Tag: covid

School Law Update: CDC Adjusts Direction on Exposure Quarantine Requirements for Employees

CDC Adjusts Direction on Exposure Quarantine Requirements for Employees

On August 11, 2022, the CDC updated its COVID-19 guidance as the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death from COVID exposure has significantly declined. More specific guidance for school districts was issued by the CDC, which can be found here.

In addition, the Department of Public Instruction has published guidance entitled “COVID-19 Infection Control and Mitigation Measures for Wisconsin Schools 2022/2023,” which can be found here.

While we published a Legal Update on the recent CDC guidance changes last week, that Update primarily focused on the private sector. This Update is primarily focused on the impact the new CDC guidance will have on school districts and identifies some of the key changes.

The more significant mask guidance has been reduced. Guidance now indicates that if COVID-19 is at a high Community Level, universal indoor masking in schools is recommended. The CDC also recommends masking in health care settings such as the school nurse’s office. The updated CDC guidance makes significant changes to quarantine and isolation protocols. Asymptomatic (exposed) children and staff, regardless of where the exposure occurred or vaccination status, no longer need to quarantine. Students or staff who self-identify as close contacts may continue to attend school/work if they remain asymptomatic.

Students or staff who come to school with symptoms or develop symptoms while at school should be asked to wear a well-fitting mask or respirator while in the building and be sent home. If testing is unavailable at school, students and staff should also be encouraged to get tested. Symptomatic people who cannot wear a mask should be separated from others as much as possible; children should be supervised by a designated caregiver who is wearing a well-fitting mask or respirator until they leave school grounds but masking with a high quality mask is suggested for 10 days from exposure.

If the school provides COVID-19 testing, a symptomatic student or staff member may remain in school if they are tested immediately onsite, and that test is negative. Best practice would include wearing a mask, if possible, until symptoms are fully resolved. If the student is “too ill” to be in school (fever, severe cough, vomiting, diarrhea, etc.), they should be sent home regardless of COVID-19 test results. If the symptomatic student or staff cannot be tested immediately, they should be sent home and encouraged to use an at-home-test-kit or be referred to a testing site.

Students and staff who test positive for COVID-19 should isolate for at least 5 days. If they are asymptomatic, they may end isolation after Day 5 (return Day 6). If they had symptoms, they may return to school/work after Day 5 if:

  • they are fever-free for 24 hours (without the use of fever-reducing medication)

  • their symptoms are improving

If the individual still has a fever or other symptoms have not improved, they should continue to isolate until the symptoms improve. Once isolation has ended, people should wear a well-fitting mask or respirator around others through Day 10. Testing is not required to determine the end of isolation or mask use following COVID-19 infection.

Article By James R. Macy, Ryan P. Heiden, and Anthony S. Wachewicz III of von Briesen & Roper, s.c.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

EEOC Sanctions Employer for GINA Violations Relating to Collection of Employees’ Family Members’ COVID Test Results

On July 6, 2022, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced it has entered into a conciliation agreement with a Florida-based medical practice for violations of the Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (GINA) arising out of the practice’s collection of employees’ family members’ COVID-19 testing results.

In a press release announcing the agreement, the EEOC stated that, following an investigation, it found that the medical practice – Brandon Dermatology – violated GINA by requesting the test results of employees’ family members and that “[s]uch conduct violates the GINA, which prohibits employers from requesting, requiring or purchasing genetic information about applicants or employees and their family members, except in very narrow circumstances which do not apply in this matter.”  GINA defines “genetic information” to include “the manifestation of a disease or disorder in an employee’s family members.”

While the press release includes limited details on the matter, the EEOC noted that “[i]n addition to compensating affected employees through restoration of leave time or back pay, as well as compensatory damages, the conciliation agreement resolving the charge requires Brandon Dermatology to review its COVID-19 policies; conduct training on EEO laws as they pertain to COVID-19; and post a notice.”

In its technical assistance guidance relating to COVID-19, the EEOC states that GINA “prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members” including asking an employee who is physically coming into the workplace whether they have family members who have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19.  However, the guidance goes on to state that “GINA . . . does not prohibit an employer from asking employees whether they have had contact with anyone diagnosed with COVID-19 or who may have symptoms associated with the disease.”  It also notes that “from a public health perspective, only asking about an employee’s contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about an employee’s potential exposure to COVID-19.”

Article By Evandro C Gigante and Laura M. Fant of Proskauer Rose LLP

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

© 2022 Proskauer Rose LLP.

CMS Reduces COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Surveys and Rescinds Surveyor Vaccination Requirements

In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.

In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post).  Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey.  Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.

In QSO-22-18-ALL, CMS rescinded, in its entirety, the previously issued QSO-22-10-ALL memorandum, which had mandated that surveyors of State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations be vaccinated for COVID-19.  However, CMS noted that the State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations were responsible for compliance and prohibited providers and suppliers from asking surveyors for proof of vaccination.  While CMS is now encouraging vaccination of surveyors performing federal oversight surveys, the mandate for vaccination is no longer in effect.

Article By Allen R. Killworth of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

Governor Rolls Back California COVID-19 Executive Orders & Cal/OSHA Releases Draft Permanent COVID-19 Standard

On June 17, 2022, Governor Newsom issued an executive order terminating certain provisions of prior executive orders related to Cal/OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS). Some of the terminated orders were no longer necessary due to changes in the ETS. For example, previously the Governor had issued an executive order stating exclusion periods could not be longer than California Department of Public Health (CDPH) guidelines or local ordinances. However, since the ETS now defers to CDPH guidance on isolation and quarantine, the Governor has rescinded his prior executive order on this issue. Moreover, Cal/OSHA has issued guidance for employers on COVID-19 Isolation and Quarantine that aligns with CDPH requirements.

The current version of the ETS remains in effect until the end of 2022. However, Cal/OSHA won’t be done with COVID-19 regulations in 2023. The agency is currently working on a permanent COVID-19 Standard. Recently, the draft of the proposed regulation was released.

The draft regulation carries over many of the employer obligations from the current ETS. The following are some of the proposed requirements:

  • COVID-19 procedures, either included in their Injury and Illness Prevention Program (IIPP) or a separate document.
  • Exclusion and prevention requirements for positive employees and close contacts.
  • Employers would continue to be required to provide testing to employees who have a close contact in the workplace.
  • Employers would continue to have notice requirements for COVID-19 exposure.
  • Employers would continue to have to provide face coverings to employees.
  • Employers would continue to have reporting and recordkeeping requirements for COVID-19 cases and outbreaks in the workplace.

Currently, no public hearing has been set for the proposed permanent COVID-19 Standard, so it is uncertain how soon the regulations may be implemented.

Article By Sean Paisan of Jackson Lewis P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2022

Monkeypox—Do Employers Need to Worry?

Several cases of monkeypox have now been found in the United States. We do not yet know whether employers will need to worry about monkeypox in the context of their workforces and workplace, but it may be wise to be informed.

Monkeypox is a viral illness that has symptoms including body aches, headaches, fatigue, and, notably, a bumpy skin rash. It is primarily found in Africa, most particularly in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Monkeypox has an incubation period that generally lasts 7-14 days but can be as long as 5-21 days. It has now recently been found in the United States, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The first case reported was in Massachusetts in a man who had been to Canada. The second was in New York City by another individual who had a virus similar to monkeypox. And the third was a “presumptive case” involving a Broward County, Florida, man who had traveled internationally, the CDC said.

Unlike what we have been through with COVID-19, wearing a mask will likely not be an issue with monkeypox. It is spread through infected animals, prolonged person-to-person contact, direct contact with lesion materials, or indirect contact through contaminated items, such as contaminated clothing. Avoiding these will help avoid the possibility of infection. Since frequent handwashing continues to be a good hygiene practice, continuing to make this an easy and frequent practice for employees is generally a good health practice, according to health officials.

Monkeypox has also recently been found in Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. According to public health officials, the risk of exposure remains low although there are expected to be more cases in the United States. Health officials believe the smallpox vaccination will offer some amount of protection from monkeypox.

Employers that have employees who are soon to travel internationally, either for personal or business reasons, may want to consider educating them on the symptoms, how the virus is transmitted, and the fact that they may wish to consult with their own healthcare practitioners about the smallpox vaccination. There is no indication that travel should be avoided or prohibited.

Article By Katherine Dudley Helms of Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.

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

© 2022, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., All Rights Reserved.

Return to Work Considerations – COVID and the ADA

Employers are contending with difficult challenges unlike any time in modern history. Even though many employees, especially in the manufacturing industry, returned to work after working from home during the COVID pandemic, the effects of the increased flexibility seen during the COVID era linger. Many employees enjoyed the benefits of working from home during the last two years, even if only part-time, and do not want to give up the benefit. By contrast, and especially as COVID restrictions ease, employers often desire their workforce return to work in a more consistent and routine capacity. These tensions are further complicated by an extremely competitive labor market. Recruiting and retaining employees is a challenge in the current environment. Against this backdrop, prudent employers will keep in mind employment law considerations when developing return-to-work and work-from-home policies.

Where should an employer look to determine what accommodations it should make for an employee who wishes to work from home, either due to a COVID diagnosis and/or a condition that places the employee at a heightened risk for severe COVID? Early in the pandemic, local or state health orders answered such questions regarding COVID-related leave. As the pandemic continued, many of those local health orders were rescinded or expired. As a result, employers are left without clear local guidance. When local requirements are of no assistance, employers should look to CDC guidance for quarantining and isolating guidelines.

In addition, employers should keep in mind that COVID may qualify as a “disability” depending on the symptoms and their severity. If an employee tests positive for COVID and is experiencing symptoms that require an absence from work that is longer than the CDC recommended quarantine period, employers should involve legal counsel to analyze whether the employee’s COVID diagnosis constitutes a disability under the ADA. If it does constitute a disability, the employer is then required to engage in the interactive process under the ADA with the employee to determine whether a reasonable accommodation for the disability can be made. Leave can be an accommodation under the ADA, as can working from home, in certain circumstance and for certain roles.

Likewise, some disabilities may heighten the risk of severe COVID symptoms. In the event that such a disabled employee requests an accommodation related to this heightened risk of COVID, the employer should treat the request as it would any request for accommodation under the ADA. As always, employers should seek legal counsel and check local requirements regarding COVID leave when considering accommodations for employees in these circumstances.

Employers have many competing and challenging considerations when determining a company’s return-to-work policy. While the labor shortage, industry, and specific role considerations certainly play a part in those decisions, employers should not lose sight of the ADA’s additional requirements. The ADA may play a role on an individual level and affect whether an employee may seek leave, work from home, or is entitled to other accommodations related to a COVID diagnosis or high-risk factors.

Article By Felicia S. O’Connor of Foley & Lardner LLP

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

© 2022 Foley & Lardner LLP

FDA and FTC Issue Warning Letters to CBD Companies

  • On March 28, 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) jointly issued seven warning letters to companies marketing cannabidiol (CBD) products with COVID-19 related claims.
  • Specifically, the agencies warned the following companies regarding the promotion of their respective products with claims that they cure, mitigate, treat or prevent COVID-19: Cureganics, Heaven’s Organics LLC, Functional Remedies, LLC D/B/A Synchronicity Hemp Oil, Greenway Herbal Products LLC, CBD Social, UPSY LLC, and Nature’s Highway. Examples of claims include: “Our research suggest that CBD . . . can block SARS-Cov-2 infection at early and even later stages of infection. . .”, “Studies Show CBD Compounds Prevent COVID Cells From Replicating”, and “Can CBD Help with the Fight Against COVID? Some of the worst effects of COVID are caused by inflammation, and CBD is a potent anti-inflammatory.”
  • By way of background, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), products intended to cure, treat, mitigate, or prevent disease are considered drugs and are subject to the requirements that apply to drugs. Therefore, the agencies classified the products as unapproved and misbranded drugs that may not be legally introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without prior approval from FDA.
  • The letters included a cease-and-desist demand from FTC, prohibiting the companies from making such COVID-19 related claims. The companies were provided with 48 hours to respond with specific steps that were taken to correct the violations.

Article By Food and Drug Law Practice Group at Keller and Heckman LLP

For more food and drug law legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Keller and Heckman LLP

Better Late than Never, Just About – UK Government Issues Workplace Guidance on Living with COVID

So with Covid 19 now officially behind us for all purposes (except actual reality, obviously), we have now been graced by the Government’s new “Living with Covid” guidance.  This was due to come into force on 1 April and was released fashionably late in the afternoon on, well, 1st April.  You could say with some justification that this did not give employers much time to prepare, but that is OK because on close review of the guidance there is in fact very little to prepare for.  As a steer to businesses, this is little short of directionless.

First, it makes the obvious point that the abolition of the requirement to give covid express consideration in workplace risk assessments does not take away any of the employer’s obligations to continue to comply with its health & safety, employment and equality duties (in the latter two cases, although unsaid, presumably as they may be affected by the former).

From there, the Government moves to normalise covid through a long list of symptoms common to it, colds, flu and other respiratory diseases – fair enough so far – but also to other quite unrelated conditions such as hangovers, migraines, food poisoning, being unfit, malaria and frankly just getting old (“unexplained tiredness, lack of energy”).  The list is significantly expanded from the traditional trio of continuous cough, fever, loss of taste and smell and now also includes muscle pain, diarrhoea, headache, loss of appetite and “feeling sick” (what, really?). Some medical practitioners say that this is long overdue recognition of all the things covid can do to you. However, it is still a wincingly unhappy expansion for employers, since the published list now essentially includes something from pretty much every ailment known to man. The guidance notes that it will not usually be possible to tell whether you have covid or something else from the symptoms alone and of course the free testing by which that could have been determined in the past is now largely withdrawn.  Therefore the guidance to individuals is that “if you have symptoms of a respiratory infection such as covid and you have a high temperature or you do not feel well enough to go to work, you are advised to try to stay at home and avoid contact with other people” and then “Try to work from home if you can.  If you are unable to work from home you should talk to your employer about options available to you”.  Given the rich panoply of symptoms now available to the discerning malingerer, justifying taking yourself home for five days while you work out whether your headache is covid or just a headache has never been so easy.

As a result, the burden is shifted squarely to employers to keep up the anti-covid fight, and in particular to decide whether to maintain restrictions on entry to their premises for those who are unvaccinated and/or untested.  Both will be increasingly difficult to sustain in view of the obvious official indifference to the question evidenced by the guidance, which focuses instead on the traditional measures of ventilation, regular cleaning of high-touch surfaces, provision of sanitiser and hygiene advice, etc. The other big hole in the guidance is as to the employer’s rights (or is it obligation?) to send someone home if they have one or more of that long list of potentially relevant symptoms, and even if the employee himself feels able to work and/or cannot work from home.  Nor does it deal with the employees’ sick pay rights in those cases.

Taking a reasonably hawkish view of those two questions:-

  1. If you know that the employee has symptoms which could well indicate that he is suffering from covid, and even if it could equally be something less serious, are you complying with your Health & Safety at Work Act duty to take all reasonably practicable steps to maintain a safe system of work if you allow him in anyway?  If he works in a sparsely –occupied well-ventilated area, perhaps yes, but otherwise probably not.  Given the virulence of Omicron, it is unarguably foreseeable that allowing someone who may have it to breathe wantonly on other people may lead to their contracting it too.  It is also clearly foreseeable, if no longer as much so as with the earlier covid variants, that those other people may become properly ill or die as a result.  Put mathematically, breach of duty + foreseeable risk of injury + causation + actual injury = liability.

So in my view, despite the vacuum in the new guidance, an employer not just can, but really should send home immediately an employee with any material case of the symptoms listed, as a minimum until it becomes clear that the real issue is something else (though not malaria – best not let them in either).

A firm stance on this will also help combat reluctance to return to the office among those staff concerned about the health risk of doing so.  If they or their cohabitants are particularly vulnerable, the knowledge that basically no precautions are being taken to ensure that those present in the workplace are all covid-free will only feed those anxieties.

  1. If the employee is sent home on these grounds and cannot work there, will he be entitled to full salary (as it was not by his choice) or sick pay only?  In many cases he will be back within a week and the two may be the same.  Where they are not, however, I believe that it would strictly be sick pay only – though the employee may himself be physically able to work, he is practically unable to do so by reason of his own possible medical condition, the risk it may pose to others in the workplace and the duty of the employer to take reasonable steps to head off that risk.  That said, there are employment relations arguments both ways on this – on the one hand, that the symptoms listed are so varied and transient that they represent an easy avenue for abuse, and on the other that if reporting them means you get packed off home on reduced pay (perhaps none until SSP kicks in on day 4), you are much less likely to report them in the first place and will probably prefer to pass your day posing an undeclared but potentially quite serious risk to your colleagues.

Article By David Whincup of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© Copyright 2022 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP

Debt Ceiling Shrinks for Small Business Bankruptcies

Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, which took effect in February 2020, creates a more streamlined and less expensive Chapter 11 reorganization path for small business debtors.  Under the law as originally passed, to be eligible for Subchapter V, a debtor (whether an entity or an individual) had to be engaged in commercial activity and its total debts — secured and unsecured – had to be less than $2,725,625.  At least half of those debts must have come from business activity.

In March 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress passed the CARES Act, which raised the Subchapter V debt ceiling to $7.5 million for one year.  Congress extended it to March 27, 2022.  A bipartisan Senate bill would make the Subchapter V debt limit permanent at $7.5 million and index it to inflation.  But Congress has not yet passed the legislation or sent it to President Biden for signature.  So, for now, the debt ceiling has shrunk to the original $2,725,625.

Subchapter V has proven popular, with over 3,100 cases filed in the last two years (78 in North Carolina).  Many of those cases could not have proceeded under Subchapter V but for the higher debt limits.  The American Bankruptcy Institute has reported that Subchapter V cases are experiencing higher plan-confirmation rates, speedier plan confirmation, more consensual plans, and improved cost-effectiveness than if those cases had been filed as a traditional Chapter 11.  Anecdotally, most debtors in North Carolina are filing under Subchapter V if they are eligible.

We will continue to monitor legislative activity and report if Congress passes a law to reinstate the $7.5 million debt ceiling.

Article By Lance P. Martin of Ward and Smith, P.A.

For more financial and business legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 Ward and Smith, P.A.. All Rights Reserved.

Four Indicted for $16 Million Money Laundering Scheme

Four Indicted for $16 Million Money Laundering Scheme

On March 23, 2022, an indictment was unsealed in the Western District of Arkansas, charging four men for their involvement in wire fraud and money laundering schemes involving fake investment offerings amounting to an alleged $16 million.

According to court documents, the four men allegedly engaged in an investment fraud scheme between 2013 and 2021 in which they falsely represented the nature of their investment offerings and promised large returns, which they could not and did not yield. The indictment also alleges that two of the defendants encouraged victims to send their funds to bank accounts controlled by the other two defendants, and then transferred the money through a complex series of accounts worldwide.

The defendants were charged with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and conspiracy to commit money laundering. One defendant was further charged with money laundering. If convicted, the men will face up to 20 years in prison for each count. The additional count of money laundering carries an additional sentence of up to 10 years.

The DOJ press release can be found here.

California Man Pleads Guilty To Stealing Government COVID-19 Relief Funds

On March 18, 2022, a California man pleaded guilty in the Central District of California to misappropriating COVID-19 relief funds obtained through the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act.

Under the CARES Act Provider Relief Fund, CARES Act health care providers who were financially harmed by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic are granted federal funds to provide care to patients suffering from COVID-19. According to court documents, the defendant admitted he owned a hospice agency in North Hollywood that was never operational during the COVID-19 pandemic, yet he received approximately $89,162 designated for the medical treatment and care of COVID-19 patients. The defendant admitted he misappropriated the CARES Act funds by spending them for his personal use and then transferring the funds to family members, including one family member in Armenia, rather than using the funds in any way related to the pandemic relief efforts as required.

As part of his guilty plea, the defendant further admitted that he submitted five Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) applications to the Small Business Administration (SBA) on behalf of his hospice agency and four other entities he controlled. As a result of his fraudulent applications, the SBA disbursed approximately $428,100 in EIDL funds to the man, which he used for his benefit against EIDL requirements.

The man pleaded guilty to three counts of theft of government property and is scheduled to be sentenced on June 13, facing up to 10 years in prison for each count.

The DOJ press release can be found here.

New Jersey Man Convicted for Fraudulently Obtaining US Visas for Chinese Government Employees

On March 23, 2022, a New Jersey man was convicted by a federal jury of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit visa fraud for his participation in a conspiracy to fraudulently obtain United States visas for Chinese government employees.

According to court documents, the defendant was involved in a scheme to fraudulently obtain J-1 research scholar visas for employees of the government of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to allow them to covertly work for the PRC government while in the United States. The defendant operated an office of the China Association for the International Exchange of Personnel (CAIEP), an agency of the PRC government, in New Jersey that seeks to recruit US scientists, academics, engineers, and other experts for the PRC.

The J-1 research scholar program allows foreign nationals to visit the United States to conduct research at a corporate research facility, library, museum, university, or other research institution. The defendant allegedly worked to obtain a J-1 research scholar visa for a prospective employee based on the false representation that the employee would conduct research at a United States university, to conceal unlawful work of another employee who was present in the United States on a J-1 visa sponsored by a US university. The two employees represented to the US government that they were entering the US for the primary purpose of conducting research at US universities, but their actual purpose consisted of working for the CAIEP. The defendant reported the employee’s arrival to the United States to the US universities, procured a local driver’s license for her and disguised her CAIEP salary as a subsidy for research scholar living expenses to make her presence as a research scholar appear legitimate.

As a result of his conviction, the defendant faces a maximum sentence of five years; he is scheduled to be sentenced on July 11.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) press release can be found here.

UPS To Pay $5.3 Million for False Claims Act Allegations

On March 21, 2022, the DOJ announced that United Parcel Service Inc. (UPS) agreed to pay approximately $5.3 million to settle allegations that the company falsely reported information about the transfer of U.S. mail to foreign posts or other intended recipients under contracts with the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), in violation of the False Claims Act (FCA).

UPS was engaged by USPS to pick up U.S. mail at various locations and deliver it to its international and domestic destinations. As a condition of payment, UPS was required to submit electronic scans to USPS to report when the mail was delivered, and there were specified penalties for mail that was delivered late or to the wrong location. The settlement resolves allegations that scans submitted by UPS were falsified times and that UPS, in fact, transferred possession of the mail.

According to DOJ, this is the fifth civil settlement involving air carrier liability for false delivery scans under the USPS International Commercial Air Contracts, pursuant to which the United States has recovered more than $70 million.

The DOJ press release can be found here.

Article By D. Jacques Smith, Randall A. Brater, Mattie Bowden, and Rebecca W. Foreman of ArentFox Schiff LLP

For more white collar crime legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

© 2022 ArentFox Schiff LLP