Tag: COVID-19 vaccine

Oregon Health Authority Adopts COVID-19 Vaccination and Masking Rules in Healthcare and K-12 Education

On January 31, 2022, the Oregon Health Authority (OHA) published permanent rules relating to COVID-19 vaccination and masking requirements in healthcare settings, just a few days after issuing similar rules for K-12 schools. The permanent rules replaced temporary rules that expire after 180 days.

The permanent rules for both healthcare and K-12 settings will “remain in effect unless the State Public Health Director or State Public Health Officer issues an order stating that the requirements . . . are no longer necessary to control COVID-19.” Under both rules, the factors that may lead to a loosening of restrictions or rescission of the permanent rules include the following:

  • “The degree of COVID-19 transmission”

  • “COVID-19 related hospitalizations and deaths”

  • “Disparate COVID-19 related health impacts on communities of color and tribal communities”

  • “Guidance from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention”

  • “Proportion of the population partially or fully vaccinated”

The statewide temporary indoor mask mandate is set to expire on February 8, 2022. OHA is still reviewing public comments on a proposed permanent indoor mask mandate and expects to publish a permanent rule in the coming weeks. Healthcare and K-12 employers may want to revisit their COVID-19 policies and workplace practices to consider whether they are complying

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.
For similar articles on public health, visit the NLR Health Care Law section.

OSHA’s Next Steps with the Vaccine or Test Rule

On Tuesday, January 25, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) announced the withdrawal of the “Emergency Temporary Standard” (ETS) that would have required large private employers of 100 or more employees to implement a vaccine or test policy. This announcement came after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the ETS on January 13, 2022 pending a decision from the Sixth Circuit on the underlying proceedings challenging the ETS. The withdrawal of the ETS is effective as of January 26, 2022.

The announcement from OSHA made it clear that the withdrawal is not complete, stating:

“Although OSHA is withdrawing the Vaccination and Testing ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, OSHA is not withdrawing the ETS to the extent that it serves as a proposed rule under section 6(c)(3) of the Act, and this action does not affect the ETS’s status as a proposal under section 6(b) of the Act or otherwise affect the status of the notice-and-comment rulemaking commenced by the Vaccination and Testing ETS.” OSHA’s complete withdrawal can be found here.

OSHA intends to keep the ETS as a proposed rule under OSHA’s rulemaking authority. This means that OSHA may choose to modify the previously published ETS and may rely on the Supreme Court’s opinion in doing so. OSHA may choose to implement ideas from the Supreme Court justices such as an industry or workplace-specific analysis.  Additionally, OSHA is also likely to review the comments submitted during the notice and comment period for direction with respect to a potential final ETS.

While Tuesday’s announcement does not necessitate action by employers, it does leave the door open for future directives.

© 2022 Varnum LLP
For more on OSHA, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

What We Know And Don’t About The Federal Court Order Enjoining EO 14042

In news that will be of interest to every federal contractor, including large and small businesses, universities, banks, and the health care industry, Executive Order 14042 (along with the related Task Force Guidance and contract clauses) has been ENJOINED in the states of Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. U.S. District Court Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove of the Eastern District of Kentucky issued an order on November 30, 2021 granting Plaintiffs’ (a group including the states of Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio) motion for a preliminary injunction.

The decision most certainly will be appealed. In the meantime, contractors with employees performing in Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee are not required to comply with the Executive Order or FAR/DFARS clauses. Obviously, this creates a conundrum for federal contractors and subcontractors looking for a uniform way to implement the EO rules.

Background

Plaintiffs Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky on November 4, 2021, and four days later filed for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“TRO/PI”). The TRO/PI motion asked the Court to enjoin the Government’s enforcement of EO 14042. Plaintiffs challenged the EO on 10 separate grounds, including that it violated the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (“FPASA”), the Competition in Contracting Act (“CICA”), the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and the U.S. Constitution. The Court held a conference among the parties on November 9 and a hearing on November 18.

The District Court Decision

Regardless of whether one likes the outcome or not, Judge Van Tatenhove’s decision is thoughtfully reasoned and well written. It is methodical and well cited. In sum, Judge Van Tatenhove enjoined the EO not because of the process by which the Administration implemented the mandate (i.e. not due to the lack of a meaningful notice-and-comment period or the unprecedented dynamic nature of the FAR clause), but rather because he found the Administration never had the authority to implement a vaccine mandate in the first place. In other words, the Court issued the injunction because the President of the United States purportedly lacks the statutory or constitutional authority to regulate public health via a contract clause issued pursuant to a procurement statute.

The decision, however, readily concedes that the Court’s view is the beginning, not the end, of the story. “Once again,” the Judge explained, “the Court is asked to wrestle with important constitutional values implicated in the midst of a pandemic that lingers. These questions will not be finally resolved in the shadows. Instead, the consideration will continue with the benefit of full briefing and appellate review. But right now, the enforcement of the contract provisions in this case must be paused.”

The Practical Impact (and Scope) of Kentucky v. Biden

While the Court’s decision is significant, it does NOT apply to all federal contractors. It enjoins the Government “from enforcing the vaccine mandate for federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.” Sadly, Judge Van Tatenhove does not explain this sentence. Does he mean to enjoin all federal contracts performed in those states, all federal contracts held by contractors operating in those states, or maybe even all federal contracts issued by agencies based in those states? It’s unclear. Adding to the confusion is his statement that the injunction “is properly limited to the parties before the Court” (i.e., the states of Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio). Here again, we are left to guess what he means.

Subsequent to the Court’s decision, GSA took prompt steps to notify its contractors of the late breaking news. Here is GSA’s take on the scope of the injunction:

Update: On November 30, 2021, in response to a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky, a preliminary injunction was issued halting the Federal Government from enforcing the vaccine mandate for Federal contractors and subcontractors in all covered contracts in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.

GSA implemented the vaccine mandate stemming from Executive Order 14042 through Class Deviation CD-2021-13. Pursuant to the preliminary injunction, GSA will not take any action to enforce FAR clause 52.223-99 Ensuring Adequate COVID-19 Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors in all covered contracts or contract-like instruments being performed, in whole or in part, in Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee.

While GSA’s formulation is a bit more useful than the Court’s in that it focuses on contracts “being performed . . . in” the three states, it still does not answer the key question regarding scope.

We think the most common sense interpretation of the scope of the injunction is that it applies to covered employees performing work in Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. That being said, GSA’s interpretation seems to indicate the analysis should be performed at the contract level, rather than the employee level (i.e., if you have even one employee performing on a contract in one of those three states, then the entire contract is exempt from enforcement).

We hope to receive updated Guidance from the Task Force providing a definitive answer to this question in the near future. Until then, Federal contractors and subcontractors are stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place – having to decide whether to continue marching ahead pursuant to the EO or navigate different rules in different states.

In reaching their own interpretive decision, contractors should keep in mind that the Court order does not prohibit compliance with the EO, it simply enjoins the Government from enforcing the EO. Before a contractor decides to continue rolling out its existing compliance approach as planned, however, it would be well advised to consider this: Now that the EO has been enjoined in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee, one can make a credible (and likely correct) argument the EO requirements are no longer mandatory in those states (both vaccination and making/distancing). This transition from a mandatory to a voluntary rule creates at least two new hurdles for contractors.

  • First, continuing to comply with the FAR/DFARS clauses could create state liability where a state has a law against a vaccine mandate. For example, on November 12, 2021 Tennessee passed TN HB 9077/SB 9014, which prohibits private businesses, governmental entities, schools, and local education agencies from compelling an individual, or from taking adverse action against the individual to compel them, to provide proof of vaccination. Previously, the Executive Order, as a federal law, would have trumped the conflicting state law. Now, however, the unenforceable EO no longer reigns supreme. Accordingly, continuing to impose the EO on a Tennessee workforce creates state risk.
  • Second, continuing to comply with the FAR/DFARS clauses in Tennessee, Kentucky, or Ohio could create problems with a company’s collective bargaining obligations. When the vaccine requirement was a legal obligation, it probably was not required to be collectively bargained. Now that the requirement is no longer a legal obligation (at least in the three states covered by the Court order), imposing a vaccine mandate on union employees may have to be collectively bargained.

Accordingly, while marching ahead with an existing EO 14042 company-wide compliance plan may make great sense from an efficiency and consistency standpoint, it could create unintended risks in at least three states (and certainly in Tennessee).

What Should Contractors Do Now?

The EO 14042 COVID safety contracting landscape (like COVID itself) is changing every day. We are hopeful the Task Force will issue new Guidance soon to help contractors navigate the new hurdles created by the Kentucky decision. Until then, here are a few thoughts for consideration:

  • If you have no employees performing in Kentucky, Ohio, or Tennessee, the Order has no impact on you. The EO still applies to your contracts in other states just as it did prior to the Court’s decision.
  • If you have employees performing in Tennessee, take a close look at TN HB 9077/SB 9014 before making any decision regarding implementation of the EO.
  • If you have employees performing in Kentucky or Ohio and do not have collective bargaining agreements, you may want to continue enforcing the EO to avoid having different rules in different locations. But if you have collective bargaining agreements, make sure you connect with your L&E lawyer before charting a path forward.
  • Consider putting together a communication to your employees who no doubt soon will read a headline and have questions about the Order.
  • For contractors with employees performing in Kentucky, Tennessee, or Ohio, update your current compliance plan.
  • In the absence of further Task Force Guidance, consider staying in close communication with your contracting officer regarding your implementation approach, especially in the three states implicated by the Order.

Additionally, stay on the lookout for additional updates (including from us) on the other pending litigation challenging the EO.

What’s Next?

Speaking of the “other pending litigation,” the docket still is full of challenges to the EO. By our count, there are motions for preliminary injunction pending in cases with 24 additional states as plaintiffs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judges in these cases are not bound by the Kentucky decision – either on the merits or the scope of any resulting injunction. Meaning, should a judge in one of the remaining cases also strike the EO as contrary to law or the Constitution, that judge could choose to issue a nationwide injunction covering all contractors in all states (or, as the Kentucky judge chose, limit the application to the specific state(s) involved). Only time will tell. As of the publication of this Alert, three of those cases have hearings scheduled for December 3, 6, and 7. We expect decisions shortly thereafter.

Importantly, as the Kentucky decision explicitly recognizes, it’s unlikely any of these district courts will be the final arbiter of the legality of EO 14042. We think it’s only a matter of time until we get the rarely seen, yet always celebrated Supreme Court government contracts decision. Stay tuned.

For Those Wanting A Bit More Detail . . .

For those interested in the details of the Kentucky decision, here is a brief summary:

After analyzing and concluding that the plaintiffs had standing to pursue this matter on behalf of their agencies and businesses operating in their states (a contrary outcome to the U.S. District Court’s recent decision in Mississippi), Judge Van Tatenhove jumped right in to analyzing the myriad arguments raised by Plaintiff. Briefly, here is what he found:

  • FPASA. Plaintiffs argued that the President exceeded his authority under FPASA in issuing the EO. The Court agreed, reasoning that FPASA was intended to give the President procurement powers, not unlimited powers. “FPASA does not provide authority to ‘write a blank check for the President to fill in at his will. . . .” The Court found an insufficiently close nexus between the EO and the need for economy and efficiency in the procurement of goods and services, reasoning that similar logic could authorize a president to outlaw overweight contractor employees since the CDC has concluded that obesity worsens the outcomes of COVID-19. While recognizing the breadth of FPASA and how it historically has been used to promote far-reaching social labor policies (e.g., EO 11246), for this judge at least, the COVID-19 mandate was just a bridge too far.
  • CICA. CICA requires agencies to provide “full and open competition through the use of competitive procedures” in federal procurements. The Court found that the EO violates CICA. According to Judge Van Tatenhove, “contractors who ‘represent the best value to the government’ but choose not to follow the vaccine mandate would be precluded from effectively competing for government contracts.” It seems to us this reasoning does not hold up under close scrutiny. Couldn’t one say the same thing about contractors precluded from contracts where they “choose not to follow” the Trade Agreements Act, Section 889, Executive Order 11246, or any other number of gating procurement rules? In any event, the Court found the argument compelling at least “at this early stage in the litigation.”
  • Non-Delegation Doctrine. The non-delegation doctrine precludes Congress from transferring its legislative power to another branch. Plaintiffs argued that “mandating vaccination for millions of federal contractors and subcontractors is a decision that should be left to Congress (or, more appropriately, the States) and is a public health regulation as opposed to a measure aimed at providing an economical and efficient procurement system.” In evaluating Plaintiffs’ argument, the Court looked to the OSHA rule recently struck down by the Fifth Circuit. “It would be reasonable to assume that a vaccine mandate would be more appropriate in the context of an emergency standard promulgated by OSHA,” Judge Van Tatenhove noted, and then went on to note that even the OSHA ETS was struck down as a violation of the non-delegation doctrine. If the ETS couldn’t withstand a non-delegation challenge, “the Court has serious concerns about the FPASA, which is a procurement statute, being used to promulgate a vaccine mandate for all federal contractors and subcontractors.” The Court acknowledged “that only twice in American history, both in 1935, has the Supreme Court found Congressional delegation excessive.” Nonetheless, Judge Van Tatenhove seems to believe he has found the third. He mused, however, that “it may be useful for appellate courts to further develop the contours of the non-delegation doctrine, particularly in light of the pandemic.”
  • Tenth Amendment. As we all will remember from high school civics (if not from law school), the Tenth Amendment states that “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The Court expressed a “serious concern that Defendants have stepped into an area traditionally reserved to the States,” and held the Tenth Amendment provides an additional reason to enjoin the EO.

In short, Judge Van Tatenhove clearly believes the Plaintiffs, in this case, are likely to prevail on multiple statutory and constitutional bases.

The decision then goes on to discuss whether the President (through his delegated officials) failed to follow applicable administrative procedures in issuing the EO and the subsequent FAR clause. Here, the President fared better than he did with Plaintiffs’ constitutional arguments. The Court concluded that the Administration, while perhaps “inartful and a bit clumsy” at times, “likely followed the procedures required by statute.” The Court also concluded that the Administration did not act arbitrarily or capriciously (as defined by the APA). “The Court finds, based on the limited record at this stage in the litigation, that Defendants have followed the appropriate procedural requirements in promulgating the vaccine mandate.” But this all is little solace to the Administration as it would have been much easier to overcome a procedural error than a constitutional one — let alone the “serious Constitutional concerns” identified by Judge Van Tatenhove.

*Sheppard Mullin partners Jonathan Aronie, Ryan Roberts, Anne Perry, and associates Nikki Snyder, Emily Theriault, and Dany Alvarado participated in drafting this Alert.

Copyright © 2021, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

Article by the Government Contracts Practice Group with Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP.

For more about federal court orders and federal contractors visit the NLR Government Contracts Maritime & Military Law type of law page.

Vaccine Volunteers: Is “Thank You” Sufficient Compensation?

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay nonexempt employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked up to 40 hours in a workweek and time and one-half for all hours worked over 40 hours in the same workweek. An exception to this rule exists for volunteers, who are not categorized as “employees” under the statute. Typically, volunteers are individuals who donate their time to non-profit, civic, religious, and other charitable organizations.

In light of the COVID-19 pandemic and the urgency to administer vaccines as quickly as possible, hospitals and healthcare facilities are relying on volunteers to assist in organizing vaccine distribution. Employers may want to review their program to ensure volunteers are donating their time in a way that does not run afoul of the FLSA.

Unfortunately, no bright-line rule exists to determine whether an individual is volunteering his or her time or performing compensable work under the FLSA. Instead, this determination hinges, in large part, on the type of work performed by the individual.

If an individual is performing service that relates to commercial activities, he or she will likely be considered an employee under the FLSA, and therefore entitled to wages. For example, an individual who “volunteers” his or her time working at the hospital gift shop may be entitled to compensation under the FLSA. Further, if a volunteer performs tasks on a full-time schedule, is retained for an indefinite period, or displaces a regular employee, it is likely the FLSA would categorize this individual as an employee who should be paid wages for all hours worked.

Recently, some hospitals have been faced with situations in which employees offered to volunteer their time after their shifts to perform the same types of services they are otherwise employed to provide. For example, a nurse employed at a hospital to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to patients during her regular working hours may volunteer to continue vaccinating patients after her assigned shift. Because this is likely impermissible “volunteer” work under the FLSA, the nurse may be entitled to compensation for any hours worked after her shift.

Another similar situation would be when a retired nurse wants to assist with clinical aspects or vaccine administration on a volunteer basis. For the same reasons noted above, this may also be problematic. Employers may want to review each situation on a case-by-case basis and proceed with caution. At a minimum, the employer may want to consider the below recommendations before classifying the returning nurse as a volunteer—who will likely be working alongside paid employees performing the same tasks.

So how can hospitals and similar facilities potentially use volunteers? Some ideas that may be permissible under the FLSA include: organizing the hospital’s vaccine distribution process, including ensuring patients waiting for their vaccine are wearing masks and staying six-feet apart in a line (among other safety recommendations); helping with check-in and other administrative work; and answering questions from patients.

If permitting volunteer work, healthcare employers may want to consider asking volunteers to sign authorization or other written forms that acknowledge the volunteers are knowingly and willingly donating their time to specific tasks and that the duration of the work is temporary. This type of acknowledgment may help to verify that the volunteer and employer are aligned in terms of the work performed, their relative expectations, and the (lack of) compensation provided.

With hospitals and other healthcare distribution facilities maintaining a commitment to administer the vaccine as effectively and efficiently as possible, volunteers are a key part of this mission. Many roles may exist for volunteers that comply with the FLSA and applicable state laws. While employers may want to carefully consider each situation and take precautions, the additional assistance provided by volunteers may be worthwhile to service communities and provide a quick and seamless process to administer vaccinations. At the very least, employers may want to ensure that volunteers are receiving proper recognition and resources for their time, even if it is a simple “thank you.”

© 2020, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved
ARTICLE BY John B. Brown and Jamie E. Brod of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

Want to Know if Your Employees Received the COVID-19 Vaccine? Some Best Practices to Consider

While its rollout has been slow, the vaccine is being administered across the U.S. and in other countries. As of January 15, 2021, nearly 36 million doses of a COVID-19 vaccine have been administered, just over 11 million in the U.S. For a variety of reasons, organizations want to know whether their workforce members (employees, contractors, etc.) have been vaccinated. Some are trying to assess prospects for return to work, while others want to provide incentives to get the vaccine, and still others are managing customer demands to know if their vendor’s workforce has been vaccinated.

The EEOC has provided some guidance on the issue:

K.3. Is asking or requiring an employee to show proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination a disability-related inquiry? (12/16/20)

No.  There are many reasons that may explain why an employee has not been vaccinated, which may or may not be disability-related.  Simply requesting proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, is not a disability-related inquiry.  However, subsequent employer questions, such as asking why an individual did not receive a vaccination, may elicit information about a disability and would be subject to the pertinent ADA standard that they be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”  If an employer requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from a pharmacy or their own health care provider, the employer may want to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof in order to avoid implicating the ADA.

So, based on the answer to the question posed above, we know the EEOC’s position is that asking or requiring employees to provide information on whether or not an employee was vaccinated is not a disability-related inquiry under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). But that may not be the end of the inquiry. These are several considerations and best practices that organizations might consider before putting such requests to their workforce members.

  • Who wants the information, and why? As noted above, there could be several reasons for wanting to ask employees about their vaccination status. Those reasons can affect compliance and best practice considerations. For example, if an organization is working to accommodate customer demands for vaccination status of the organization’s employees who are performing services at the customers’ facilities, the organization might want to consider, among other things:
    • Does it need to provide the information to the customer?
    • Is consent/authorization necessary?
    • How should the information be transmitted?
    • Who at the customer would have access to that information?
    • Will the customer safeguard it?
  • What steps can be taken to limit compliance risk? If an organization decides to ask workforce members about their vaccination status, there are steps it can take to minimize compliance risk. For instance, an organization can minimize the chance of an ADA violation by (i) designing the request so it is not likely to elicit information about a disability, (ii) not asking why an individual did not receive a vaccination, and (iii) warning the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the requested proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination. Similarly, employers that are subject to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) and wondering whether their notice at collection to California employees needs to cover vaccination information may decide to provide notice in the abundance of caution.
  • Is it necessary to even ask employees directly…couldn’t the organization look at its health plan’s claims information for vaccine-related administration charges? Aside from being arguably more administratively difficult, this method likely would be considered a violation of the HIPAA privacy rule. Plan sponsors may not use protected health information under HIPAA for an employment purpose without the employee’s authorization.  
  • Does the collection and processing of vaccination information raise data privacy and security risks? Even if making the request is not a disability-related inquiry, it may be considered a medical inquiry, and the employee’s response, confidential medical information. While not subject to HIPAA in the employer-employee context, this information still may have protections under state statutory and common law. Consider, for example, that several states, such as California and Florida, include “medical information” as part of the definition of “personal information” under their breach notification laws. Accordingly, if that information is breached, which could include access to the information by an unauthorized party, notification may be required.

Additionally, statutory and common law obligations exist to require employers to safeguard employee personal information, which may include information about their physical health, such as vaccination status. Thus, maintaining reasonable safeguards to protect such information is prudent. This might include access management measures and record retention and destruction policies. It also may include having clear guidelines for making disclosures of this information and determining whether an authorization is needed before such information may be disclosed or accessed by a third party.

These are just some of the issues organizations may find themselves grappling with as COVID-19 vaccinations become more available. Thinking them through carefully should help organization minimize their compliance and legal risks as they continue to manage their businesses through this pandemic.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2020
ARTICLE BY Joseph J. Lazzarotti of Jackson Lewis P.C.
For more, visit the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Mandatory or Voluntary Employee Vaccinations: EEOC Weighs In

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

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

Voluntary Employee COVID-19 Vaccination

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

Mandatory Employee COVID-19 Vaccination

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

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

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

Practical Realities and Implications

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

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

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

Nine Things Employers Should Know About the COVID-19 Vaccine

Early this week, trucks carrying the first doses of the COVID-19 vaccine began arriving at distribution points throughout United States.

Anticipating this distribution and appearing before the Michigan legislature’s Joint Select Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic earlier this month, Michigan Department of Health and Human Services Director Robert Gordon said that the agency is not considering a statewide coronavirus vaccine mandate. Nonetheless, many employers wonder whether—and when—their companies can require employees to take advantage of the vaccine.

There is currently no law or regulation directly addressing whether employers may mandate vaccination for COVID-19, but employers can gain some insight from companies’ ability to mandate the flu vaccine. Generally speaking, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) does not prohibit employers from mandating the flu vaccine, as long as such requirements are job-related and consistent with business necessity. Mandatory vaccination policies are controversial, particularly outside the health care industry, and the EEOC has stated that “generally, ADA-covered employers should consider simply encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.”

Once the COVID-19 vaccine becomes widely available, employers should consider their options and policies carefully, keeping in mind the following:

  • Realize if an employee objects to the vaccine for religious reasons, the employer will need to explore what reasonable accommodations it can provide, absent undue hardship.
  • Similarly, if an employee declines vaccination due to a medical condition or disability, the employer must engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify reasonable accommodations, if any.
  • Discuss policy with applicable insurance carrier before implementation to address coverage in the event that an employee becomes ill.
  • Explore options to increase liability protections such as a waiver or release in case a vaccinated employee has an adverse reaction, and what consideration will support the waiver or the release.
  • Consider whether the employer will cover any costs connected to administering vaccination and how this will integrate with employer-provided health plans.
  • Evaluate whether to provide additional paid leave to employees who receive the vaccine and become ill or need days off from work to recover.
  • Review and update job descriptions to include essential functions that may relate to COVID-19 risk, such as travel requirements, customer or patient interaction, and close contact with other employees.
  • For unionized workplaces, consider whether a mandatory vaccination policy will be a mandatory subject of bargaining.
  • Develop a vaccination policy and procedure for requesting accommodation for religious or medical reasons.
© 2020 Varnum LLP
For more articles on the COVID-19 vaccine, visit the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.