Tag: COVID-19

Federal Court Strikes Down Portions of Department of Labor’s Final Rule on COVID-19 Leave, Expands Coverage

On August 3, 2020, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down portions of the DOL’s Final Rule regarding who qualifies for COVID-19 emergency paid sick leave under the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (“EPSLA”) and the Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (“EFMLEA”), collectively referred to as the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”).

Of particular importance to retail employers, the Court invalidated two provisions of the DOL’s Final Rule pertaining to: (1) conditioning leave on the availability of work and (2) the need to obtain employer consent prior to taking leave on an intermittent basis.

Neither the EPSLA nor the EFMLEA contains an express “work availability” requirement. The EPSLA grants paid leave to employees who are “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave because” of any of six COVID-19-related criteria. FFCRA § 5102(a). The EFMLEA similarly applies to employees “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for . . . [a child] due to a public health emergency.” FFCRA § 101(a)(2)(A).  In its Final Rule, the DOL concluded that these provisions do not reach employees whose employers “do not have work” for them, reasoning a work-availability requirement is justified “because the employee would be unable to work even if he or she” did not have a qualifying condition set forth in the statute.

In rejecting the DOL’s interpretation, the Court stated that “the agency’s barebones explanation for the work-availability requirement is patently deficient,” given that the DOL’s interpretation “considerably narrow[s] the statute’s potential scope.”  Under the Court’s interpretation, employees are entitled to protected leave under either the EPSLA or EFMLEA if they satisfy the express statutory conditions, regardless of whether they are scheduled to work during the requested leave period.

The Court also rejected part of the DOL’s interpretation that employees are not permitted to take the protected leave on an intermittent basis unless they obtain their employer’s consent.  As an initial matter, the Court upheld the DOL’s interpretation that employees cannot take intermittent leave in certain situations in which there is a higher risk that the employee will spread COVID-19 to other employees (i.e., when the employees: are subject to government quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19; have been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19; are experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and are taking leave to obtain a medical diagnosis; are taking care of an individual who either is subject to a quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19 or has been advised by a healthcare provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19).

In those circumstances, the Court agreed that a restriction on intermittent leave “advances Congress’s public-health objectives by preventing employees who may be infected or contagious from returning intermittently to a worksite where they could transmit the virus.”  Therefore, in those situations, employees are only permitted to take the protected leave in a block of time (i.e., a certain number of days/weeks), not on an intermittent basis.  As a result, the Court upheld the DOL’s restriction on intermittent leave “insofar as it bans intermittent leave based on qualifying conditions that implicate an employee’s risk of viral transmission.”

The Court, however, rejected the requirement that employees obtain their employer’s consent before taking intermittent leave in other circumstances (i.e., when an employee takes leave solely to care for the employee’s son or daughter whose school or place of care is closed).  In doing so, the Court ruled that the DOL failed to provide a coherent justification for requiring the employer’s consent, particularly in situations in which the risk of viral transmission is low.  The Court’s opinion brings the EPSLA and EFMLEA in line with the existing FMLA, which does not require employer consent.

It is unclear if the DOL will challenge the Court’s decision or revise its Final Rule to bring it in compliance with the Court’s opinion.  Regardless, the Court’s decision takes effect immediately and retail employers should be mindful of this ruling and revisit their COVID-19 leave policies.

Copyright © 2020, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.

COVID-19: FTC Acts Fast, Lambasts Missing Masks

Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. Section 45(a)) provides worthwhile remedies for the types of unfair competition that intellectual property practitioners find quite familiar, and practitioners should give them due consideration.  Selling COVID-19 masks you don’t have provides a good example.

In a case filed in early July (FTC press release) the FTC took a Staten Island business to task, along with its owner, for claiming that masks, respirators and other “PPE’s” (personal protection equipment) was “in stock” and “would ship the next day” (Complaint).  The website “supergooddeals.com” continues to lead off with its signature slogan, “Pay Today, Ships Tomorrow” (https://supergooddeals.com/; also accessed by the author on July 31, 2020).

Apparently starting in March 2021, supergooddeals.com began selling PPE.  According to the FTC complaint, the website claimed that the desired masks were “IN STOCK” (complaint paragraphs 19 and 20).  The FTC complaint gives no indication as to whether or not the “in stock” claim was accurate, but instead pleads the examples of several consumers who never received masks, and numerous complaints to which supergooddeals.com never responded.

The FTC complaint also implies that to the extent that some orders may have been shipped, they were shipped on terms that were far less favorable than supergooddeals.com advertised, and when shipments never arrived (or perhaps were never sent) supergooddeals.com failed to give buyers the opportunity to change their mind, or offer a refund or any modification in price terms (e.g. Complaint paragraphs 29-31).

Supergooddeals.com also apparently attempted to conceal their failures (worse verbs could be applied) by producing shipment labels carrying the promised shipping date, but for packages that either would never ship, or shipped much later than the labelled date.  Supergooddeals.com apparently didn’t realize that when a business creates its own USPS shipping labels, “An electronic record is generated on the ship date indicating that your package has been mailed and the Postal Service is expecting to see your package that day.” Click-N-Ship Field Information Kit

(For those of us that may merely be tardy, the same USPS webpage suggests mailing the package on the next business day.  Checking for a friend.)

The FTC also asserted MITOR (“Mail, Internet, or Telephone Order Merchandise,” 16 CFR Part 435) which defines the terms in the name, defines unfair and deceptive practices in context, requires certain activities, and lists some exceptions (including, for reasons known only on K Street, “orders of seeds and growing plants”).

So, the alleged infractions include:

  • Advertising a delivery date that you know you cannot meet,
  • Advertising items that you don’t have in stock
  • Producing a false mailing label in an attempt to prove the shipping date, and
  • Failing to cancel orders when requested or provide prompt refunds

The Federal Trade Commission Act has worthwhile remedies for such activities, and as the Complaint indicates (paragraphs 58 and 59) the FTC plans to seek them against supergooddeals.com.

So, the people get their money back from supergooddeals.com and all’s well that ends well. Right?

Not exactly.  The FTC Act offers no private right of action in these circumstances.  The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) 15 USC Section 1692(d) which is generally under the Federal Trade Commission, provides private remedies in the consumer debt arena, but a private party otherwise has no right to the remedies sought against supergooddeals.com under the FTC Act.

At this point, however, the intellectual property (“IP”) practitioner may have an extra arrow up his or her sleeve:  Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act (15 USC 1125(a)) if—IF—the parties can be defined as competitors in the section 43(a) sense.

FTC § 5(a)

Lanham Act § 43(a)

Unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are hereby declared unlawful.

(1)Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—

Anchor(A)

is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or

Anchor(B)

in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,

shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.

The Lanham Act applies to false representations (etc.) about goods and services in interstate commerce, but plaintiffs attempting to stretch section 43 (a) too far have been turned down e.g., Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 786 F.3d 316 (4th Cir., 2015) (The Radiance Foundation, an African American influenced pro-life organization, criticized the NAACP over the NAACP position on abortion.  The NAACP issued a cease and desist letter and the Radiance Foundation filed a declaratory judgment complaint arguing that neither trademark infringement nor dilution had occurred.  The NAACP counterclaimed under (inter alia) section 43(a).  The Fourth Circuit held that for a number of reasons, including the lack of competing goods or services in the section 43(a) sense, the NAACP did not have a trademark remedy in these circumstances.)

Supergooddeals.com certainly dealt (and continues to deal) in “goods” in the sense of section 43(a).  Nevertheless, the “hundreds of” consumers listed in (e.g.) paragraph 26 of the FTC complaint don’t have a section 43(a) remedy against supergooddeals.com because such customers are not “competitors” of supergooddeals.com in the sense required by section 43(a).  Stated more formally, for individual defrauded customers, the answer to, “whether a legislatively conferred cause of action encompasses a particular plaintiff’s claim” is “no.” (Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., 572 U.S. 118, 132 (2014). (“A consumer who is hoodwinked into purchasing a disappointing product may well have an injury-in-fact cognizable under Article III, but he cannot invoke the protection of the Lanham Act—a conclusion reached by every Circuit to consider the question.”)

Does Pat Peoples have any Silver Lining here?  Well, yes. In addition to a possible contractual remedy, most states have some form of general “unfair competition is illegal” statute as well as consumer protection remedies.

For the time being, however, these defrauded consumers have Uncle Sam on their side, and when “Uncle” sues he usually gets the job done.

 

Copyright 2020 Summa PLLC All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY Philip Summa and Summa PLLC.
For more FTC PPE Actions see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

COVID-19 Update: NY Governor Cuomo Extends Tenant Protections, Including Eviction and Foreclosure Moratorium

On August 5, 2020, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo issued Executive Order 202.551 (the “New Order”) to provide additional relief to renters impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic and extended the time periods for certain other protections that had been previously granted to renters and property owners pursuant to Executive Order 202.82, as extended by Executive Order 202.283 and Executive Order 202.484 (the “Prior Orders”).

The Prior Orders provided for (i) a moratorium on evictions of commercial tenants through August 5, 2020, and residential tenants through July 5, 2020, and (ii) a moratorium on eviction and foreclosure of any residential or commercial tenant or owner through August 20, 2020, if the basis of the eviction or foreclosure is the nonpayment of rent or the mortgage, as applicable, and the tenant or owner, as applicable, is eligible for unemployment insurance or benefits under state or federal law or is otherwise facing financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Executive Order 202.48 previously had removed the restrictions on residential foreclosures and residential evictions, as those has been superseded by legislative action.  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 112 provides for 180 days of mortgage forbearance for individuals, which period may be extended by the mortgagor for an additional 180 days.5  The Laws of New York 2020, Chapter 127 prohibits evictions of residential tenants that have suffered financial hardship during the COVID-19 pandemic for the non-payment of rent.  In each case, the relief granted extends through the period commencing on March 7, 2020, until the date on which “none of the provisions that closed or otherwise restricted public or private businesses or places of public accommodation, or required postponement or cancellation of all non-essential gatherings of individuals of any size” continue to apply.

The New Order extends a number of existing Executive Orders, including the Prior Orders for an additional 30 days, to September 5, 2020, effectively continuing the moratoria on commercial and residential evictions and foreclosures – whether instituted by executive order or passed into law by the legislature – until such date.

1       Executive Order 202.55, available here.

2       Executive Order 202.8, available here.

3       Executive Order 202.28, available here.

4       Executive Order 202.48, available here.

5       The Laws of New York 2020, Chapters 112 and 127.

© Copyright 2020 Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP

For more on COVID-19 related rental relief, see the National Law Review Coronavirus 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.

Renewed Shutdowns/Restrictions Present Interesting Issues Regarding COVID-19 Business Interruption Claims

In recent weeks we have published multiple pieces on issues related to the calculation of damages under business interruption policies for losses associated with COVID-19 shutdowns/restrictions.  Unlike more conventional business interruption claims, such as losses associated with a hurricane, COVID-19 claims are likely to be more complicated regarding the end date for loss calculations, especially in instances where the policyholder was permitted to resume operations in a limited capacity, such as restaurants that initially were ordered closed but then were allowed to transition to a take-out/delivery model, outdoor seating only, or to operate at restricted capacities.

As many jurisdictions now face a resurgence in COVID-19 cases, another complicating issue is likely to arise.  In these jurisdictions that previously imposed restrictions on operations but lifted such restrictions, many policyholders have already submitted COVID-19-related business interruption claims to their insurance carriers.  Having thought that they had weathered the storm and were on the path to recovery, they now face the potential of new shutdowns/restrictions.

If renewed shutdowns/restrictions are imposed, a question is likely to arise as to whether these policyholders have one claim applicable to both sets of shutdowns/restrictions or two separate claims.  Does the policyholder need to provide additional notice related to the second set of shutdowns/restrictions?  Is it more beneficial for the policyholder to have one or multiple coverage triggering events (i.e., occurrences)?  What is the impact on available limits or deductibles/retentions?

These are just a few of the insurance issues potentially presented by the prospect of renewed shutdowns/restrictions.  Policyholders should review the terms of their policies carefully to understand their rights and their best path forward.

© 2020 Gilbert LLP

For more on business interruption, see the National Law Review Insurance, Reinsurance & Surety law section.

COVID-19 Brings Consumer Convenience to Pennsylvania

Effective tomorrow, August 4, 2020, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board (PLCB) amended sections 407, 415, and 442 of Act 29 of 2020. These revisions allow Pennsylvania Restaurant (“R”) liquor licensees, Eating Place Malt Beverage (“E”) licensees, and Wine Expanded Permit (“WEP”) holders that possess interior connections to another business they operate, such as a grocery store, convenience store, or similarly situated business that cannot have its entire building or business licensed, to have the consumer use the cash registers at their other business to sell malt or brewed beverages and wine for off-premises consumption.

Consumer Convenience in Pennsylvania

Previously, all alcohol sales in these businesses were confined to the licensed areas where alcohol was stored, served, and sold. This confused many customers who tried to check out at the wrong register line with beer and wine purchases. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been a push to allow customers to use other registers in the store to create fewer touchpoints for customers by not having to use two different registers and to create less congestion in the licensed areas, which are typically fairly small.

Qualifications for Additional Cash Registers

In order to qualify, ALL the following requirements must be met:

  • The licensee’s building is 11,000 square feet or less;
  • The other business cash registers are in the same building as the licensed premises; and
  • The other business cash registers comply with the following standards as set forth by 47 P.S. 4-415(a)(8) and (9) of the Liquor Code:
    • Cash registers must have signage to designate that alcohol may be purchased at said register
    • Cash registers cannot be registers where customers scan their own purchases, which means that self-checkout is still prohibited for all alcohol purchases
    • Cash registers must always be staffed when patrons are purchasing alcohol
    • Cash register clerks must be at least 18 years of age and have completed Responsible Alcohol Management Program training
    • Cash register clerks must use a transaction scan device to verify the age of any patron purchasing alcohol who appears to be under 35 years of age before a sale can occur
    • The licensee may not sell or share the data from the use of its transaction scan device, except for providing said data to the Pennsylvania State Police Bureau of Liquor Control Enforcement

In order to start using additional cash registers, all the above-mentioned criteria must be met AND an email notification of compliance must be sent to RA-LBLICINV@PA.GOV including the following information:

  • LID, license number, and licensee name and address
  • The building’s total square footage
  • Plans or sketches that show the location of the specific cash registers being used
  • Confirmation that all conditions are met

 

©2020 Norris McLaughlin P.A., All Rights Reserved

ARTICLE BY Matthew B. Andersen and Theodore J. Zeller III at Norris McLaughlin P.A. Summer Associate Benjamin MacLuckie contributed.
For more on state liquor laws, see the National Law Review Biotech, Food & Drug law 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.

COVID-19 Whistleblower Protections: Few Options for Workers Reporting Unsafe Working Conditions

The United States has been rocked by the COVID-19 pandemic in innumerable ways and it has had profound and ongoing impacts on workers. One of the most vexing problems arising from COVID-19 has been protecting workers who object to employers that are failing to implement meaningful safety precautions to protect their workers during the pandemic. As just one of many examples, an Amazon employee was fired after he opposed the company’s failure to meaningfully protect warehouse employees who had potentially been exposed to the coronavirus. This article will examine our failures in addressing this problem through meaningful federal action and highlight instances where local legislators have passed laws to protect workers who find themselves facing this predicament.

The Deficiencies of Federal Law to Protect Workers During the Coronavirus Crisis

The primary federal law requiring a safe working environment is the Occupational Safety and Health Act (“OSH Act”). Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits employers from discharging or discriminating against an employee because the employee exercised any rights under the Act, including the right to raise health or safety complaints. 29 U.S.C. § 660(c). The OSH Act theoretically protects an employee who refuses to work based on unsafe working conditions, although the requirements for a protected work refusal are stringent.

Unfortunately, the OSH Act does not effectively protect workers in general, much less in the face of a burgeoning pandemic. The Act does not have a private right of action, so employees who suffer retaliation for reporting unsafe working conditions cannot sue in court. Instead, Section 11(c) allows employees to file a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) and request that OSHA protect them. Thus, government officials ultimately decide what to do with the OSH Act complaint; if they fail to protect an employee, that employee has no other recourse under the statute. In addition, the OSH Act has a 30-day statute of limitations—the shortest of any federal anti-retaliation statute. Finally, the strict requirements governing what constitutes a protected refusal to work will leave many employees in the cold. OSHA officials have acknowledged the weakness of the OSH Act protections. In 2010, then-Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health, Jordan Barab, testified before Congress that Section 11(c)’s lack of a private right of action and statutory right of appeal were “[n]otable weaknesses” in the law. Mr. Barab also lamented the OSH Act’s “inadequate time for employees to file complaints.”

Several states have their own version of the OSH Act, protecting employees who raise concerns about workplace health and safety. Like the federal OSH Act, however, many of these state laws do not contain private rights of action. See, e.g., D.C. Code § 32-1117 (no private right of action); Md. Code, Labor & Empl. § 5-604 (same); but see Va. Code § 40.1-51.2:2 (providing private right of action and a 60-day limitations period for filing a complaint).

Proposed Legislation to Protect Whistleblowers

The Coronavirus Oversight and Recovery Ethics Act (“CORE Act”) put in place meaningful protections against retaliation for individuals who report waste, fraud, and abuse related to government funds that were distributed to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. Like other recent whistleblower protection legislation, it is primarily enforced through the Department of Labor but permits whistleblowers to “kick out” their claims into federal court. Further, language in the bill nullifies the effectiveness of pre-dispute mandatory arbitration provisions with respect to claims asserted under the law. In many ways, it is a model piece of whistleblower protection legislation.

One significant omission from the CORE Act, however, is language amending the OSH Act or otherwise granting meaningful protections to whistleblowers who report workplace health and safety concerns related to COVID-19. Thus, nothing in the bill purports to protect an individual who refuses to come to work, or opposes her employer’s practices, because her employer has failed to take sufficient steps to mitigate COVID-19-related risk to employee health. In most of the country, employees in that situation are left with the OSH Act as their primary recourse for protection against retaliation.

Given the clear deficiencies in the OSH Act’s protections of whistleblowers concerned about workplace safety, whistleblower advocacy organizations like the Project on Government Oversight (“POGO”) have pushed for Congress to pass legislation that would, among other things, “prohibit retaliation against essential workers making disclosures related to worker or public health and safety during the pandemic.” On June 15, 2020, in response to calls from groups like POGO, Senator Kamala Harris and Representatives Jackie Speier and Jamie Raskin introduced the COVID-19 Whistleblower Protection Actto expand the whistleblower protections of the CORE Act.

Protecting Whistleblowers at the Local Level

Given the lack of federal action to address this problem, some municipalities have passed legislation specifically designed to protect employees who report COVID-19-related workplace safety concerns. For example, Mayor Kenney of Philadelphia recently signed into law Bill No. 200328, which requires employers to “comply with all aspects of public health orders addressing safe workplace practices to mitigate risks” related to COVID-19. The bill further states that “[n]o employer shall take any adverse employment or other action against an employee” who refuses to work in conditions that do not comply with public safety guidelines, and that “no employer shall take any adverse employment or other action against any employee for making a protected disclosure.” A “protected disclosure” is defined as a “good faith communication” disclosing information “that may evidence a violation of a public health order that may significantly threaten the health or safety of employees or the public, if the disclosure or intention to disclose was made for the purpose of remedying such violation.” The legislation includes a private right of action and permits awards to successful litigants including reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and liquidated damages “of $100 to $1000 on behalf of the City for each day in which a violation occurs.”

In late May, the City of Chicago enacted a bill that contained slightly narrower but still powerful protections. In the bill, the City of Chicago prohibited employers from retaliating against employees for complying with public health orders relating to COVID-19 issued by the City or the State or for following COVID-19-related quarantine instructions from a treating health care provider. The protections extend to employees who are caring for an individual subject to such a quarantine. The bill includes a remarkable damages provision entitling successful claimants to liquidated damages “equal to three times the full amount of wages that would have been owed had the retaliatory action not taken place.”

These actions by municipalities are meaningful and offer critical protections to citizens living in those cities. At the same time, the need for this local legislation highlights the glaring absence of meaningful protections for workers in the rest of the country. It seems that every week we hear more horror stories about conditions in which workers are forced to work during this pandemic, lest they risk losing their jobs in the midst of a devastating economic downturn. The weaknesses in the OSH Act and the absence of even proposed federal legislation that would fill this critical gap in protection is a moral failure.

Copyright Katz, Marshall & Banks, LLP

For more on COVID-19 related whistleblowing, see the National Law Review Coronavirus News section.

Severance: To Pay or Not To Pay

As the economic downturn from the COVID-19 pandemic continues to impact businesses throughout the United States, many employers face the prospect of implementing reductions in force or other employee terminations. Common questions include whether employers are legally obligated to pay severance, whether offering severance is advisable in the absence of a requirement to do so, and how much to offer. As explained below, severance payments are generally optional and can be used by employers to achieve a number of important goals, including risk mitigation and litigation avoidance.

Are Employers Required to Pay Severance?

As of this writing, no federal or state law obligates employers to pay severance to employees upon termination. Under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act and some state equivalents, employers may be required to pay terminated employees wages and benefits for a certain period if they fail to provide adequate notice to those employees as part of a qualifying mass layoff or plant closing. However, these payments under the WARN Act are penalties for non-compliance with the notice requirement rather than true severance and, moreover, can easily be avoided by providing the required notice.

New Jersey will become the first state in the nation to require employers to pay severance in certain circumstances when amendments to its WARN Act equivalent become effective. As part of a series of employer-unfriendly laws enacted in January 2020, New Jersey will require large employers—even those who comply with WARN notice requirements—to pay one week of severance for each full year of service to employees who are terminated as part of a qualifying mass layoff or plant closing. Employers who fail to provide adequate notice must pay an additional four weeks as a penalty. Fortunately, New Jersey has delayed the effective date of this new severance requirement to 90 days after termination of the COVID-19-related state of emergency.

Although no law currently requires the payment of severance, an employer may legally obligate itself to provide severance in a number of scenarios, including:

  • An employment agreement, especially for an executive, may guarantee some amount of severance in the event of a termination without cause.

  • A company policy, whether contained in an employee handbook or not, may provide for severance for employees who are terminated through no fault of their own.

  • A collective bargaining agreement may contain a severance guarantee.

  • Federal, state, and local anti-discrimination laws may compel an employer to offer severance to similarly situated employees in order to avoid a disparate treatment claim.

A practice of paying severance may be viewed under some circumstances to create a plan under the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), with attendant requirements.

Should an Employer Offer Severance?

Absent a requirement or obligation to pay severance, an employer may nonetheless choose to offer severance in order to avoid claims or litigation, to obtain other benefits, or as a matter of goodwill. Indeed, whenever an employer offers severance, the offer should be conditioned upon the employee’s signing a general release of claims against the employer, affiliated entities, and associated personnel. This is true whether there is a specific concern about a claim or lawsuit—for example, where the terminated employee has previously complained about alleged discrimination—or not. Note that certain claims and rights cannot be released by an employee even in exchange for severance, such as claims for unemployment and worker’s compensation and the right to file a discrimination charge with a government enforcement agency.

Employers can also use severance to obtain strategic benefits from terminated employees beyond the release of claims, including confidentiality and restrictive covenants such as non-competition, non-solicitation, and non-disparagement provisions. In some situations, employers may wish to include other provisions as part of the exchange, such as a requirement that terminated employees cooperate with post-termination transition work or be available as a witness for pending or anticipated litigation.

How Much Severance to Offer?

Unless there is a preexisting requirement, policy, or plan to pay severance in a specified amount, the amount of severance to offer is entirely up to the employer. The amount should be sufficient “consideration” to support the employee’s release of valuable rights/ claims; however, there is no minimum threshold or magic number. Ultimately, the right amount of severance is a function of how much the employer is willing to pay and how little the terminated employee is willing to accept in exchange for signing an agreement containing a general release and any other provisions desired by the employer.

A good starting point—though by no means a requirement or standard—is one week of base salary for every year of service. Using a formula to determine severance amounts based on tenure or some other objective criteria helps insulate an employer from allegations of discrimination or unfairness, especially in the context of a group termination. Still, an employer is generally free to adjust the amount of severance to address individual situations.

Severance can be paid in a single lump sum or in installments over time, within certain limitations under the tax code. Employers should note that severance pay will likely be deemed to be W-2 wages by the IRS and state tax authorities, thus requiring employers to withhold employee payroll taxes and to pay employer payroll taxes. In addition, receipt of severance may impact a terminated employee’s eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.

There are also a variety of other items that can supplement severance pay and may help achieve the employer’s ultimate goal—getting an employee to give a general release or agree to other conditions. Perhaps the most common is subsidized health insurance continuation coverage, in which the employer makes up the difference between the cost for the terminated employee under COBRA and the rate paid by active employees. Other, non-monetary supplements include job placement assistance, reference letters and more.

Takeaways for Employers

Severance is a powerful tool that employers can use to protect against lawsuits, legal fees, unfair competition, and a host of other undesirable situations. It is critical that any offer of severance, whether contained in an agreement/policy or made in conjunction with a termination, include, at a minimum, a requirement that the terminated employee provide a general release of claims. Finally, severance agreements and policies require the input of experienced legal counsel. There are many procedural requirements to ensure that releases and related agreements are fully enforceable, and these requirements continue to evolve.

© Copyright 2020 Sills Cummis & Gross P.C.

For more employee termination considerations see the National Law Review Labor & Employment law section.

Striking for Black Lives While Striking a Balance Between Business Needs and Employee Concerns

Plans are underway in multiple cities across the country for employees to participate in a Strike for Black Lives on Monday, July 20. The initiative encompasses the efforts of Black Lives Matter, the Movement 4 Black Lives, and a union-organizing effort by the Service Employees International Union. Strike for Black Lives encourages employees to “rise up for Black Lives” by walking off their jobs to march; and for those who can’t march, to take an “8:46 Pledge” in recognition of the death of George Floyd. The 8:46 Pledge asks supporters to take 8 minutes and 46 seconds at noon on July 20 to either take a knee, walk off the job, or observe a moment of silence.

Challenged by the threats of COVID-19, economic uncertainty, and now striking employees, employers should be prepared. As a reminder, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), which governs both union and non-union workplaces, protects most private sector employees who engage in concerted, protected activities to object to working conditions or terms of employment. On the other hand, employees who miss work without a good reason or for one’s own personal grievances may be subject to companies’ regular policies. Regardless, it is prudent for employers to proceed with caution in taking action against employees who join the Strike for Black Lives. If you have questions or doubts, consult with counsel.

Meanwhile, the Strike for Black Lives and similar events present opportunities for businesses to bolster their commitments to diversity and inclusion beyond standard statements of support. A recent Harvard Business Review article outlines recommendations for employers standing against racism. Others suggest allowing time off on short notice for last-minute marches and demonstrations. Showing flexibility in the application of company policies reflects a willingness to identify with employees’ concerns and reinforces a business’s own support for racial justice.

Although the convergence of extraordinary events in 2020 presents challenges for employers, in the words of John Adams, “Every challenge is an opportunity in disguise.”

© 2020 BARNES & THORNBURG LLP

For more on Black Lives Matter, see the National Law Review Civil Rights law section.