There are a lot of legal questions being raised by the novel coronavirus. Lawyers are in demand in these unprecedented times. Currently, the most common concern for businesses everywhere is liability for exposing employees to Covid-19 and the legal obligations of employers generally. These questions are by no means resolved, but some clarity is emerging.
Below are some of the relevant considerations and federal laws at issue.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has issued guidance for employers. All businesses should at least follow this guidance, even if implementing other changes. Recommendations include cleaning and sanitizing the workplace, encouraging workers to stay home when sick, and creating an infectious disease response plan.
On March 19, the EEOC updated its pandemic guidance to note that the “ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not interfere with employers following advice from the CDC and other public health authorities on appropriate steps to take relating to the workplace." Protecting employees from exposure to Covid-19, in other words, must be the primary concern of employers everywhere.
OSHA has also released guidance for compliance departments and professionals. While there is no current standard specifically for Covid-19, the general duty clause provides that employees must be able to work “free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm." This would reasonably include the novel coronavirus.
Some states, like California, have additional protections. The Cal/OSHA Aerosol Transmissible Disease Standards includes the coronavirus family. It is only mandatory for some healthcare employers, but employers can use those standards to ensure they are doing everything possible to mitigate employee risk.
While it is important to limit exposure to your workforce, employees who have coronavirus should not be named. However, employees can be notified if they may have been exposed and some relevant non-identifying information provided to help people understand who is at risk.
Currently, the CDC does not recommend taking the temperature of employees. Also, of course, any and all actions taken by the employer should avoid targeting a protected class, including national origin. All actions should also comply with HIPAA privacy protections. However, the Department of Health and Human Services has issued guidance relating to the coronavirus that does allow for some exceptions.
COVID-19 testing kits are in short supply all throughout the U.S., making it very difficult to test people without a referral by a medical professional. Moreover, employers cannot require employees to undergo testing or even let them know the employee’s results if they do test for COVID-19.
While employers cannot ask for details about an employee’s health-related issues, it is within the law to ask for a doctor’s note confirming that an employee is medically eligible for leave benefits, or safe to emerge from quarantine after being ill.
Yes, an employer can require employees to work from home to limit exposure to COVID-19. However, all employees must be treated the same without discrimination on the basis of an employee’s age, race, or gender.
If your place of business is still open and you wish to limit contractors, vendors, or visitors at the facilities, you may do so but it should be done with a uniform policy that treats everyone equally across all demographics. The policy should be posted publicly on the property for all guests to see.
Separate from worker's compensation and OSHA compliance, however, are a host of related liability concerns. Potential federal laws to be aware of include:
Employers will continue to have to monitor the latest developments. Between mandatory paid time off, liability concerns, and other rapidly developing legal issues, businesses will have to tread carefully to avoid legal risk.
Hello My name is Roberta and I have recently signed a lease to an apartment along with a roomate named Dina. She just now decided she wants to leave and our lease is not up till august 2010. She is leaving January 1st and is leaving me with all the payments untill august of 2010. Now I was wondering if I can sue her for half of Rent untill our lease is up in august of 2010? In this Economy i can not afford my credit to be bad. All she does is drink and listen to music really loud and now she wants to leave because ive complained about the walls vibrating from overly loud music. please get back with me soon thank you so much.
Roberta
Child support fraud/extortion?
I have a friend who recently just found out by a paternity test that he has a 10 year old child. His name was put on the birth cert when the child was born and a support order was put in place. His wages were garnished a few times in the past 10 years and he has gone to court and asked for a paternity test. To which she always ignored the court order for the test. She has been married and even had adoption papers drawn up for the child in question. Although the adoption was never followed trough with, the child is enrolled in school with the husbands last name. When the paternity was finally established the mother said she would take a lump sum and make the rest of the child support go away and then my friend could be in his childs life. Isn't that extortion?
Hello. My name is Lamar. My mother, Joyce, is the executor of her late grandmother's estate, namely the house. Her grandmother left a will stating that if the house sells for $78K, each of the 12 heirs should receive DIFFERENT amounts as specified in the will.
However the house is selling for much less than $78K, more like $10K. My question is, by law would it be ok for my mother to take the proceeds from the sale of the house, and after paying off her grandmother's outstanding debts, distribute whatever sum is left over to the heirs EQUALLY, instead of percentage wise? As this would be much easier to determine, since there is not going to be a substantial amount left over to distribute anyway.