjoy certain rights as third-party beneficiaries and therefore have standing to assert those claims. Legally, the players’ assertion that they somehow enjoy third-party status is in my opinion extremely weak. Under Nebraska law, in order for the players to enjoy third-party beneficiary statute, “it must appear by express stipulation or by reasonable intendment that the rights and interests of such unnamed parties were contemplated and provision was made for them.” Properties Inv. Group v. Applied Communications, 242 Neb. 464, 470 (1993). In other words, the Court is likely to look to the express language of the contract or governing documents between the member institutions to determine whether or not it expressly or reasonably confers the rights to student-athletes to sue for violating the same. I expect that the express language of the contract between the 14 schools in the Big Ten does not give rights to their student-athletes to sue.

The lawsuit also alleges that because these players were permitted under Nebraska state law to sell their name and likeness the Big Ten’s decision to cancel or delay the season will result in damages. The players’ lawsuit alleges that the Big Ten tortuously interfered with their business expectancies. Factually, those claims are problematic because a review of the rooster, reveals that most of the plaintiffs are redshirt freshman with little to no playing experience. Moreover, based upon both the short and long term uncertainty concerning COVID-19, it will be extremely difficult, perhaps impossible for the players to prove that the Big Ten’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious.” Douglas Cnty v. Archie, 295 Neb. 674, 688 (2017). Nebraska law holds that an “action is ‘arbitrary and capricious’ if it is taken in disregard of the facts and circumstances of the case, without some basic which would lead a reasonable and honest person to the same conclusion.” In my opinion, based upon the medical and scientific data and the member institutions concerns for the health and well-being of their students, it will be next to impossible for the plaintiffs to meet that extremely high burden. Even if it turns out that the Big Ten made the wrong decision will not be dispositive to this issue.

The players’ lawsuit is also legally flawed because Nebraska law holds that damages cannot be speculative or conjectural. Pribiil v. Koinzan, 266, Neb. 222, 227-228 (2003). Although, the players assert that if they were given the opportunity to play, it would have resulted in them being able to sell their name and likeness, I suspect none of these players had contracts, endorsements or agreements when the Big Ten decided to cancelled or delay its college football season. If so, I believe the players’ damages would be speculative or conjectural and not subject to recovery. Because this is a legal issue, not a factual question, I suspect, the claim is likely to be dismissed at some point in the litigation.

I expect the Big Ten to file a pre-answer motion seeking the dismissal of the entire. I expect the Big Ten to assert that the players do not enjoy third-party beneficiary status, the decision was not arbitrary and capricious and that the alleged damages as asserted in the case are speculative and conjectural. While the Court in deciding a pre-answer motion to dismiss is required to assume all of the facts contained in the lawsuit are truthful and accurate, I suspect that most, if not all of the claims asserted in this lawsuit will be dismissed. Even if the damages issue were to survive a pre-answer motion to dismiss, I suspect after the completion of discovery the remainder of the case would be dismissed by way of summary judgment motion.

COPYRIGHT © 2020, STARK & STARK
ARTICLE BY Scott I. Unger of  Stark & Stark
For more articles on sports, visit the National Law Review Entertainment, Art & Sports section.

CDC Issues Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions Nationwide to Prevent the Spread of COVID-19

On September 1, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) issued an Order under the Public Health Service Act Section 361 to temporarily halt residential evictions nationwide through December 31, 2020, to prevent the further spread of COVID-19.

Under the Order, a landlord, residential property owner, or other person with a legal right to pursue eviction action, cannot evict any tenant, lessee, or resident of a residential property from the property. The Order applies to all State, local, territorial, or tribal area in which there is no moratorium on residential evictions that provides the same or greater level of protection than this Order.

The Order does not relieve any tenant of its obligation to pay rent, make a housing payment, or comply with any other obligation under a tenancy, lease, or similar contract. The Order also does not preclude a landlord’s ability to charge or collect fees, penalties, or interest as a result of the failure to pay rent or other housing payment in a timely manner. Tenants are still required to pay rent and follow all the other terms of their lease, and may still be evicted for reasons other than not making a housing payment.

To invoke the CDC’s Order, tenants must sign and provide an executed copy of a Declaration form (or a similar declaration under penalty of perjury) attesting to their current circumstances and inability to pay, to the party attempting to enforce an eviction. A sample Declaration form is attached to the CDC Order and requires that the tenant seeking relief from eviction attest that the tenant: (1) expects to earn no more than $99,000 in annual income for Calendar Year 2020 (or no more than $198,000 if filing a joint tax return), (2) is unable to pay the full rent due to substantial loss of household income or extraordinary out-of-pocket medical expenses, and (3) will likely have no other option if evicted other than homelessness or living with more people in close proximity.

The Order, which does not include any provisions for rental and unemployment assistance, is being met with mixed responses. While many housing advocates welcome the action by the CDC, rental property owners are expressing concerns that the Order would negatively affect the stability of the rental housing sector. “An eviction moratorium will ultimately harm the very people it aims to help by making it impossible for housing providers, particularly small owners, to meet their financial obligations and continue to provide shelter to their residents,” said Doug Bibby, president of the National Multifamily Housing Council.

A full copy of the CDC Order can be found here.

© 2020 SHERIN AND LODGEN LLP

This article was authored by Trang Pham of  Sherin and Lodgen. 

For more articles on real estate, visit the National Law Review Real Estate, Transportation, Utilities and Construction Law News section.

Return to Work COVID-19 Testing Considerations

As employees increasingly transition back into the physical workplace, employers have begun to grapple with whether and how to deploy COVID-19 diagnostic testing as a return-to-work solution.  Many employers want to avoid extended employee quarantine or isolation requirements that prevent their employees from returning to the office for weeks and disrupt their operations.  But is this potential solution legal?  And is it effective?  Below we discuss practical considerations for employers considering a return to work COVID-19 testing strategy.

Is it Legal?

For the most part, yes.  While the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has approved of COVID-19 diagnostic testing in the workplace generally, it has, as explained further below, recently modified its guidance to discourage its use as a return to work strategy.  Further, approaches vary widely across the states and localities that have taken a position on return to work testing.  For example, while Illinois permits its use, an ordinance in Dallas, Texas prohibits return to work testing.

Is it Effective?  

It depends.  Before mandatory vaccination becomes an option (which we wrote about here), requiring employees to test negative for COVID-19 before returning to work may at first glance seem like a reasonable way to ensure employee attendance while keeping the workplace safe.  For some employers, particularly those that are able to test frequently, quickly and accurately, this may be a sound approach.  But for other employers, they will have to weigh their options carefully.  Recent updated guidance from the CDC, employee complaints about the invasiveness of testing, and very real ongoing concerns about testing availability and accuracy may militate against pursuing a testing strategy at this time.

More specifically, recent guidance from the CDC discourages a test-based strategy as a primary solution finding that a symptom-based screening strategy is sufficient to identify when an individual with symptoms may return to work.  However, if an employer nevertheless decides to proceed with diagnostic testing as part of their COVID-19 mitigation strategy, the CDC recommends having employees test negatively twice with the two consecutive tests coming at least 24 hours, before returning to work.

State and local guidance does not necessarily provide additional clarity on how best to proceed.  For example New York State’s guidance only addresses situations where an employee experiences symptoms upon arrival at work or while at the office, advising that in those instances an employee may return to work with a single negative COVID-19 test (in contrast to the CDC’s recommended two consecutive negative tests).  But New York’s guidance does not currently address whether testing is a solution to a host of other scenarios – for instance, where an employee’s remote screening indicates recent symptoms, known exposure, or where an employee traveled to a place with significant community spread.  In those instances, the New York guidance does not incorporate testing as a return to work solution, instead asserting that individuals who have had known close contact with someone who has COVID-19 (i.e. within 6 feet of someone for ten or more minutes) should (1) isolate for 10 days from the onset of symptoms (if the individual has symptoms); or (2) isolate for 14 days from the date of exposure (if the individual does not have symptoms).  New York’s guidance also states that employees who test positive for COVID-19 must complete at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic.

Putting all the guidance aside for the moment, testing may prove futile in many cases regardless.  First, COVID-19 reportedly can take 2-14 days after exposure to become identifiable in a diagnostic test, and thus, employees who test negative may return to work and later discover they have indeed been infected.  And in other cases, testing may prove futile if an employee cannot access a test readily, and thereafter receive their results in a timely manner, which effectively sidelines them from returning to the office anyway.  Further, there is also the possibility of a false negative, particularly when an employee takes a rapid test.  Other employer considerations include how COVID-19 testing, and the resulting disciplining of employees if they refuse to be tested, might affect overall employee morale.

Employers should consider these issues and weigh them against the vitality of other preventative measures such as whether an employee can telework or take a paid or unpaid leave in lieu of returning to work.  If the employee must return to work, employers should consider using other safety measures (whether in lieu of or in addition to testing), such as symptom/exposure questionnaires, temperature checks and workplace social distancing requirements.

What if an Employee Refuses to Take a Diagnostic Test? 

In selecting any of these options, employers should consider creating a policy or procedure that, among other things, discloses the circumstances under which an employee must take a test, the specific test or tests that the employer will accept, and the consequences of an employee’s refusal to be tested prior to returning to work.  Employers should also consider whether they will afford an employee the opportunity to take an unpaid leave of absence where they refuse to take a test in lieu of a disciplinary action.

Further, before resorting to disciplinary measures, employers should first consider the nature of the employee’s objection.  If the employee is simply annoyed or frustrated about the testing policy, disciplinary measures may be appropriate as the employees is failing to adhere to a company safety policy.  However, employers should evaluate whether the employee is asking for a disability accommodation, and if so, should consider alternative options to testing.

A Note about Isolation Practices and Employee Abuses.

In jurisdictions that do not require employees to isolate after potential symptoms or exposure, employers that need employees to work in the office may be turning to COVID-19 diagnostic testing as an alternative or supplement to isolation practices they consider impractical or prone to abuse.  Indeed, some employers are facing scenarios in which employees attempt to take advantage of company isolation policies in an effort to take extended time away from the workplace.

Employers facing this situation may consider implementing a diagnostic testing strategy (where permitted and feasible), but should also consider addressing the various employee abuse scenarios that might unfold and provide cautionary warnings to employees.  For example, New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and some other jurisdictions are requiring individuals who travel to certain states with troublesome COVID-19 metrics to quarantine for 14 days upon their reentry.  If an employee is planning travel to a “hot spot” on vacation to avoid returning to work, the employer should consider warning the employee that if they are unable to telework upon their return, they may be required to take additional paid time off or even unpaid leave.  Alternatively, employers facing operational difficulties if employers are away for multiple weeks may wish to revisit paid time off approval processes or condition approval of company-provided vacation time on an employee’s ability to return to work promptly after traveling.  In short, employers may have several options to address employees’ abuse of isolation rules that do not necessarily have to involve the implementation of diagnostic testing.

Final Considerations.

If an employer does decide to implement a testing strategy, it should ensure that its COVID-19 testing and screening protocols and policies adhere to relevant state and local guidelines, which vary greatly by jurisdiction.  Employers should further ensure they are tracking other practical aspects of testing.  For example, employers must safeguard employee medical records in accordance with Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requirements and the privacy requirements of various states and localities, which we discussed here.  When choosing a diagnostic test, employers must also ensure that the test is reliable and accurate – for instance, some rapid testing kits now entering the market may not meet the EEOC’s reliability and accuracy standards.  Similarly, any testing strategies must be uniformly applied so as not to cause disparate treatment amongst employees.  Employers should refer to the EEOC’s ADA guidance, which we discussed here, to ensure non-discriminatory application of testing policies.

©1994-2020 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

For more on COVID-19 Testing see the National Law Review Coronavirs News section.

One-Two Punch: Businesses Must Fight the Virus and Possible Liability Claims

After several weeks in lockdown and thousands of business closures in an attempt to control the spread of the novel coronavirus, businesses are finally reopening their doors. Given the high transmission of COVID-19, businesses should consider their risks of legal liability to visitors on their property – customers, employees and others – in the event of COVID-19 exposure at their premises.  But the fear of civil liability remains a hindering problem. These claims will most commonly be pursued under the legal theory of negligence and plaintiffs may seeking financial compensation for their injuries and medical treatment related to COVID-19. Plaintiff’s lawyers in these cases will focus on the operations and procedures in place during the reopening. Some businesses are taking extraordinary measures to protect customers, while others are doing the bare minimum. Businesses need to know how to be in compliance with best safety practices to prevent and defend against claims related to an alleged failure to protect customers from COVID-19 exposures.

Immunity for Businesses for COVID-19 Exposure?

A large number of states, including Massachusetts, have enacted laws to shield health care workers, health care facilities and volunteer organizations treating COVID-19 patients from negligence claims subject to certain exceptions. However, the immunity does not extend to cover damages caused by gross negligence or recklessness. It is important to note that these states have not provided similar immunity to other businesses, nor have they limited liability in cases involving gross negligence for COVID-19 related claims. There have been discussions of additional legislation to protect businesses in these cases, but this has yet to happen.

Tort Claims and Premises Liability Law in Massachusetts

Personal injury claims typically stem from negligent acts, where a party had a duty of care, failed to reasonably care for that individual, and that failure to care caused the individual harm or injury. A ”duty of care” exists when its reasonably foreseeable that some act or omission would cause some type of knowable harm, and thus taking reasonable action to ensure safety. The breach of that duty is the act or omission that causes the harm. The breach of duty must cause some damages. Damages are monetary compensation for the victim’s injuries and losses if liability is found.

Premises liability law, a subset of personal injury law, similarly holds that property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to visitors on their premises in Massachusetts, so as to not create or allow unsafe or hazardous conditions to exist on their premises that could cause injury or harm to patrons and guests. If a hazardous condition exists that could reasonably cause harm, and the property owner fails to remove it or warn of it, this could ultimately result in liability.

The duty of care is stricter for business owners, as they invite persons onto their property to purchase goods or services. The level of care owed depends upon the type of visitor on the property. Massachusetts has two types of lawfully present visitors: 1) licensees- individuals presenting financial gain for the property owner like patrons, diners, shoppers; and 2) invitees- those who are not providing any financial gain to the property owner like guests and friends at a social gathering. The property owner owes its visitors a duty of care, that is to keep the property reasonably safe. In this context, the property owner is well aware of the risks associated with COVID-19, the nature of the disease and how it is transmitted. If it did not take reasonable steps to prevent the transmission of the virus to its licensees and invitees, and the claimant can prove the business’ failure to exercise reasonable care was a “substantial contributing factor” in causing the claimant’s injury, they may be entitled to damages, which can include among other things, medical expenses, economic damages, and even emotional distress.

Breach of Duty

There is an abundance of guidance available to businesses on the virus, transmission, preventative measures. Whether a business “breached” their duty of care will focus on what the business did to determine if taking action (or taking no action) was reasonable or not, given the state of knowledge on the virus. Thus, claimants would need to point to what steps the businesses took to protect its licensees and invitees, and whether there were additional procedures that could have been implemented to prevent the transmission, and whether those additional actions were reasonable in light of what was known about the virus. Intentional ignorance is not a defense – property owners have a duty to investigate known or potential hazards, including COVID-19.

Causation

Claimants in tort claims have the burden of proving causation. This usually means proving that the breach of duty was a “substantial contributing factor” in causing the claimant’s injury. In COVID-19 cases, the claimant will ultimately need to prove that the virus was contracted at that business as opposed to another source, which may be extremely difficult to do. Asymptomatic spread of COVID-19 is one of many challenges to proving the initial source of exposure. While some claimants will rely on contact tracing, that alone does not rule out alternative sources of COVID-19 exposure – any other place the person visited (markets, homes, their workplace), and exposure to family members and friends.

Notably, a large number of states are enacting legislation applicable to workers compensation claims related to COVID-19. This legislation establishes a rebuttable presumption that an employee who tests positive for COVID-19 contracted it in the course of employment, although some are limited to essential workers. A “rebuttable presumption” means that the burden of disproving causation is thrust upon the employer. While there are no similar rebuttable presumptions for personal injury and premise liability claimants at this time, it is an open question as to whether these presumptions can be used affirmatively in tort lawsuits, particularly in a situation where a worker brings COVID-19 into the home and sickens a family member or housemate.

Mitigating Liability

If businesses can show that safety protocols were followed, this evidence can be used to defend these types of claims. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set guidelines that should be followed as best practices to avoid COVID-19 liability claims. There is an abundance of state and local guidance on social distancing, use of masks and other measures to prevent the spread of the virus. With the vast amount of information available to the public on the risks of the virus and preventative measures, claimants will argue that businesses have enough information to safely operate Crafty plaintiff’s lawyers will likely seek out and find guidance that specifically supports their clients case. Business owners are advised to do the same for their respective industries, whether it be restaurants, offices or youth sports leagues.

Defenses to Consider in Defending COVID 19 Liability Claims

Statute of Limitations

The statute of limitations for in Massachusetts governing personal injury and premises liability cases places a time limit of three years within the date of the incident for filing the lawsuit. Lawsuits filed after the statute of limitations period may be dismissed as “time-barred.” Other states have similar statutes, although the specific timeframe may vary.

Modified Comparative Negligence Law

Some states, including Massachusetts, use a modified comparative negligence rule in personal injury cases, allowing plaintiffs to recover only if the defendant’s share of the blame was equal to or greater than their own. There are only a few exceptions allowing plaintiffs to recover if they were more than 51% at fault. Another important factor of this rule to consider is that if plaintiffs are found to be at fault, their damages are reduced by their allocated share of the blame. Did the visitor where a mask? Did they stay 6 feet apart from other individuals? Did they wash their hands and sanitize frequently? Were they placing their hands on their mouth and nose? These facts and circumstances are critical factors to consider when shifting the blame to the claimant.

Assumption of Risk Abolished in Massachusetts

Some jurisdictions allow a defendant in a personal injury action to raise an affirmative defense of assumption of risk, but that is abolished in Massachusetts as a defense in personal injury cases. In jurisdictions where this defense is allowed, instead of denying the allegations, defendants can assert that a plaintiff was aware of the risk when engaging in the activity or conduct, fully had knowledge of the consequences and willingly disregarded the risks or assumed the risks. Therefore, the defendant cannot be at fault for negligence and this serves as a complete bar to recovery.

Liability Waivers

Did a plaintiff sign a written liability waiver acknowledging and accepting risks? Enforceability of liability waivers as well as the exceptions to the enforceability of releases vary from state to state. While this only shows licensees and invitees were made aware of the risk, using such waivers in these COVID 19 claims is not a slam dunk defense.

Conclusion

We encourage businesses to consider these liability risks when resuming operations and to follow comprehensive procedures and CDC guidelines to mitigate the risks and protect licensees and invitees from the spread of the virus at these establishments. Our office can help businesses develop a plan specific to their business to mitigate the risks of liability from emerging claims related to COVID 19 and provide guidance and advocacy for defending such claims.

©2020 CMBG3 Law, LLC. All rights reserved.

ARTICLE BY Seta Accaoui at CMBG3 Law.
For more on business COVID-19 liability, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Travelers Take Note: City of Chicago Issues Emergency Travel Order

If you, your colleagues, your employees, or your clients have travel plans to or from a COVID-19 hotspot, the City of Chicago is requiring a two-week quarantine. On July 2, 2020, the City of Chicago issued an Emergency Travel Order directing travelers either coming into Chicago or returning to Chicago from a state experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases to quarantine for 14 days. The emergency order took effect on July 6, 2020, at 12:01 a.m. To date, this emergency order only applies to individuals arriving in Chicago. The State of Illinois has not taken similar action.

The emergency order applies to states that have had a case rate of COVID-19 greater than 15 new cases per 100,000 residents, per day, on a seven-day rolling average. The emergency order applies only if the traveler has spent 24 hours in the designated states. Therefore, if an individual simply drove through a designated state or had a connecting flight in a designated state, they are not subject to the restriction. In addition, the emergency order does not apply currently to international travel.

As of the date the emergency order was issued, the following states were subject to this quarantine restriction:

  • Alabama
  • Arkansas
  • Arizona
  • California
  • Florida
  • Georgia
  • Idaho
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • North Carolina
  • Nevada
  • South Carolina
  • Tennessee
  • Texas
  • Utah

This list is subject to change and is scheduled to be amended every Tuesday starting on July 14, 2020, with the changes to take effect three days thereafter, or the next Friday. For the latest information on the states subject to the travel ban, you can visit the City of Chicago’s website.

Importantly, an individual can be fined if found to be in violation of the emergency order. The fines range from $100 to $500 per day, up to a maximum $7,000. There are exemptions for “essential workers,” as designated by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, such as individuals employed in emergency services, government facilities, and information technology. However, the definition of “essential workers” can be technical and the emergency order adds requirements for these professionals, including that the travel be for a work purpose and that any nonessential activities be avoided until the quarantine period has ended.

© 2020 Much Shelist, P.C.

For more COVID-19 travel restrictions, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

There’s a Fake News Pandemic. Could COVID-19 and Trademarks be the Cure?

As political divides widen, accusations of differing viewpoints being “fake news” have become almost commonplace.  But during the COVID-19 pandemic, fake news has taken a more dangerous and sometimes deadly turn.

Fake news stories with fabricated COVID-19 data, sensational origin stories (it was NOT predicted by Nostradamus or created in a lab in China as a biological weapon), and baseless advice on how to protect against the illness are spreading almost as fast as the virus itself.

Fake news around COVID-19 has been directly linked to higher rates of infection, a rise in hate crimes and discrimination, increased anxiety, and further economic devastation, all of which exacerbate the current pandemic.  Even more troubling, information learned from fake news is more persistent and longer-lasting in a reader’s mind than genuine news sources because of its often sensational nature.

Fake news is a pandemic, and thus far, there is no cure.

Fake News: A brief history

Fake news is defined as “fabricated information that mimics news media content in form but not in organizational process or intent.” Although real news outlets may sometimes print opinion pieces that are more conjecture than fact, or even occasionally erroneously report particular facts amounting to poor reporting, their intent is to report noteworthy information, especially about recent or important events. Fake news, on the other hand, disguises itself as real news in an attempt to “cloak itself in legitimacy and to be easily shareable on social media” without any genuine intent to inform the public or attempt to be truthful.  Rather, it is intended to get clicks (e.g., readers) so as to increase advertisement sales.

Fake news isn’t new.  Its roots can be traced back to at least as early as the sixth century A.D.40 when Procopius, a Byzantine historian, disseminated false information, “known as Anecdota [to] smear the reputation of the Emperor Justinian.” Social media and online advertisement sales, however, have turned it into a seemingly unstoppable beast.

With social media, it is easier than ever to rapidly spread information without verification of the contents or source. Approximately seven-in-ten Americans (of all ages) currently use social media to connect with others and engage with news content, and approximately 43% of adults get their news from Facebook.

With the mere click of a button, a completely fabricated story can be instantly shared with hundreds of people, who in turn can share the story with hundreds more, and so on and so on.  The more click-baitey (i.e., catchy) the title, the quicker the story spreads and the more advertising money the author generates.

Unfortunately, in today’s climate, sensationalism is often more rewarding than the truth.

Legal Avenues are Ineffective to Combat Fake News

Fake news generally takes one of three forms:

  • Type 1-Spoofing: A content provider spoofs a legitimate news source to confuse consumers as to the source of the information (e.g., a fake FORBES Webpage circulating fake articles);

  • Type 2-Poaching: A content provider creates a publication that is intentionally confusingly similar to a recognized news source (e.g., registration of washingtonpost.com.co with a home page that mimics the WASHINTON POST) so as to poach consumers intending to visit a legitimate news source; or

  • Type 3-Original Sensationalism: A content provider creates an original publication under which to provide content, but relies on the sensational nature of the publication to disseminate the content via social media platforms.

Spoofing and poaching, as described above, typically violate several trademark laws.  The creation of a Webpage that spoofs a legitimate news outlet or appears confusingly similar to the news outlet’s brand is likely direct infringement of the news outlet’s trademarks.  Similar arguments could be made under the Lanham Act’s unfair competition and dilution frameworks (if a mark is famous enough to be spoofed, it is likely famous enough to be diluted).  Fair use defenses would also likely be unsuccessful (fair use for parody and satire does not apply where the intent is not to parody or satirize, but rather merely to confuse the relevant public and profit off of the goodwill of the mark).

Website owners, however, can sometimes be difficult to identify (they are often in foreign countries) and new sites can be created faster than infringing sites can be identified and shut down.  News outlets can thus wind up incurring large legal fees to shut down infringing sites in a proverbial game of whack-a-mole with little to no chance of recouping their costs from the bad actors themselves who live to infringe another day.

Several spoofing and poaching Websites owned by Disinformedia, a Web-based fake news content provider, have been shut down (see washingtonpost.com.co, nationalreport.net, and usatoday.com.co) as infringing the trademarks of major news outlets, but fake news is still on the rise.  This is because original sensationalism (type 3 above) is the most common form of fake news and it is nearly impossible to halt through legal action.

Fake news content providers have long relied upon free speech protections.  As long as fake news sources do not pretend to be other news outlets or to confuse readers as to the source of their content (i.e., spoofing and poaching), there is little that the legal system can do to stop the spread of information they may publish, no matter how false.  In very exceptional cases of falsehood, defamation suits may succeed, but these are rarely raised and even harder to prove.

Although legal avenues may not be effective at halting the spread of fake news, trademarks may still ultimately hold the key to stopping the fake news pandemic.

How Fake News is Hurting Facebook’s Brand

Social media platform owners have long held that social networks should not be the arbiters of speech. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Facebook, has repeatedly argued that Facebook and similar social media platforms were designed to give everyone a voice and bring them together and that to curtail such speech, no matter how false or offensive, would be to stifle free speech.

This has been a hard line for Mr. Zuckerberg and other social media giants like him.  Even after evidence came to light that foreign powers weaponized fake news to affect the 2016 election, Facebook’s official position on this point did not shift.

However, after months of Facebook failing to remove fake news stories surrounding COVID-19 from its platform, nonprofit groups began to label Facebook an “epicenter of coronavirus misinformation” and advertisers began to boycott the social media platform until it reformed its stance on known fake news stories.

Facebook soon released an official statement that it would finally be taking steps to “connect people to accurate information from health experts and keep harmful misinformation about COVID-19 from spreading”.  During the month of April alone, Facebook placed fake news warning labels on about 50 million pieces of content related to COVID-19 and redirected over “2 billion people to resources from the WHO and other health authorities” via an integrated COVID-19 information box and pop-up warnings notifying users that they had engaged with a fake news article relating to COVID-19.

Facebook’s response to COVID-19 misinformation has proven that it can prevent the spread of fake news without sacrificing its commitment to free speech.  If free speech is no longer an impediment to stopping misinformation, then it is time for Facebook to address the prevalence of fake news on its platform.

Seven-in-ten Americans use Facebook, yet over 60 percent of all Americans now believe the news that they see on social media is fake.  Fake news is ultimately hurting its brand.

As Harvard Business School professor David Yoffie explains, social media platforms such as Facebook have developed goodwill (i.e., trust) in their brands over time.  That goodwill is borrowed by every shared news story, whether real or fake.  When Facebook users see articles generated from an unknown source, they believe the article is factual because it is shared by real people on Facebook and subconsciously or consciously assume that Facebook approves the content.

If the majority of Facebook users now believe that the news they see on social media is fake, then they have lost trust in Facebook itself, thus diluting Facebook’s brand.  As fake news continues to dilute the Facebook brand and associated trademarks, Facebook is at risk of further losing goodwill, users, and, perhaps most importantly to Facebook, advertising dollars.

Few would argue that Facebook has an altruistic interest in the spread of fake news on its platform, but the Facebook brand will continue to be diluted if it does nothing to stop the spread of fake news.  Facebook has taken the first steps to identify and target fake news on its platform brand as it relates to COVID-19, but only time will tell if Facebook will expand these measures to apply to other types of fake news stories.

It took COVID-19 to force Facebook to take steps to protect its trademark (i.e., brand) and confront fake news.  Perhaps it takes a pandemic to face a pandemic.

Copyright 2020 Summa PLLC All Rights Reserved

For more on COVID-19 see the National Law Review Coronavirus News page.

EPA Issues Compliance Advisory Regarding Pesticide Devices Making Claims to Kill the Novel Coronavirus

In late May, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a Compliance Advisory providing the public with information regarding the limits of governmental review of the efficacy of pesticide devices, especially pesticide devices that claim to kill the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 (coronavirus).  Per the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), chemical pesticides must be reviewed and approved by EPA for efficacy claims made by the pesticide registrant before marketing is permitted.  In contrast, FIFRA prohibits pesticide device sellers from making false or misleading claims about the safety or efficacy of their pesticide devices, but it does not require EPA approval before a pesticide device may be sold.  Thus, pesticide devices (an instrument or other machine) designed to kill a pest do not undergo pre-market review for efficacy.

Because there is no pre-market review of pesticide device efficacy, and since EPA “is receiving a steady stream of tips/complaints concerning potentially false or misleading claims” associated with pesticide devices being sold with claims of killing coronavirus, EPA’s Compliance Advisory  sets out some cautionary statements:

“Please note that ozone generators, UV lights and other pesticide devices may not be able to make claims against coronavirus where devices have not been tested for efficacy or safety for use against the virus causing COVID-19 or harder-to-kill viruses.  In addition, because EPA does not review these data as part of a registration review process, these claims are not supported by any government review.” [Emphasis in original].

The Advisory reviews EPA’s process for approving chemical pesticides, and specifically the process EPA uses to maintain its “List N”—a list of disinfectants that meet EPA’s criteria for use against coronavirus.  The Advisory notes that consumers’ success in killing viruses using List N pesticides depends on following all label directions including heeding the recommended contact time, which is the amount of time the pesticide product needs to remain wet on a surface.

The Advisory also describes the limits prescribed by FIFRA for pre-market review and approval of pesticidal devices and warns that EPA cannot confirm whether, or under what circumstances, such pesticide devices might be effective against the spread of coronavirus.  The Advisory specifically cautions that “consumers should be aware that pesticidal devices making such claims have NOT been reviewed and accepted by EPA”.

Pesticide device sellers are allowed to make certain efficacy claims, as long as they possess supporting data.  FIFRA does impose penalties for making false or misleading labeling claims about the safety or efficacy of a pesticidal device.

The Advisory concludes with ‘Compliance Concerns’ and warns sellers who attempt to profit from sales of pesticides or pesticide devices with unapproved or unsupported claims for use against coronavirus:

“EPA intends to pursue enforcement against products making false and misleading claims regarding coronavirus. EPA is working with e-commerce platforms to remove/prohibit these fraudulent and/or otherwise inefficacious products from the marketplace. EPA is also coordinating with the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal partners to bring the full force of the law against those selling or otherwise distributing violative products.”

© 2020 Van Ness Feldman LLP

For more EPA regulation, see the National Law Review Environmental, Energy & Resource law section.