Category: COVID-19

COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate News and FAQ

Posted on by AllMyHR
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate News and FAQ

The President’s COVID-19 Action Plan

On September 9, 2021, President Biden released his COVID-19 Action Plan requiring all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are vaccinated or tested weekly. According to the president, “The Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is developing a rule that will require all employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workforce is fully vaccinated or require any workers who remain unvaccinated to produce a negative test result on at least a weekly basis before coming to work. OSHA will issue an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) to implement this requirement.”

The ETS will also require employers with more than 100 employees to provide paid time off for workers to get vaccinated or recover from vaccination.

We are actively monitoring for the details of President Biden’s COVID action plan. Here is what we know and don’t know:

What We Know

  • The mandate applies to employers with 100+ employees.
  • It requires mandatory vaccination or weekly testing to come into work.
  • It also requires paid time off to get vaccinated and recover.
  • Fines will be assessed.
  • If you have fewer than 100 employees, no federal contracts, and no healthcare workers, these new federal requirements do NOT apply to you.

What We Don’t Know

  1. How do employers count to 100?
  2. Do remote employees have to get vaccinated or tested?
  3. What kind of proof do employers need to require?
  4. Do employers need to do “due diligence”?
  5. Will testing be done at home or at work?
  6. Who pays for testing?
  7. Will there be any funds or tax credits available?
  8. What are the recordkeeping requirements?
  9. Can employees claim religious exemptions from testing?
  10. How will fines be assessed?
  11. Will OSHA have the staff to enforce this?

FAQ

How should employers address pushback from their employees (or others) about having to follow the vaccine mandate?
  • Put someone in charge of the whole process and make sure that complaints go to them. Don’t count on your frontline managers to know how to deal with escalations. They aren’t trained for that, and it’s not fair to them.
  • Emphasize that this is a federal government requirement and that you have no choice about whether or not to comply. You can also emphasize that penalties may be very steep – so steep that even one or two violations could put the business in jeopardy.
  • Focus on the fact that this is about safety. If employees don’t want a vaccination, there is a simple alternative, but in order to ensure that the workplace is safe with highly infectious Delta making the rounds, vaccination or testing must be done.
How do I accommodate an employee if all of my clients require employees are vaccinated?

We recommend speaking with your clients about possible accommodations for those employees who request an accommodation for a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Federal law generally requires employers to provide accommodations for employees for these reasons unless doing so would cause an undue hardship. There isn’t an exception for client requirements, which puts you between a rock and a hard place.

 

The first step is asking your client about potential exceptions to their mandatory vaccination requirement. If your client says that they will not grant any exceptions, we recommend placing employees who require a religious or disability accommodation with a different client. If all your clients require employees to be vaccinated without exceptions, possible accommodations might be to reassign the employee to a vacant position that they‘re qualified for or to place the employee on a leave of absence. Either way, you should discuss the available options with the employee.

 

If the only option is leave, you’ll want to discuss the length of leave with the employee (it might be temporary, as with pregnancy). The estimated duration will help you evaluate whether granting leave would cause an undue hardship.

How is the Delta variant different than regular COVID?
  • The Delta variant is twice as contagious as original COVID.
  • Fewer people have a cough or loss of smell, more people have headaches, sort throats, and runny noses (looks more like the common cold).
  • It appears that Delta may cause more severe illness in unvaccinated people than the original.
  • Delta appears more likely to cause breakthrough infections for the fully vaccinated, but the vaccines remain highly effective against severe illness, hospitalization, and death from Delta.
  • When a vaccinated person catches Delta, their viral load is as high as an unvaccinated person for a time (unlike earlier strains of COVID), but it goes down faster than for the unvaccinated, so they will be infectious for shorter periods of time.
What should I do if an employee says they can’t get vaccinated due to a religious belief or disability?

Assuming no state law or collective bargaining agreement prohibits it, employers can generally require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of continued employment, although they may need to make exceptions for employees who can’t get vaccinated because of a sincerely held religious belief, disability, or possibly pregnancy.

 

Religious Belief

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers that have 15 or more employees to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs that are sincerely held if it doesn’t create an undue hardship. Title VII defines religion very broadly. It includes traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It also includes religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, or only held by a small number of people or possibly just one person.

 

Here’s the basic framework. If the answer is no to any question, generally no accommodation is required; if the answer is yes to all questions, an accommodation is required.

  • Does the person have a belief that is religious?
  • Is the belief sincerely held?
  • Can an accommodation be made that would enable the employee to do the job, without creating an undue hardship?

 

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers should generally assume that the employee’s religious belief is sincerely held, but if “they have an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information.”

 

Under Title VII, undue hardship is defined as “more than a de minimis cost.” The EEOC explains this further in its guidance here.

 

Disability
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) generally requires employers to provide accommodations to employees who have disabilities to enable them to perform the essential functions of their job, provided the accommodation doesn’t create an undue hardship. The definition of disability under the ADA is pretty broad and includes both physical and mental disabilities.

 

If an employee requests an exception to your mandatory vaccination policy because of a disability, then you would be required to engage in the interactive process. The interactive process is essentially an ongoing conversation with the employee to explore potential accommodations. You can require the employee to provide documentation from their health care provider confirming that the employee’s health condition prevents them from getting vaccinated and, if temporary, an estimate of the expected duration of the need for the accommodation.

 

The company would then determine whether it’s possible to make an accommodation that would enable them to perform their essential functions without creating an undue hardship.

 

Safety Assessment
Companies who are considering excluding unvaccinated employees from the workplace will ultimately need to assess whether allowing an employee to be unvaccinated, while engaging in other safety measures, would pose a direct threat in the workplace.

 

We recommend reviewing the EEOC’s guidance on what qualifies as a direct threat before making this determination. If you conclude that allowing an employee to remain unvaccinated rises to the level of a direct threat, then you are required to evaluate whether potential accommodations would eliminate that threat or reduce it enough so that it no longer meets the standard of being a direct threat. If no accommodations exist that would reduce the threat sufficiently (without creating an undue hardship), then you wouldn’t be required to make an exception for the employee.

 

If you believe there is no accommodation that will make it safe enough for that employee to be in the workplace, and they are not able to work from home, we recommend working with an attorney to assess the risk of termination or exclusion from the workplace.

 

Documentation
Employers should keep documentation as to how their determination to grant or deny a request for an exception to their mandatory vaccination requirement was made, which could include:

  • Accommodation request form and supporting documentation, if any
  • Emails to/from the employee about their request
  • Notes on the employer’s decision-making process
What do I do if I have doubts about the legitimacy of a religious accommodation request?

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires employers that have 15 or more employees to accommodate religious beliefs that are sincerely held if it doesn’t create an undue hardship. Title VII defines “religion” very broadly. It includes traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism. It also includes religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only held by a small number of people (and maybe even just one person).

 

We understand it can be challenging when you’ve received a religious accommodation request that you have reason to doubt. We’re happy to give some general guidance but are unable to give definitive guidance as to whether this employee has a sincerely held religious belief or whether you would be required to provide an accommodation in this situation. We recommend speaking to legal counsel to help you make this determination.

 

According to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), employers should generally assume that the employee’s religious belief is sincerely held, but if “they have an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief or practice, the employer would be justified in seeking additional supporting information.”

 

Typically, the following are not considered religious beliefs and therefore don’t require an exemption from your mandatory vaccination policy:

  • Political beliefs (e.g., “Vaccination infringes on my personal liberty.”)
  • Personal preferences (e.g., “I prefer to risk getting COVID rather than getting vaccinated.”)
  • Medical beliefs (e.g., “COVID isn’t that bad.”)
  • Concerns about the vaccine’s Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) status (if the employee can’t access a vaccine with regular FDA approval)
  • Conspiracy theories (e.g., “COVID is a hoax.”)

 

Please note that there could be overlap between a sincerely held religious belief and another belief, such as a political belief—that overlap does not place it outside the scope of Title VII’s religious protections.

 

We recommend documenting the information you used to make an accommodation decision.

Our tools are designed to streamline your workday.

Schedule a Demo and see how AllMyHR works for you.

Schedule a Demo

Vaccination, Masking Policies, and Returning to Work— FAQ

Posted on by AllMyHR

Are you reopening your office and wondering what your vaccination and masking polices can be? Our FAQ provides you with answers you need.

Can we bring all employees back to the office, but make the unvaccinated keep their masks on?

In most states, yes.* Currently the CDC suggests that fully vaccinated people do not need to wear masks in most places (some workplaces will be an exception, such as healthcare settings), but that non-fully vaccinated people should continue to wear masks and maintain social distance. OSHA has issued guidance that is in agreement with the CDC, as well as an Emergency Temporary Standard for healthcare. Additionally, some states or localities may have stricter mask requirements that should be followed. However, absent such requirements, having different rules for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated is acceptable since it is not based on a protected class.*


Treating these groups differently is generally not illegal employment discrimination* and employers should not think of it as treating employees more or less favorably, but simply as following current public health guidelines. This should also be emphasized when talking to employees about the different rules for those who are vaccinated or unvaccinated.


Keep in mind that some employees will be unvaccinated due to disability, pregnancy, or religious beliefs. Employers should be careful to ensure that these employees are not harassed because of their vaccination status (which will be obvious if they are required to wear a mask when fully vaccinated employees are not). While preventing harassment of any employee who is unvaccinated is a best practice to maintain morale and productivity in the workplace, employees who are unvaccinated for these particular reasons have protections under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).


*Numerous bills have been introduced at the state level to make vaccination status a protected characteristic and it appears that some Governors may create protections via Executive Order (EO). So far only Montana’s law has passed, but it appears to prevent employers not only from excluding unvaccinated workers but also from asking them to wear masks if vaccinated employees don’t have to. The current EOs (as of June 28) do not appear to impact private employers. Employers should check for state law before making policies that treat vaccinated and unvaccinated workers differently.

Can we bring back only vaccinated employees?

It depends. Unless state or local law says otherwise*, you could exclude employees from the workplace who are not vaccinated for reasons other than disability, pregnancy, or religious belief, since choosing to forgo vaccination for other reasons is not generally a protected class or characteristic.


Employers who want to exclude unvaccinated employees will need to make reasonable accommodations for employees who are unvaccinated due to disability, pregnancy, or religious belief. If there is no reasonable accommodation that would allow them to be in the workplace without posing a “direct threat,” they too could be excluded. Whether a direct threat exists, and if it can be mitigated, is extremely fact specific. The EEOC provides guidance here, in Q&A K.5.  Even when you could exclude an unvaccinated employee, we generally wouldn’t recommend it.


Litigation around mandatory vaccination (which is, in effect, what an exclusion rule creates) is ramping up, and even pre-litigation expenses can add up fast. In many cases, an alternative approach of requiring unvaccinated employees to continue wearing masks and maintaining social distance will achieve similar results in term of workplace safety. That said, any approach to bringing employees back will require a workplace-specific risk assessment.


*Numerous bills have been introduced at the state level to make vaccination status a protected characteristic and it appears that some Governors may create protections via Executive Order (EO). So far only Montana’s law has passed, but it appears to prevent employers not only from excluding unvaccinated workers but also from asking them to wear masks if vaccinated employees don’t have to. The current EOs (as of June 28) do not appear to impact private employers. Employers should check for state law before making policies that exclude unvaccinated workers from the workplace.

Is it illegal discrimination to treat vaccinated and unvaccinated employees differently?

It depends. Different treatment that is reasonably related to workplace safety – such as having non-vaccinated employees continue to wear masks – is generally okay.* Employers should make a concerted effort to only treat vaccinated and unvaccinated employees differently to the extent necessary to ensure the safety of all those in the workplace. Additionally, employers must make reasonable accommodations for employees who are unvaccinated due to disability, pregnancy, or religious belief; treating these employees differently without trying to work with them would be illegal discrimination.


Treatment that does not increase safety directly but rewards those who are vaccinated also needs to allow for accommodations for employees who can’t get vaccinated due to disability, pregnancy, or religion. For example, if you offer $100 for getting vaccinated, or throw a pizza party for vaccinated employees, an employee with a disability that prevented vaccination would need to be able to earn the $100 or attend the pizza party by doing something else that similarly advances safety in the workplace, like wearing a mask, undergoing regular COVID testing, or taking a course on preventing the spread of viruses.


While employees who are unvaccinated for reasons other than disability, pregnancy, or religion are not entitled to these kinds of accommodations, it may make sense to provide them anyway, both to encourage the alternative safety-enhancing behaviors, and to reduce the likelihood that they will complain about how they are being treated.


There is also the possibility that treating unvaccinated employees differently will have a “disparate impact” on those of a certain race or ethnicity. Disparate impact claims generally arise when an employer is trying to do something in the best interest of the company, but the methods they use ultimately harm a certain protected class. In the case of excluding unvaccinated employees, or offering cash incentives to those who are vaccinated, there could be a disparate impact on employees of color, whose vaccination rates are lagging behind those of white employees.


Employers should also ensure that unvaccinated employees are not harassed by co-workers, managers, or customers, since disability, pregnancy, and religious beliefs are protected characteristics. Although employers do not have a legal obligation to prevent harassment of employees who are unvaccinated for other reasons, it is in the best interest of the employer to prevent this, as any kind of workplace harassment is going to lead to loss of productivity, morale issues, and quite possibly bad PR.


*Numerous bills have been introduced at the state level to make vaccination status a protected characteristic and it appears that some Governors may create protections via Executive Order (EO). So far only Montana’s law has passed, but it appears to prevent employers not only from excluding unvaccinated workers but also from asking them to wear masks if vaccinated employees don’t have to. The current EOs (as of June 28) do not appear to impact private employers. Employers should check for state law before making policies that exclude unvaccinated workers from the workplace.

What do we do about employees who complain about wearing masks?

We recommend providing them with the CDC’s current guidance as well as any applicable state or local requirements. You can explain that the company is just doing what public health authorities recommend to keep people safe.

Should we have unvaccinated employees sign a waiver?

A waiver may or may not be useful or legally enforceable. We recommend you speak with an attorney if this is something you are interested in. A waiver will not eliminate your general duty under OSHA to provide a workplace that is free from hazards. Also, most states’ workers’ compensation laws do not allow employers to contractually limit their liability for on-the-job injuries or illnesses.

There are no mask mandates that affect our business. Should we require employees to wear masks anyway?

Providing advice on disease mitigation is outside of our scope of services, so we defer to guidance from the CDC and OSHA. Currently, the CDC recommends that those who are not fully vaccinated continue to wear masks in public (including the workplace) and maintain social distance, while those who are fully vaccinated may go unmasked without social distancing. OSHA has issued guidance that is in line with the CDC’s recommendations (though different rules apply in healthcare settings).

Should we make everyone keep wearing masks so the unvaccinated don’t feel singled out?

You could; masks can essentially be treated like uniforms. That said, requiring masks for those who are fully vaccinated (when not required by state or local law) is likely to cause serious morale issues and increase turnover.

Since the vaccinated people won’t get sick, can we let the unvaccinated people take their masks off too?

Providing advice on disease mitigation is outside of our scope of services, so we defer to guidance from the CDC and OSHA. Currently, the CDC recommends that those who are not fully vaccinated continue to wear masks in public (including the workplace) and maintain social distance, while those who are fully vaccinated go unmasked without social distancing. OSHA has issued guidance that is in line with the CDC’s recommendations (though different rules apply in healthcare settings).


You may also want to consider that some vaccinated people will not be as protected as others. Those who are immunocompromised will have often get a much lower level of protection from the vaccine than the general population. Those people will therefore be at higher risk around unvaccinated people who are not wearing masks.

Can we ask for proof of vaccination? Isn’t this a HIPAA violation or an illegal inquiry under the ADA or somehow confidential information?

Employers can ask for proof of vaccination unless there is a state or local law or order to the contrary.*


When an employer is requesting or reviewing medical information in its capacity as an employer, as it would be when asking about an employee’s vaccination status, it is considered to be an employment record. In such cases, HIPAA would not apply to the employer. The ADA will govern the collection and storage of this information.


The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the EEOC), which enforces the ADA, has said that asking about vaccination is not a disability-related inquiry, though it could turn into one if you ask follow up questions about why the employee is not vaccinated. Asking a yes or no question, or requesting to see the employee’s vaccination card, does not violate any federal laws or require proof that the inquiry is job-related.


Finally, just because employees think that something is or should be private or confidential doesn’t mean that they can’t be required to share it with their employer. Social Security Numbers, birth dates, and home addresses are all pieces of information an employee may not want to advertise, but sharing is necessary and required. Vaccination status is similar. However, all of this information, once gathered, should not be shared by the employer with third parties, except on a need-to-know basis.


*It appears that some Governors may attempt to prevent certain entities from requiring “immunity passports” (e.g., proof of vaccination) through Executive Order, though as of June 28 none of the EOs already issued appear to apply to private businesses and their employees. Also note that if there is a law in place that prevents treating vaccinated and unvaccinated employees differently (like in Montana), you may be able to ask, but not take any action based on the response.

Should we keep a record of who is vaccinated or make copies of vaccination cards? If we do, how long do we have to keep it for?

If you’re asking about vaccination status, you’ll want to keep some kind of record (so you don’t have to ask multiple times), but how you do so is up to you, unless state or local law has imposed recordkeeping requirements. You may want to keep something simple like an excel spreadsheet with the employee’s name and a simple “yes” or “no” in the vaccination column. If you’d prefer to take a copy of their vaccination card, that should be kept with other employee medical information, separate from their personnel file.


If state or local law requires recordkeeping, then follow those requirements, including how long the records should be kept. If no law is in play, we recommend keeping the information for as long as you keep other information in employee medical files.

If we keep a record of who is vaccinated, can we share it with managers so they can enforce any policies based on that information, such as masking and social distancing?

Yes. We recommend not sharing this information any more widely than necessary. While anonymized information is okay to share (e.g., “80% of our employees are vaccinated!”), each employee’s vaccination status should be treated as confidential, even if the fact that they are wearing a mask to work seems to reveal their status publicly.


Obviously, managers will need this information if they are expected to enforce vaccination-dependent policies, and employers should train them on how they should be enforcing the policies and how and when to escalate issues to HR or a higher level of management.

If an employee has had COVID, is that as good as being vaccinated?

No. The CDC differentiates between those who are fully vaccinated and everyone else. Having had COVID does not appear to provide the same level or length of immunity as the vaccine, so is not a suitable substitute when determining which safety measures should be enforced.

Can we forbid employees from wearing masks, assuming no laws say otherwise?

Theoretically, yes. However, employers will need to provide reasonable accommodation to those who are not vaccinated due to disability, pregnancy, or religion, as well as to those who are vaccinated but who will not get the same level of immunity from the shot as the general population. Additionally, since a rule like this is in direct opposition to current federal guidance, it is likely to result in complaints to OSHA, bad publicity, and lawsuits. Even if masks are not required by any law, we recommend allowing employees to wear them for any reason or no reason at all.

Our tools are designed to streamline your workday.

Schedule a Demo and see how AllMyHR works for you.

Schedule a Demo

Employment Law Updates: January 2021

Posted on by AllMyHR

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

Federal Law Updates: January 2021

Ten Federal along with D.C and three State Law Updates have been issued.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
January 2021 Law Alert Map

Labor Law Updates for January 2021

1

CDC COVID-19 Workplace Testing Guidelines Emphasize Consent and Disclosure

The CDC updated guidance on COVID-19 Workplace testing.

On January 21, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated its guidance on COVID-19 workplace testing. The guidance emphasizes that workplace-based testing should not be conducted without employees informed consent so they understand the testing process and may act independently to make choices that align with their values, goals, and preferences.

The guidance details the disclosures that an employer must provide to its employees, for instance:

  • Test manufacturer, name, purpose, and type.
  • How the test will be performed.
  • Known and potential risks of harm, discomforts, and benefits of the test.
  • What a positive or negative test result means, including: 
    • Test reliability and limitations; and
    • Public health guidance to isolate or quarantine at home, if applicable.

The guidance also addresses topics employers should be prepared to discuss with their employees, such as test scheduling and payment, testing sites, communication and interpretation of results, employee privacy, and how to get assistance.

The CDC also provides a SARS-CoV-2 Testing Strategy: Considerations for Non-Healthcare Workplaces website, updated October 21, 2020, which identifies additional, important disclosures that employers should give to employees contemplating testing.

2

DOL Opinion Letters Addressing FLSA Exemptions and Worker Classification

The DOL released a new opinion letter addressing FLSA compliance.

On January 19, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor released the following new opinion letters addressing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance:

  • FLSA2021-6: Addressing whether the FLSA’s “retail or service establishment” exemption applies to staffing firms that recruit, hire, and place employees on assignments with clients. 
  • FLSA2021-7: Addressing whether certain local small-town and community news source journalists are creative or learned professionals under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA. 
  • FLSA2021-8: Addressing whether certain distributors of a manufacturer’s food products are employees or independent contractors under the FLSA. 

FLSA2021-9: Addressing whether requiring tractor-trailer truck drivers to implement legally required safety measures creates control by the motor carrier for worker classification (employee or independent contractor) under the FLSA and whether certain owner-operators are correctly classified as independent contractors.

Back To Top

3

DOL Releases Opinion Letters for Two FLSA Topics: Tipped Workers and Establishment Workers

The DOL released an opinion letter regarding two FLSA topics.

On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor released the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) opinion letters:

  • FLSA 2021-5: This letter provided a step-by-step calculation of overtime pay under the FLSA when a tipped employee works as a server and bartender, receives tips, and also receives automatic gratuities or service charges.
  • FLSA 2021-4: This letter found that a restaurant can implement a nontraditional tip pool under the FLSA’s new regulatory changes, not yet effective but set to be soon, so long as it does not include any managers or supervisors, the employer does not take a tip credit, and it pays the full minimum wage to both the tipped employees (servers) who contribute to the pool and the non-tipped employees (hosts or hostesses) who receive tips from the pool. A nontraditional tip pool includes both tipped employees and non-tipped employees.

FLSA 2021-3: This letter assessed three different entities and whether they satisfy the FLSA’s establishment requirement, which provides an exemption from minimum wage and overtime provisions for workers of an amusement or recreational establishment, and whether an accrual method of accounting may be used to satisfy the FLSA’s Receipts Test.

4

EEOC and Religious Discrimination Clarifications

The EEOC approved revisions to its Compliance Manual Section on Religious Discrimination.

On January 15, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved revisions to its Compliance Manual Section on Religious Discrimination. The updated guidance describes how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects against religious discrimination in the workplace and details legal protections available to religious employers. Importantly, the EEOC states that “the manual does not have the force and effect of law and is not meant to bind the public in any way. It is intended to provide clarity to the public on existing requirements under the law and how the EEOC will analyze these matters in performing its duties.”

5

Replacement Sticker Extending Permanent Resident Card (Green Card) Validity and Form I-9

The USCIS announces it is replacing the current sticker extending the validity of a Form I-551, PRC or Green Card.

On January 12, 2021, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced that it is replacing the currently issued sticker that extends the validity of a Form I-551, Permanent Resident Card (PRC), or Green Card, with a revised Form I-797, Notice of Action, receipt notice of Form I-90, Application to Replace Permanent Resident Card. The revised notice will extend the validity of a PRC for 12 months from the “Card Expires” date on the front of the PRC. This change ensures that certain lawful permanent residents have documentation for completing Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification.

Employees may present their expired PRC together with this notice as an acceptable List A document that establishes identity and employment authorization for Form I-9 purposes. When completing a Form I-9, employers should enter the information from this document combination in Section 2, under List A:

  • In the Document Number field, enter the card number provided on the expired PRC. 
  • In the Expiration Date field, enter the date that is 12 months from the “Card Expires” date on the expired PRC.
  • In the Additional Information box, write “PRC Ext” and the I-90 receipt number from the Form I-797.

Employers who retain copies of documents should retain copies of both the PRC and Form I-797 with the employee’s Form I-9. Employers may not reverify Lawful Permanent Residents who present this document combination.

Read more about acceptable documents at I-9 Central or in The Handbook for Employers, Guidance for Completing Form I-9.

Back To Top

6

FLSA Opinion Letters: Administrative Employee Exemption and Ministerial Exception

The U.S. DOL announces new opinion letter related to the FLSA.

On January 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the following new opinion letters that provide compliance assistance related to the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 

  • FLSA2021-1: Addressing whether account managers at a life science products manufacturer qualify for the administrative employee exemption under the FLSA. The DOL concluded that the account managers were administrative employees because they met all three requirements, discussed thoroughly in the letter, necessary to qualify for the exemption (from the FLSA minimum wage and overtime pay requirements).

FLSA2021-2: Addressing whether the ministerial exception allows a private religious daycare and preschool to pay its teachers on a salary basis that would not otherwise conform with the requirements of the FLSA. The DOL concluded that the exception would allow the school to do so if the teachers qualify as ministers.

7

OSHA Penalty Amount Increases

The U.S. DOL announces adjustments to the OSHA.

On January 8, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the following 2021 adjustments to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) civil penalty amounts:

  • Serious violations: minimum of $964 per violation and maximum of $13,653 per violation.
  • Other-than-serious violations: minimum of $0 per violation and maximum of $13,653 per violation.
  • Willful or repeated violations: minimum of $9,639 per violation and maximum of $136,532 per violation.
  • Posting requirements violations: minimum of $0 per violation and maximum of $13,653 per violation.
  • Failure to abate violation: $13,653 per day unabated beyond the abatement date, which is generally limited to 30 days maximum.

These increases apply to penalties assessed after January 15, 2021.

Back To Top

8

Final Rule Clarifies Independent Contractor Status under the Fair Labor Standards Act

DOL announces a final rule clarifying employee vs. independent contractor under the FLSA.

On January 6, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division announced a final rule clarifying whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The rule:

  • Reaffirms the “economic reality” test  which determines whether an individual is in business for themselves (independent contractor) or is economically dependent on a potential employer for work (FLSA employee). 
  • Identifies and explains two core factors to determine whether a worker is economically dependent on someone else’s business (employee) or is in business for themselves (independent contractor): 
    • The nature and degree of control over the work; and
    • The worker’s opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative and/or investment.

If those two primary core factors do not point to the same classification, then the rule identifies the following additional factors to determine status:

  • The amount of skill required for the work;
  • The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer; and
  • Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

The rule also:

  • Identifies that the actual practice of the worker and the potential employer is more relevant than what may be contractually or theoretically possible.
  • Provides six fact-specific examples applying the factors.

The rule is effective March 8, 2021.  

Back To Top

9

COVID-19 Relief for Employers Using the Automobile Lease Valuation Rule

DOL announces a final rule clarifying employee vs. independent contractor under the FLSA.

On January 4, 2021, the Internal Revenue Service released Notice 2021-07 which provides temporary relief in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic for employers using the automobile lease valuation rule to value an employee’s personal use of an employer-provided automobile for:

  • Income inclusion;
  • Employment tax; and
  • Reporting.

Due solely to the COVID-19 pandemic, if certain requirements are satisfied, employers and employees using the automobile lease valuation rule to determine the value of an employee’s personal use of an employer-provided automobile may instead use the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule beginning March 13, 2020.

10

2021 IRS Forms

New publications and forms released by the IRS.

On December 31, 2020 and January 5, 2021, the federal Internal Revenue Service released the following new forms and publications, among many others, for use in 2021:

  • Form W-4 – Employee’s Withholding Certificate
  • Form W-4P – Withholding Certificate for Pension or Annuity Payments
  • Publication 531 – Reporting Tip Income
Download All Updates

Individual state labor laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Back To Top

Federal Law Alert: COVID Tax Credits Extended

Posted on by AllMyHR
covid-tax-relief-credits-extended-allmyhr

COVID Relief Bill: Tax credits for paid leave extended to March 31

A new $900 billion coronavirus relief bill became law and answers the question of whether federal Emergency Paid Sick Leave (EPSL) and Emergency Family and Medical Leave (EFMLA) will be extended.

The answer is yes, but it’s an option, not a requirement. Here’s what employers need to know:

  • Offering EPSL and EFMLA after December 31 will become optional for employers.
  • An employee will no longer be entitled by law to take EPSL or EFMLA, even if they have a qualifying reason.
  • Employers who choose to offer these paid leaves can still receive a tax credit if they follow the current EPSL and EFMLA rules, including job protection.
  • The extension of the tax credit will be available for leaves taken through March 31, 2021.
  • Employees will not get new hours to use—the unused portion of their original allotment that remains on January 1 is how much they will be able to use through March 31. For instance, if an employee who was entitled to 80 hours of EPSL between April 1 and December 31 used 40 of those hours in 2020, they’d have 40 hours left to use between January 1 and March 31, 2021.
  • There is a possible exception when an employee’s EFMLA bank could reset if employers use the calendar year or another fixed FMLA tracking period that starts before March 31 and the DOL fails to readopt the regulations they wrote related to EFMLA. We expect the IRS, DOL, or both, to provide guidance soon that will clear up whether certain employers will need to offer additional hours. We will update Comply as information becomes available.

The new law also extends or revives several other types of economic assistance from previous coronavirus-related legislation, some of which are listed below. These aspects of the law are outside the scope of our services, so we are unable to answer follow-up questions. Some of the notable provisions include:

  • Individual payments of $600 for people with incomes at or below $75,000 and $600 per dependent child, with payments phased out for higher incomes
  • A $300 weekly supplemental unemployment benefit, through March 14, 2021
  • Extension of Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (for gig workers and the self-employed) and Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation (for those who run out of state unemployment insurance benefits), through March 14, 2021
  • Reopening and refunding of the Paycheck Protection Program (see your financial or tax advisor for additional information)

We have many resources related to EPSL and EFMLA available on Comply. We will be updating our content to indicate that the program becomes optional on January 1.

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Employment Law Updates: December 2020

Posted on by AllMyHR

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

Federal Law Updates: December 2020

Five Federal along with D.C and seven State Law Updates have been issued.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
December 2020 Law Alert Map

Labor Law Updates for December 2020

1

Pandemic Relief

President Trump signs the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act applicable to COVID-19 or another coronavirus with pandemic potential.

On December 27, 2020, President Donald Trump signed the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (US H 133) containing the 2021 Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act applicable to SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) or another coronavirus with pandemic potential. Generally, the act:

  • Extends some Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) economic assistance. For instance: 
    • Reinstatement of Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (FPUC) in the amount of $300 for weeks of unemployment beginning after December 26, 2020 through March 14, 2021.
    • Extension and modification of temporary Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) through March 14, 2021 and phasing out on April 5, 2021. The phasing out is for those individuals who remain eligible after March 14, 2021 and have not exhausted their maximum benefits entitlement. However, under the act, no PUA benefits can be paid after April 5.
    • Extension of employee retention tax credit to wages paid before July 1, 2021.
    • Expansion and continuation of the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).
  • Allows employers to continue taking tax credits for qualifying paid sick and family leave under the Federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) through March 14, 2021. However, beginning January 1, 2021, employers are not required to provide employees with paid FFCRA leave.

Specific to the FFCRA:

  • Beginning January 1, 2021, employers are not required to provide employees with paid FFCRA leave, which includes both COVID-related emergency paid sick leave (EPSL) and emergency family and medical leave (EFMLA). However, employees may still be entitled to paid sick leave or emergency COVID leave under state or local law.
  • For employers that voluntarily provide paid sick and family and medical leave that would have otherwise qualified as FFCRA leave: 
    • Federal payroll tax credits are extended through March 31, 2021 (if the individual did not exhaust their maximum FFCRA leave allotment and the leave did not expire on December 31, 2020).
    • Employees do not get a new bank of FFCRA hours in 2021 – the amount they have available on January 1, 2021 is how much they can use through March 31, 2021. There is a possible exception if employers use the calendar year or another fixed FMLA tracking period that starts before March 31, 2021.

The IRS and DOL will soon provide more information and detailed guidance on the act’s implementation.

2

IRS Issues 2021 Standard Mileage Rates

The IRS released the 2021 optional standard mileage rates.

On December 22, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service released Notice 2021-02 with the 2021 optional standard mileage rates for taxpayers to use to calculate the deductible costs of operating an automobile for business, charitable, medical, or moving purpose. Beginning on January 1, 2021, the standard mileage rates for the use of a car (also vans, pickups, or panel trucks) will be:

  • 56 cents per mile driven for business use;
  • 16 cents per mile driven for medical, or moving purposes for qualified active duty members of the Armed Forces; and
  • 14 cents per mile driven in service of charitable organizations, which is unchanged from 2020.

The notice also provides that:

  • The maximum standard automobile cost to compute the allowance under a fixed and variable rate plan (FAVR plan) may not exceed $51,100 for automobiles (including trucks and vans)l; and
  • The maximum fair market value of employer-provided automobiles for the fleet-average valuation rule and the vehicle cents-per-mile valuation rule (including trucks and vans) first made available to employees in calendar year 2021 is $51,100.

Back To Top

3

EEOC COVID-19 Guidance and Vaccines

U.S. EEOC updated its “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws”.

On December 16, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated its “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws” publication by including:

  • A new section for employers and employees about how a COVID-19 vaccination interacts with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
  • Information about medical pre-screening questions and employer accommodations for those unable to receive a vaccination.

These new sections are provided below and are directly from the publication.

ADA and Vaccinations

K.1. For any COVID-19 vaccine that has been approved or authorized by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), is the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine to an employee by an employer (or by a third party with whom the employer contracts to administer a vaccine) a “medical examination” for purposes of the ADA? (12/16/20)

No.  The vaccination itself is not a medical examination.  As the Commission explained in guidance on disability-related inquiries and medical examinations, a medical examination is “a procedure or test usually given by a health care professional or in a medical setting that seeks information about an individual’s physical or mental impairments or health.”  Examples include “vision tests; blood, urine, and breath analyses; blood pressure screening and cholesterol testing; and diagnostic procedures, such as x-rays, CAT scans, and MRIs.”  If a vaccine is administered to an employee by an employer for protection against contracting COVID-19, the employer is not seeking information about an individual’s impairments or current health status and, therefore, it is not a medical examination.

Although the administration of a vaccination is not a medical examination, pre-screening vaccination questions may implicate the ADA’s provision on disability-related inquiries, which are inquiries likely to elicit information about a disability.  If the employer administers the vaccine, it must show that such pre-screening questions it asks employees are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”  

K.2. According to the CDC, health care providers should ask certain questions before administering a vaccine to ensure that there is no medical reason that would prevent the person from receiving the vaccination. If the employer requires an employee to receive the vaccination from the employer (or a third party with whom the employer contracts to administer a vaccine) and asks these screening questions, are these questions subject to the ADA standards for disability-related inquiries? (12/16/20)

Yes. Pre-vaccination medical screening questions are likely to elicit information about a disability. This means that such questions, if asked by the employer or a contractor on the employer’s behalf, are “disability-related” under the ADA. Thus, if the employer requires an employee to receive the vaccination, administered by the employer, the employer must show that these disability-related screening inquiries are “job-related and consistent with business necessity.”  To meet this standard, an employer would need to have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that an employee who does not answer the questions and, therefore, does not receive a vaccination, will pose a direct threat to the health or safety of her or himself or others. 

By contrast, there are two circumstances in which disability-related screening questions can be asked without needing to satisfy the “job-related and consistent with business necessity” requirement. First, if an employer has offered a vaccination to employees on a voluntary basis (i.e. employees choose whether to be vaccinated), the ADA requires that the employee’s decision to answer pre-screening, disability-related questions also must be voluntary. If an employee chooses not to answer these questions, the employer may decline to administer the vaccine but may not retaliate against, intimidate, or threaten the employee for refusing to answer any questions. Second, if an employee receives an employer-required vaccination from a third party that does not have a contract with the employer, such as a pharmacy or other health care provider, the ADA “job-related and consistent with business necessity” restrictions on disability-related inquiries would not apply to the pre-vaccination medical screening questions.  

The ADA requires employers to keep any employee medical information obtained in the course of the vaccination program confidential.

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

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

Back To Top

ADA and Title VII Issues Regarding Mandatory Vaccinations

K.4. Where can employers learn more about Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) of COVID-19 vaccines? (12/16/20)

Some COVID-19 vaccines may only be available to the public for the foreseeable future under EUA granted by the FDA, which is different than approval under FDA vaccine licensure. The FDA has an obligation to:

[E]nsure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed, to the extent practicable under the applicable circumstances, that FDA has authorized the emergency use of the vaccine, of the known and potential benefits and risks, the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown, that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine, and of any available alternatives to the product.

The FDA says that this information is typically conveyed in a patient fact sheet that is provided at the time of the vaccine administration and that it posts the fact sheets on its website. More information about EUA vaccines is available on the FDA’s EUA page. 

K.5. If an employer requires vaccinations when they are available, how should it respond to an employee who indicates that he or she is unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a disability? (12/16/20)

The ADA allows an employer to have a qualification standard that includes “a requirement that an individual shall not pose a direct threat to the health or safety of individuals in the workplace.” However, if a safety-based qualification standard, such as a vaccination requirement, screens out or tends to screen out an individual with a disability, the employer must show that an unvaccinated employee would pose a direct threat due to a “significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” Employers should conduct an individualized assessment of four factors in determining whether a direct threat exists: the duration of the risk; the nature and severity of the potential harm; the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and the imminence of the potential harm. A conclusion that there is a direct threat would include a determination that an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.  If an employer determines that an individual who cannot be vaccinated due to disability poses a direct threat at the worksite, the employer cannot exclude the employee from the workplace, or take any other action, unless there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship) that would eliminate or reduce this risk so the unvaccinated employee does not pose a direct threat.

If there is a direct threat that cannot be reduced to an acceptable level, the employer can exclude the employee from physically entering the workplace, but this does not mean the employer may automatically terminate the worker. Employers will need to determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities. For example, if an employer excludes an employee based on an inability to accommodate a request to be exempt from a vaccination requirement, the employee may be entitled to accommodations such as performing the current position remotely. This is the same step that employers take when physically excluding employees from a worksite due to a current COVID-19 diagnosis or symptoms; some workers may be entitled to telework or, if not, may be eligible to take leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, under the FMLA, or under the employer’s policies.

Managers and supervisors responsible for communicating with employees about compliance with the employer’s vaccination requirement should know how to recognize an accommodation request from an employee with a disability and know to whom the request should be referred for consideration. Employers and employees should engage in a flexible, interactive process to identify workplace accommodation options that do not constitute an undue hardship (significant difficulty or expense). This process should include determining whether it is necessary to obtain supporting documentation about the employee’s disability and considering the possible options for accommodation given the nature of the workforce and the employee’s position. The prevalence in the workplace of employees who already have received a COVID-19 vaccination and the amount of contact with others, whose vaccination status could be unknown, may impact the undue hardship consideration. In discussing accommodation requests, employers and employees also may find it helpful to consult the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) website as a resource for different types of accommodations. JAN’s materials specific to COVID-19 are at https://askjan.org/topics/COVID-19.cfm.  

Employers may rely on CDC recommendations when deciding whether an effective accommodation that would not pose an undue hardship is available, but as explained further in Question K.7., there may be situations where an accommodation is not possible. When an employer makes this decision, the facts about particular job duties and workplaces may be relevant. Employers also should consult applicable Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards and guidance. Employers can find OSHA COVID-specific resources at: www.osha.gov/SLTC/covid-19/.

Managers and supervisors are reminded that it is unlawful to disclose that an employee is receiving a reasonable accommodation or retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation.

Back To Top

K.6. If an employer requires vaccinations when they are available, how should it respond to an employee who indicates that he or she is unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a sincerely held religious practice or belief? (12/16/20)

Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from receiving the vaccination, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation for the religious belief, practice, or observance unless it would pose an undue hardship under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.  Courts have defined “undue hardship” under Title VII as having more than a de minimis cost or burden on the employer. EEOC guidance explains that because the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief.  If, however, an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.

K.7. What happens if an employer cannot exempt or provide a reasonable accommodation to an employee who cannot comply with a mandatory vaccine policy because of a disability or sincerely held religious practice or belief? (12/16/20)

If an employee cannot get vaccinated for COVID-19 because of a disability or sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, and there is no reasonable accommodation possible, then it would be lawful for the employer to exclude the employee from the workplace.  This does not mean the employer may automatically terminate the worker.  Employers will need to determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities.

Back To Top

Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act and Vaccinations

K.8. Is Title II of GINA implicated when an employer administers a COVID-19 vaccine to employees or requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination? (12/16/20)

No. Administering a COVID-19 vaccination to employees or requiring employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination does not implicate Title II of GINA because it does not involve the use of genetic information to make employment decisions, or the acquisition or disclosure of “genetic information” as defined by the statute. This includes vaccinations that use messenger RNA (mRNA) technology, which will be discussed more below. As noted in Question K.9. however, if administration of the vaccine requires pre-screening questions that ask about genetic information, the inquiries seeking genetic information, such as family members’ medical histories, may violate GINA.

Under Title II of GINA, employers may not (1) use genetic information to make decisions related to the terms, conditions, and privileges of employment, (2) acquire genetic information except in six narrow circumstances, or (3) disclose genetic information except in six narrow circumstances. 

Certain COVID-19 vaccines use mRNA technology. This raises questions about genetics and, specifically, about whether such vaccines modify a recipient’s genetic makeup and, therefore, whether requiring an employee to get the vaccine as a condition of employment is an unlawful use of genetic information. The CDC has explained that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines “do not interact with our DNA in any way” and “mRNA never enters the nucleus of the cell, which is where our DNA (genetic material) is kept.” (See https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different-vaccines/mrna.html for a detailed discussion about how mRNA vaccines work).  Thus, requiring employees to get the vaccine, whether it uses mRNA technology or not, does not violate GINA’s prohibitions on using, acquiring, or disclosing genetic information.

K.9. Does asking an employee the pre-vaccination screening questions before administering a COVID-19 vaccine implicate Title II of GINA? (12/16/20)

Pre-vaccination medical screening questions are likely to elicit information about disability, as discussed in Question K.2., and may elicit information about genetic information, such as questions regarding the immune systems of family members.  It is not yet clear what screening checklists for contraindications will be provided with COVID-19 vaccinations.

GINA defines “genetic information” to mean: 

  • Information about an individual’s genetic tests;
  • Information about the genetic tests of a family member;
  • Information about the manifestation of disease or disorder in a family member (i.e., family medical history);
  • Information about requests for, or receipt of, genetic services or the participation in clinical research that includes genetic services by the an individual or a family member of the individual; and
  • Genetic information about a fetus carried by an individual or family member or of an embryo legally held by an individual or family member using assisted reproductive technology.

     

If the pre-vaccination questions do not include any questions about genetic information (including family medical history), then asking them does not implicate GINA. However, if the pre-vaccination questions do include questions about genetic information, then employers who want to ensure that employees have been vaccinated may want to request proof of vaccination instead of administering the vaccine themselves. 

GINA does not prohibit an individual employee’s own health care provider from asking questions about genetic information, but it does prohibit an employer or a doctor working for the employer from asking questions about genetic information. If an employer requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from their own health care provider, the employer may want to warn the employee not to provide genetic information as part of the proof. As long as this warning is provided, any genetic information the employer receives in response to its request for proof of vaccination will be considered inadvertent and therefore not unlawful under GINA.  See 29 CFR 1635.8(b)(1)(i) for model language that can be used for this warning.

Back To Top

4

CDC, COVID-19, and Options to Reduce Quarantine

U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated its COVID-19 quarantine options by suggesting quarantine periods shorter than 14-days.

On December 2, 2020, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated its COVID-19 quarantine options by suggesting quarantine periods shorter than 14-days. This is because a 14-day quarantine can impose personal burdens that may affect physical and mental health as well as cause economic hardship that may reduce compliance. Therefore, based on local circumstances and resources, the CDC offers the following options as acceptable alternatives to shorten quarantine:

  • Quarantine can end after ten days without testing and if no symptoms have been reported during daily monitoring.
  • When diagnostic testing resources are sufficient and available, then quarantine can end after seven days if a diagnostic specimen tests negative and if no symptoms were reported during daily monitoring. The specimen may be collected and tested 48 hours before ending quarantine (for instance, in anticipation of testing delays) but quarantine cannot end earlier than after seven days.

5

New Opinion Letters Addressing FLSA

DOL announces new opinion letters addressing compliance related to FLSA.

On November 30, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) released the following new opinion letters addressing Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance:

  • FLSA2020-17: Addressing whether an employee’s regular rate of pay, who is paid on a piece-rate basis, may be calculated by dividing total earnings by the number of productive and nonproductive hours worked during the workweek in the absence of a specific agreement with the employee to use such calculation.
  • FLSA2020-18: Addressing whether insect farming qualifies as agriculture under the FLSA and whether certain workers employed by an insect farming operation may be exempt from overtime pay requirements.

An opinion letter is an official, written opinion by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on how a particular law applies in specific circumstances presented by the person or entity that requested the letter.

Download All Updates

Individual state labor laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Back To Top

Employment Law Updates: November 2020

Posted on by AllMyHR

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

Federal Law Updates: November 2020

Three Federal along with D.C and fourteen State Law Updates have been issued.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
November 2020 State Law Alerts

Labor Law Updates for November 2020

1

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage Rate for 2021

Increase in minimum wage rates effective January 1, 2021.

Effective January 1, 2021, the applicable minimum wage rate for workers performing work on or in connection with federal contracts covered by Executive Order 13658 increases to $10.95 per hour. Additionally, the required minimum cash wage for tipped employees performing work on or in connection with covered contracts increases to $7.65 per hour.

2

Form I-9 Flexibility Extended to December 31, 2020

Annother extension to the flexibility rules for Form I-9 compliance.

On November 18, 2020, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced another extension to the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) flexibility rule, which was extended to December 31, 2020, because of COVID-19 and the need for precautions. This flexibility rule, applicable only to remote workplaces, defers the physical presence requirement for in-person verification of the Form I-9 identity and employment eligibility documentation. However, the flexibility rule does not apply if there are employees physically present at the workplace. If there are employees physically present, then an employer must verify their Form I-9 identity and employment eligibility documentation in-person.

On March 19, 2020, the DHS first announced that the physical presence requirements were deferred due to COVID-19. The DHS and ICE websites provide additional updates about when the extensions will end and when normal operations will resume.

3

DOL and New FLSA Opinion Letters

DOL announces new opinion letters addressing compliance related to FLSA.

On November 3, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced the following new opinion letters that address compliance issues related to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): 

  • FLSA2020-15: Addressing the compensability of time that employees spend attending voluntary training programs in certain situations.
  • FLSA2020-16: Addressing compensability of employee travel time in certain situations involving construction sites located away from the employer’s principal place of business.

An opinion letter is an official, written opinion by the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on how a particular law applies in specific circumstances.

Download All Updates

Individual state labor laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Employment Law Updates: October 2020

Posted on by AllMyHR

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

Federal Law Updates: October 2020

Five Federal along with eight State Law Updates have been issued.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
October 2020 Law Alerts 7 states

Labor Law Updates for October 2020

1

DOL Releases FFCRA Eligibility Tool

Tool to assist employers and employees on determining eligibility for certain types of leave.

In October 2020, the federal Department of Labor released a Families First Coronavirus Relief Act (FFCRA) eligibility webtool for employees to determine their eligibility for paid sick leave or paid expanded family and medical leave. The webtool will also assist employers in determining their obligations to provide paid sick leave or paid expanded family and medical leave. The employer webtool is still being developed.

2

COLA Increase for 2021

The Social Security Administration announced a cost-of-living adjustment.

On October 13, 2020, the Social Security Administration announced the following for January 2021:

  • The cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) will increase by 1.3 percent; and
  • The maximum amount of earnings subject to the Social Security tax (taxable maximum) will increase to $142,800 from $137,700.

Read the full announcement on the Social Security Administration’s site.

3

FAQs for Executive Order 13950 – Federal Contractors Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping

U.S. Department of Labor issued the following FAQs for Executive Order 13950.

On October 7, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor issued the following FAQs for Executive Order 13950, “Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping,” which addresses race stereotyping, sex stereotyping, or scapegoating and federal contractors’ workplace diversity and inclusion trainings:

4

CDC Guidance for Flu Season and COVID-19

The CDC updated it’s “The Difference between the Flu and COVID-19 page.

On October 6, 2020, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) updated it’s The Difference between the Flu and COVID-19 page and addresses the following:

  • Signs and symptoms;
  • How long symptoms appear after exposure and infection;
  • How long someone can spread the virus;
  • How it spreads;
  • People at high-risk for severe illness;
  • Complications;
  • Approved treatments; and
  • Vaccine.

On October 7, 2020, CDC also updated its Influenza (Flu) Resources page that contains the following materials for businesses and employers:

  • Flu clinic and flu prevention communication tools;
  • Education and flu prevention messages; and
  • Tools for essential workers.

5

IRS Extends Due Date for Health Coverage Forms Due Date and Other Relief

The Internal Revenue Service announced extensions on certain forms to be provided to individuals.

On October 2, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service announced (Notice 2020-76) that employers, insurers, and other providers of minimum essential coverage have until March 2, 2021 (instead of January 31, 2021) to provide the following 2020 forms to individuals:

  • Form 1095-B, Health Coverage; and
  • Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage, which is filed by Applicable Large Employers (ALEs).

The extension is automatic, no request required, but employers and other coverage providers are encouraged to furnish 2020 information statements as soon as they can. The notice does not extend the due date for filing the 2020 Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C, or 1095-C with the IRS.

The notice also provides a final extension for ALEs from penalties under 26 U.S.C. §§ 6721 and 6722 for incorrect or incomplete information if they can prove their good-faith efforts to comply with Form 1095-C:

  • § 6721 imposes a penalty for the failure to file correct information returns; and
  • § 6722 imposes a penalty for the failure to furnish correct payee statements.
Download All Updates

Individual state labor laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Deferring Federal Payroll Tax Obligations and COVID-19

Posted on by try HRIS
DOL Defer Federal Payroll Taxes due to COVID-19

On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued guidance to address President Trump’s August 8th memo authorizing the deferral of the withholding, deposit, and payment of Social Security payroll tax obligations for affected taxpayers. Employers are not required to defer the payment of Social Security taxes, the deferral is optional, but any deferred taxes must be repaid. The guidance and the memo do not address whether employees can elect to defer (or decline the deferral of) this federal payroll tax. 

Affected taxpayers are defined as employers that are:

  • Required to withhold and pay their employees’ share of federal payroll taxes (OASDI/Social Security taxes and Medicare, collectively FICA); and
  • Affected by the COVID-19 emergency.

The tax deferral is applicable to:

  • Wages paid September 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020; and
  • Only for employees who earn less than $4,000 during any biweekly pay period, before taxes, or the equivalent amount for other pay periods.

The $4,000 threshold determination is made on a pay period-by-pay period basis. For instance, if an employee’s pay for one pay period is less than $4,000, then that amount is considered applicable wages for that pay period, and the deferral applies to the wages paid to that employee for that pay period regardless of their wages from other pay periods.

This deferral is without penalty interest, additional amounts, or addition to the tax; however, payment of these taxes is delayed not forgiven, and the deferred taxes must be paid the following year. Congressional action may change this repayment requirement but for now, employers must withhold and pay the total applicable taxes, that were previously deferred in 2020 along with those that will be due for 2021, on the wages they pay between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021.

Failure to make these tax payments in 2021 will result in interest, penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021 on any unpaid amounts. If necessary, employers may plan to otherwise collect the total applicable taxes from the employee.

Note: The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is automatically deferring the withholding, effective September 2020, and civilian employees’ 6.2 percent OASDI tax withholding will be temporarily deferred if their wages, subject to OASDI, are less than $4,000 in any given pay period. The DoD provides a fact sheet and in depth FAQs addressing the program and deferral. For instance, an FAQ addresses that employees who separate or retire in 2020,before the Social Security tax can be collected in 2021, are still responsible for the Social Security tax repayment. 

DOL Opinion Letters on FLSA Compliance

On August 31, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor announced the New opinion letters addressing the following Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) compliance issues:

  • FLSA2020-11: Whether a private “oilfield service company” that provides waste-removal services for oilfield operators may qualify as a “retail or service establishment” eligible to claim the FLSA’s Section 7(i) exemption for certain truck drivers that it employs.
  • FLSA2020-12: Employer compliance with FLSA’s minimum wage requirements when reimbursing delivery drivers for business-related expenses incurred while using their personal vehicles during the course of employment.
  • FLSA2020-13: Whether part-time employees who provide corporate-management training, and are paid a day rate with additional hourly compensation, qualify for the learned professional exemption and the highly compensated employee test under Section 13(a)(1) of the FLSA.
  • FLSA2020-14: Whether employees’ hours must fluctuate above and below 40 hours per week to qualify for the fluctuating workweek method of calculating overtime pay.

An opinion letter is an official, written opinion by the Department’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) on how a particular law applies in specific circumstances presented by the person that requested the letter.

COVID-19, FFCRA, and Reopening Schools

On August 27, 2020 the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) published new frequently asked questions for workers and employers about qualifying for paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the reopening of schools. These FAQs:

  • Explain eligibility for paid leave and the varied formats and schedules schools have announced as they plan to reopen, including blending in-person with distance learning.
  • Explain the benefits and protections available under both the paid sick leave and the expanded family and medical leave provisions of the FFCRA.
  • Address whether employees qualify for paid leave when:
  • A child attends a school operating on an alternate day basis;
  • A parent chooses remote learning when in-person instruction is available; and
  • A school begins the year with remote learning but may shift to in-person instruction if conditions change.

The FFCRA allows certain employees to take up to two weeks of paid sick leave and take up to 12 weeks of expanded family and medical leave, ten of which are paid, for specified reasons related to COVID-19. An eligible employee can take both types of paid leave because of a need to care for the employee’s child whose school or place of care is closed, or whose childcare provider is unavailable, due to COVID-19 related reasons. 

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Employment Law Updates: September 2020

Posted on by try HRIS

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

30-Day Money-Back Guarantee

Federal Law Updates: September 2020

Five Federal along with seven State Law Updates have been issued.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
September 2020 Law Alert Map

Labor Law Updates for September 2020

1

CDC Changes its COVID-19 Testing Guidance

The CDC released updated versions of previous guidance.

  • Overview of Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) – Summary of considerations and current CDC recommendations regarding SARS-CoV-2 testing. The update in this guidance clarified that asymptomatic persons need to be tested for COVID-19, including close contacts of those with COVID-19, because of asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission. Previously, the CDC stated that people without COVID-19 symptoms do not necessarily need to be tested.
  • Guidance for Reopening Buildings After Prolonged Shutdown or Reduced Operation – The update in this guidance addressed mold awareness, monitoring, and remediation during and after prolonged building shutdowns and updated Legionella guidance for people with weakened immune systems and the use of respiratory protection when flushing water systems.

2

Form I-9 Compliance Flexibility Extended Again

Annother extension to the flexibility rules for Form I-9 compliance.

On September 14, 2020, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced an extension of the flexibilities in rules related to Form I-9 compliance that was granted earlier this year. Due to the continued COVID-19-related precautions, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) will extend this policy until November 19, 2020.

On March 19, 2020, due to precautions implemented by employers and employees associated with COVID-19, DHS announced that it would defer the physical presence requirements associated with the Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification. This policy only applies to employers and workplaces that are operating remotely. If there are employees physically present at a work location, no exceptions are being implemented at this time for in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for Form I-9.

3

DOL Revisions to FFCRA Paid Sick Leave and Expanded Family and Medical Leave Regulations

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) posted revisions to regulations that implemented the paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA).

On September 11, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) posted revisions to regulations that implemented the paid sick leave and expanded family and medical leave provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). The revisions made by the new rule clarify workers’ rights and employers’ responsibilities under the FFCRA’s paid leave provisions, in light of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York’s August 3, 2020 decision that found portions of the regulations invalid, and are effective September 16, 2020 when published in the Federal Register.

The revisions do the following: 

  • Explain the requirement that employees may take FFCRA leave only if work would otherwise be available to them.
  • Explain the requirement that an employee must have employer approval to take FFCRA leave intermittently.
  • Revise the definition of “health care provider” to include only employees who meet the definition of that term under the Family and Medical Leave Act regulations or who are employed to provide diagnostic services, preventative services, treatment services, or other services that are integrated with and necessary to the provision of patient care which, if not provided, would adversely impact patient care.
  • Clarify that employees must provide required documentation supporting their need for FFCRA leave to their employers as soon as practicable.
  • Correct an inconsistency regarding when employees may be required to provide notice of a need to take expanded family and medical leave to their employers.

The Department issued its initial temporary rule implementing provisions under the FFCRA on April 1, 2020. 

4

EEOC Updated COVID-19, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws Guidance

EEOC updated the following topics in its What You Should Know About COVID 19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.

On September 8, 2020, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated the following topics in its What You Should Know About COVID 19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws guidance:

  • Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Exams
    • Employer-administered COVID-19 tests.
    • Employers asking all employees physically entering the workplace if they have been diagnosed with or tested for COVID-19.
    • Employers asking COVID-19 questions specific to one employee and not all.
    • Employers asking employees in the workplace about family members with COVID-19 diagnosis.
    • Employees who refuse to temperature-taking or answering COVID-19 questions.
    • Employers requesting information from employees about whether they are sick or why they were absent from work.
  • Confidentiality of Medical Information
    • Reporting when an employee has COVID-19 and ADA confidentiality requirements.
    • Employee reporting another employee’s COVID-19 symptoms and ADA confidentiality.
    • Teleworking employees with COVID-19, reporting, and keeping ADA information confidential.
  • Reasonable Accommodation
    • Employers inviting employee to currently ask for a future reasonable accommodation.
    • Reasonable accommodation for teleworking employees during COVID-19.
    • Automatic teleworking as a reasonable accommodation after reopening.
    • Returning employee with a disability and a new accommodation request to telework when the prior request to telework was previously denied.
    • Excusable delays during the interactive process and COVID-19.
    • Federal agencies and delayed timelines due to COVID-19.
  • Furloughs and Layoffs
    • Additional EEO consideration in furloughs or layoffs.
  • Age
    • Employer offering flexibilities to other workers cannot treat older comparable workers less favorably based on age.

Disability-Related Inquiries and Medical Exams

A.6.  May an employer administer a COVID-19 test (a test to detect the presence of the COVID-19 virus) when evaluating an employee’s initial or continued presence in the workplace? (4/23/20; updated 9/8/20 to address stakeholder questions about updates to CDC guidance)

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Applying this standard to the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take screening steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before initially permitting them to enter the workplace and/or periodically to determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others. The ADA does not interfere with employers following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities regarding whether, when, and for whom testing or other screening is appropriate. Testing administered by employers consistent with current CDC guidance will meet the ADA’s “business necessity” standard.

Consistent with the ADA standard, employers should ensure that the tests are considered accurate and reliable. For example, employers may review information from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about what may or may not be considered safe and accurate testing, as well as guidance from CDC or other public health authorities. Because the CDC and FDA may revise their recommendations based on new information, it may be helpful to check these agency websites for updates. Employers may wish to consider the incidence of false-positives or false-negatives associated with a particular test. Note that a positive test result reveals that an individual most likely has a current infection and may be able to transmit the virus to others. A negative test result means that the individual did not have detectable COVID-19 at the time of testing.   

A negative test does not mean the employee will not acquire the virus later. Based on guidance from medical and public health authorities, employers should still require–to the greatest extent possible–that employees observe infection control practices (such as social distancing, regular handwashing, and other measures) in the workplace to prevent transmission of COVID-19.

Note: Questions A.6 and A.8 address screening of employees generally. See Question A.9 regarding decisions to screen individual employees.

A.8.  May employers ask all employees physically entering the workplace if they have been diagnosed with or tested for COVID-19? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 1)

Yes. Employers may ask all employees who will be physically entering the workplace if they have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19, and if they have been tested for COVID-19. Symptoms associated with COVID-19 include, for example, fever, chills, cough, and shortness of breath. The CDC has identified a current list of symptoms.

An employer may exclude those with COVID-19, or symptoms associated with COVID-19, from the workplace because, as EEOC has stated, their presence would pose a direct threat to the health or safety of others. However, for those employees who are teleworking and are not physically interacting with coworkers or others (for example, customers), the employer would generally not be permitted to ask these questions.

A.9.  May a manager ask only one employee—as opposed to asking all employees—questions designed to determine if she has COVID-19, or require that this employee alone have her temperature taken or undergo other screening or testing? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 3)

If an employer wishes to ask only a particular employee to answer such questions, or to have her temperature taken or undergo other screening or testing, the ADA requires the employer to have a reasonable belief based on objective evidence that this person might have the disease. So, it is important for the employer to consider why it wishes to take these actions regarding this particular employee, such as a display of COVID-19 symptoms. In addition, the ADA does not interfere with employers following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities regarding whether, when, and for whom testing or other screening is appropriate.

A.10.  May an employer ask an employee who is physically coming into the workplace whether they have family members who have COVID-19 or symptoms associated with COVID-19? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 4)

No. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) prohibits employers from asking employees medical questions about family members. GINA, however, 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. Moreover, from a public health perspective, only asking an employee about his contact with family members would unnecessarily limit the information obtained about an employee’s potential exposure to COVID-19.

A.11.  What may an employer do under the ADA if an employee refuses to permit the employer to take his temperature or refuses to answer questions about whether he has COVID-19, has symptoms associated with COVID-19, or has been tested for COVID-19? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 2)

Under the circumstances existing currently, the ADA allows an employer to bar an employee from physical presence in the workplace if he refuses to have his temperature taken or refuses to answer questions about whether he has COVID-19, has symptoms associated with COVID-19, or has been tested for COVID-19. To gain the cooperation of employees, however, employers may wish to ask the reasons for the employee’s refusal. The employer may be able to provide information or reassurance that they are taking these steps to ensure the safety of everyone in the workplace, and that these steps are consistent with health screening recommendations from CDC. Sometimes, employees are reluctant to provide medical information because they fear an employer may widely spread such personal medical information throughout the workplace. The ADA prohibits such broad disclosures. Alternatively, if an employee requests reasonable accommodation with respect to screening, the usual accommodation process should be followed; this is discussed in Question G.7.

A.12.  During the COVID-19 pandemic, may an employer request information from employees who work on-site, whether regularly or occasionally, who report feeling ill or who call in sick? (9/8/20; adapted from Pandemic Preparedness Question 6)

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, at this time employers may ask employees who work on-site, whether regularly or occasionally, and report feeling ill or who call in sick, questions about their symptoms as part of workplace screening for COVID-19.

A.13.  May an employer ask an employee why he or she has been absent from work? (9/8/20; adapted from Pandemic Preparedness Question 15)

Yes. Asking why an individual did not report to work is not a disability-related inquiry. An employer is always entitled to know why an employee has not reported for work.

A.14.  When an employee returns from travel during a pandemic, must an employer wait until the employee develops COVID-19 symptoms to ask questions about where the person has traveled? (9/8/20; adapted from Pandemic Preparedness Question 8)

No. Questions about where a person traveled would not be disability-related inquiries. If the CDC or state or local public health officials recommend that people who visit specified locations remain at home for a certain period of time, an employer may ask whether employees are returning from these locations, even if the travel was personal.

Confidentiality of Medical Information

B.5.  Suppose a manager learns that an employee has COVID-19, or has symptoms associated with the disease. The manager knows she must report it but is worried about violating ADA confidentiality. What should she do?  (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 5)

The ADA requires that an employer keep all medical information about employees confidential, even if that information is not about a disability. Clearly, the information that an employee has symptoms of, or a diagnosis of, COVID-19, is medical information. But the fact that this is medical information does not prevent the manager from reporting to appropriate employer officials so that they can take actions consistent with guidance from the CDC and other public health authorities.

The question is really what information to report: is it the fact that an employee—unnamed—has symptoms of COVID-19 or a diagnosis, or is it the identity of that employee? Who in the organization needs to know the identity of the employee will depend on each workplace and why a specific official needs this information. Employers should make every effort to limit the number of people who get to know the name of the employee.

The ADA does not interfere with a designated representative of the employer interviewing the employee to get a list of people with whom the employee possibly had contact through the workplace, so that the employer can then take action to notify those who may have come into contact with the employee, without revealing the employee’s identity. For example, using a generic descriptor, such as telling employees that “someone at this location” or “someone on the fourth floor” has COVID-19, provides notice and does not violate the ADA’s prohibition of disclosure of confidential medical information. For small employers, coworkers might be able to figure out who the employee is, but employers in that situation are still prohibited from confirming or revealing the employee’s identity. Also, all employer officials who are designated as needing to know the identity of an employee should be specifically instructed that they must maintain the confidentiality of this information. Employers may want to plan in advance what supervisors and managers should do if this situation arises and determine who will be responsible for receiving information and taking next steps.

B.6.  An employee who must report to the workplace knows that a coworker who reports to the same workplace has symptoms associated with COVID-19. Does ADA confidentiality prevent the first employee from disclosing the coworker’s symptoms to a supervisor? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 6)

No. ADA confidentiality does not prevent this employee from communicating to his supervisor about a coworker’s symptoms. In other words, it is not an ADA confidentiality violation for this employee to inform his supervisor about a coworker’s symptoms. After learning about this situation, the supervisor should contact appropriate management officials to report this information and discuss next steps.

B.7.  An employer knows that an employee is teleworking because the person has COVID-19 or symptoms associated with the disease, and that he is in self-quarantine. May the employer tell staff that this particular employee is teleworking without saying why? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 7)

Yes. If staff need to know how to contact the employee, and that the employee is working even if not present in the workplace, then disclosure that the employee is teleworking without saying why is permissible. Also, if the employee was on leave rather than teleworking because he has COVID-19 or symptoms associated with the disease, or any other medical condition, then an employer cannot disclose the reason for the leave, just the fact that the individual is on leave.

B.8.  Many employees, including managers and supervisors, are now teleworking as a result of COVID-19. How are they supposed to keep medical information of employees confidential while working remotely? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 9)

The ADA requirement that medical information be kept confidential includes a requirement that it be stored separately from regular personnel files. If a manager or supervisor receives medical information involving COVID-19, or any other medical information, while teleworking, and is able to follow an employer’s existing confidentiality protocols while working remotely, the supervisor has to do so. But to the extent that is not feasible, the supervisor still must safeguard this information to the greatest extent possible until the supervisor can properly store it. This means that paper notepads, laptops, or other devices should not be left where others can access the protected information.

Similarly, documentation must not be stored electronically where others would have access. A manager may even wish to use initials or another code to further ensure confidentiality of the name of an employee.

Reasonable Accommodation

D.8.  May an employer invite employees now to ask for reasonable accommodations they may need in the future when they are permitted to return to the workplace? (4/17/20; updated 9/8/20 to address stakeholder questions)

Yes. Employers may inform the workforce that employees with disabilities may request accommodations in advance that they believe they may need when the workplace re-opens. This is discussed in greater detail in Question G.6. If advance requests are received, employers may begin the “interactive process” – the discussion between the employer and employee focused on whether the impairment is a disability and the reasons that an accommodation is needed. If an employee chooses not to request accommodation in advance, and instead requests it at a later time, the employer must still consider the request at that time.

D.14.  When an employer requires some or all of its employees to telework because of COVID-19 or government officials require employers to shut down their facilities and have workers telework, is the employer required to provide a teleworking employee with the same reasonable accommodations for disability under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act that it provides to this individual in the workplace?  (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 20)

If such a request is made, the employer and employee should discuss what the employee needs and why, and whether the same or a different accommodation could suffice in the home setting. For example, an employee may already have certain things in their home to enable them to do their job so that they do not need to have all of the accommodations that are provided in the workplace.

Also, the undue hardship considerations might be different when evaluating a request for accommodation when teleworking rather than working in the workplace. A reasonable accommodation that is feasible and does not pose an undue hardship in the workplace might pose one when considering circumstances, such as the place where it is needed and the reason for telework. For example, the fact that the period of telework may be of a temporary or unknown duration may render certain accommodations either not feasible or an undue hardship. There may also be constraints on the normal availability of items or on the ability of an employer to conduct a necessary assessment.

As a practical matter, and in light of the circumstances that led to the need for telework, employers and employees should both be creative and flexible about what can be done when an employee needs a reasonable accommodation for telework at home. If possible, providing interim accommodations might be appropriate while an employer discusses a request with the employee or is waiting for additional information.

D.15.  Assume that an employer grants telework to employees for the purpose of slowing or stopping the spread of COVID-19. When an employer reopens the workplace and recalls employees to the worksite, does the employer automatically have to grant telework as a reasonable accommodation to every employee with a disability who requests to continue this arrangement as an ADA/Rehabilitation Act accommodation?  (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 21)

No. Any time an employee requests a reasonable accommodation, the employer is entitled to understand the disability-related limitation that necessitates an accommodation. If there is no disability-related limitation that requires teleworking, then the employer does not have to provide telework as an accommodation. Or, if there is a disability-related limitation but the employer can effectively address the need with another form of reasonable accommodation at the workplace, then the employer can choose that alternative to telework.

To the extent that an employer is permitting telework to employees because of COVID-19 and is choosing to excuse an employee from performing one or more essential functions, then a request—after the workplace reopens—to continue telework as a reasonable accommodation does not have to be granted if it requires continuing to excuse the employee from performing an essential function. The ADA never requires an employer to eliminate an essential function as an accommodation for an individual with a disability. 

The fact that an employer temporarily excused performance of one or more essential functions when it closed the workplace and enabled employees to telework for the purpose of protecting their safety from COVID-19, or otherwise chose to permit telework, does not mean that the employer permanently changed a job’s essential functions, that telework is always a feasible accommodation, or that it does not pose an undue hardship. These are fact-specific determinations. The employer has no obligation under the ADA to refrain from restoring all of an employee’s essential duties at such time as it chooses to restore the prior work arrangement, and then evaluating any requests for continued or new accommodations under the usual ADA rules.

D.16.  Assume that prior to the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee with a disability had requested telework as a reasonable accommodation. The employee had shown a disability-related need for this accommodation, but the employer denied it because of concerns that the employee would not be able to perform the essential functions remotely. In the past, the employee therefore continued to come to the workplace. However, after the COVID-19 crisis has subsided and temporary telework ends, the employee renews her request for telework as a reasonable accommodation. Can the employer again refuse the request? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 22)

Assuming all the requirements for such a reasonable accommodation are satisfied, the temporary telework experience could be relevant to considering the renewed request. In this situation, for example, the period of providing telework because of the COVID-19 pandemic could serve as a trial period that showed whether or not this employee with a disability could satisfactorily perform all essential functions while working remotely, and the employer should consider any new requests in light of this information. As with all accommodation requests, the employee and the employer should engage in a flexible, cooperative interactive process going forward if this issue does arise.

D.17.  Might the pandemic result in excusable delays during the interactive process? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 19)

Yes. The rapid spread of COVID-19 has disrupted normal work routines and may have resulted in unexpected or increased requests for reasonable accommodation. Although employers and employees should address these requests as soon as possible, the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic may result in delay in discussing requests and in providing accommodation where warranted. Employers and employees are encouraged to use interim solutions to enable employees to keep working as much as possible.

D.18.  Federal agencies are required to have timelines in their written reasonable accommodation procedures governing how quickly they will process requests and provide reasonable accommodations. What happens if circumstances created by the pandemic prevent an agency from meeting this timeline? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 19)

Situations created by the current COVID-19 crisis may constitute an “extenuating circumstance”—something beyond a Federal agency’s control—that may justify exceeding the normal timeline that an agency has adopted in its internal reasonable accommodation procedures. 

Furloughs and Layoffs

F.2.  What are additional EEO considerations in planning furloughs or layoffs? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 13)

The laws enforced by the EEOC prohibit covered employers from selecting people for furlough or layoff because of that individual’s race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, disability, protected genetic information, or in retaliation for protected EEO activity.

Age

H.2.  If an employer is choosing to offer flexibilities to other workers, may older comparable workers be treated less favorably based on age? (9/8/20; adapted from 3/27/20 Webinar Question 12)

No. If an employer is allowing other comparable workers to telework, it should make sure it is not treating older workers less favorably based on their age.

5

Deferring Federal Payroll Tax Obligations and COVID-19

The U.S. Deparment of Treasury issued guidance authorizing deferral of withholding, deposit, and payment of Social Security payroll tax obligations for affected payers.

On August 28, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued guidance to address President Trump’s August 8 memo authorizing the deferral of the withholding, deposit, and payment of Social Security payroll tax obligations for affected taxpayers. Employers are not required to defer the payment of Social Security taxes (the deferral is optional), but any deferred taxes must be repaid. The guidance and the memo do not address whether employees can elect to defer (or decline the deferral of) this federal payroll tax.

Affected taxpayers are defined as employers that:

  • Are required to withhold and pay their employees’ share of federal payroll taxes (OASDI/Social Security taxes and Medicare, collectively FICA); and
  • Are affected by the COVID-19 emergency.

The tax deferral is applicable to:

  • Wages paid September 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020; and
  • Only for employees who earn less than $4,000 during any biweekly pay period, before taxes, or the equivalent amount for other pay periods.

The $4,000 threshold determination is made on a pay period by pay period basis. For instance, if an employee’s pay for one pay period is less than $4,000, that amount is considered applicable wages for that pay period, and the deferral applies to the wages paid to that employee for that pay period, regardless of their wages from other pay periods.

This deferral is without penalty interest, additional amounts, or addition to the tax; however, payment of these taxes is delayed — not forgiven — and the deferred taxes must be paid the following year. Congressional action may change this repayment requirement, but for now, employers must withhold and pay the total applicable taxes that were previously deferred in 2020 — along with those that will be due for 2021 — on the wages they pay between January 1, 2021 and April 30, 2021.

Failure to make these tax payments in 2021 will result in interest and penalties, and additions to tax will begin to accrue on May 1, 2021 on any unpaid amounts. If necessary, employers may plan to otherwise collect the total applicable taxes from the employee.

Note: The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) is automatically deferring the withholding, effective September 2020, and civilian employees’ 6.2 percent OASDI tax withholding will be temporarily deferred if their wages, subject to OASDI, are less than $4,000 in any given pay period. The DoD provides a fact sheet and in depth FAQs addressing the program and deferral. For instance, an FAQ addresses that employees who separate or retire in 2020,before the Social Security tax can be collected in 2021, are still responsible for the Social Security tax repayment.

Download All Updates

Individual state labor laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

Employment Law Updates: August 2020

Posted on by AllMyHR

Have your HR Questions professionally answered quickly.

Use Code: CVD19 for 14 Days Free

Federal & State Employment Law Updates: August 2020

Six States and the District of Columbia have updated their employment laws so far this month, alongside one Federal Law Update.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer your toughest HR questions to help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

Download All Updates
August 2020 Law Alert Map

Labor Law Updates for August 2020

1

Telework and Work Hours

Guidance addressing employers obligation to track teleworking employees compensable hours.

On August 24, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor released Field Assistance Bulletin No. 2020-5 to address employers’ obligation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to track teleworking employees compensable work hours.

Although the guidance is specific to the COVID-19 pandemic, it also applies to other telework or remote work arrangements and reaffirms that an employer must pay its employees for all hours worked, including work not requested but allowed and work performed at home.

Additionally, an employer’s obligation to compensate employees for hours worked can be based on their actual or constructive knowledge of that work. For instance, with telework and remote work employees, an employer:

  • Has actual knowledge of the employees’ regularly scheduled hours; and
  • May have actual knowledge of hours worked through employee reports or other notifications.

For overtime, an employer may establish constructive knowledge of their employees’ unscheduled hours by exercising reasonable diligence and establishing a process for employees to report their extra time. If an employee fails to report unscheduled hours through such a procedure, the employer is generally not required to investigate further to uncover unreported hours. However, if an employer is otherwise notified through a reasonable method, or if employees are not properly instructed on using a reporting system, then an employer may be liable for those hours worked.

2

Form I-9 Compliance Flexibility Extended to September 19

Another extension to the flexibility rules for Form I-9 compliance.

On August 18, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) announced another extension to the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) flexibility rule, which has been extended to September 19, 2020, due to necessary COVID-19 precautions. This flexibility rule, applicable only to remote workplaces, defers the physical presence requirements for in-person verification of identity and employment eligibility documentation for Form I-9. If there are employees physically present at the workplace, then there is no exception for in-person verification.

On March 19, 2020, the DHS first announced that the physical presence requirements were deferred due to COVID-19. Employers are required to monitor the DHS and ICE websites for additional updates regarding when the extensions will be terminated and when normal operations will resume.

3

ADA and Opioid Abuse

The EEOC released guidancde addressing the use of codeine, oxycodone, and other opiods.

On August 5, 2020, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a guidance addressing employees and the use of codeine, oxycodone, and other opioids. This guidance explains the nondiscrimination and reasonable accommodation provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) that are applicable those not engaged in current, illegal drug use and who are qualified for employment. This information is not new policy, instead it applies principles already established in the ADA, clarifies existing legal requirements, and discusses the following:

  • Disqualification from a job for opioid use, legal use of opioids, and drug testing;
  • On the job performance and safety when using opioids, reasonable accommodations, and addiction; and
  • Employee rights and legal process when a violation occurs.

4

Accommodation Strategies for Returning to Work During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Strategies to assist employers in accommodating employees with disabilities and return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic.

On August 3, 2020, the Job Accommodation Network (JAN) posted a blog with strategies covering the following topics to assist employers in accommodating employees with disabilities and their return to work during the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • General solutions for limiting the risk of exposure to COVID-19;
  • Solutions to address physical distancing needs; and
  • Solutions to address communication needs.

However, JAN reminds employers that in some cases it will be necessary to analyze the individual circumstances to provide customized reasonable accommodation solutions.

Download All Updates

Individual State Labor Laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates:

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, one click compliance Handbook ,Compliance Database, HR Tools and Employee Training are ready to help navigate HR all year long. Everything included with your AllMyHR™ Solutions. 

tryhris HR Solutions guarantee and signature

Previous Labor Laws & Information

AllMyHR

Schedule A Demo

The simplest, most cost-effective way to streamline HR, reduce compliance risks, and focus on growing your business.

Contact Us Today

©2025 AllMyHr Company. All Rights Reserved. Terms & Conditions. Website By Commonwealth Creative