Employment Law Updates: January 2022

Employment Law Updates: January 2022

Five Federal and eighteen State Law Updates have been issued this month.  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.

Federal Labor Law Updates:

1

2021 EEO-1 Component 1 Data Collection Tentatively Opens on April 12, 2022

The 2021 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection is tentatively scheduled to open on Tuesday, April 12th, 2022. The tentative deadline to file the 2021 EEO-1 Component 1 Report
is Tuesday, May 17th, 2022. Updates regarding the 2021 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection will be posted on this website as they become available.

Additionally, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is discontinuing the EEO-1 Component 1 Type 6 Establishment List Report for reporting establishments with fewer than 50 employees. Beginning with the 2021 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection, all filers reporting data for establishments with fewer than 50 employees must use a Type 8 Establishment Report to submit their data.

Back To Top

2

COVID and ADA

The Justice Department updated its Common Questions About COVID and the ADA to address the following COVID-era issues affecting people with disabilities:

Medical facilities’ visitor policies must account for the rights of people with disabilities to receive equal access to care; and outdoor retail or dining spaces (sometimes called “streateries”) must be accessible to people with disabilities and not prevent their use of sidewalks and accessible parking.

Back To Top

3

COVID-19 FAQs and Mandatory Coverage for Free OTC At-Home Tests by January 15, 2022

On January 10, 2022, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) posted its FAQs regarding implementation of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), and the Affordable Care Act. These FAQs were prepared jointly by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and the Treasury and—like previously issued FAQs here and here—answer questions about the laws and legal compliance.

Importantly, the new FAQs discuss the Biden-Harris administration’s requirement that insurance companies and group health plans cover the cost of over-the-counter (OTC), at- home COVID-19 tests, so people with private health coverage can get them for free starting January 15th. According to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, this new coverage requirement means that most consumers with private health coverage can go online or to a pharmacy or store, buy a test, and either get it paid for up front by their health plan, or get reimbursed for the cost by submitting a claim to their plan. This requirement incentivizes insurers to cover these costs up front and ensures individuals do not need an order from their health care provider to access these tests for free.

Beginning January 15, 2022, individuals with private health insurance coverage or covered by a group health plan who purchase an over-the-counter COVID-19 diagnostic test authorized, cleared, or approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will be able to have those test costs covered by their plan or insurance. Insurance companies and health plans are required to cover eight free over-the-counter at-home tests per covered individual per month. That means a family of four, all on the same plan, would be able to get up to 32 of these tests covered by their health plan per month. There is no limit on the number of tests, including at-home tests, that are covered if ordered or administered by a health care provider following an individualized clinical assessment, including for those who may need them due to underlying medical conditions.

Over-the-counter test purchases will be covered in the commercial market without the need for a health care provider’s order or individualized clinical assessment, and without any cost-sharing requirements such as deductibles, co-payments or coinsurance, prior authorization, or other medical management requirements.

As part of the requirement, the Administration is incentivizing insurers and group health plans to set up programs that allow people to get the over-the-counter tests directly through preferred pharmacies, retailers or other entities with no out-of-pocket
costs. Insurers and plans would cover the costs upfront, eliminating the need for consumers to submit a claim for reimbursement. When plans and insurers make tests available for upfront coverage through preferred pharmacies or retailers, they are still required to reimburse tests purchased by consumers outside of that network, at a rate of up to $12 per individual test (or the cost of the test, if less than $12). For example, if an individual has a plan that offers direct coverage through their preferred pharmacy but that individual instead purchases tests through an online retailer, the plan is still required to reimburse them up to $12 per individual test. Consumers can find out more information from their plan about how their plan or insurer will cover over-the-counter tests.

State Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs are currently required to cover FDA-authorized at-home COVID-19 tests without cost-sharing. In 2021, the Biden-Harris Administration issued guidance explaining that State Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) programs must cover all types of FDA- authorized COVID-19 tests without cost sharing under CMS’s interpretation of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2019 (ARP). Medicare pays for COVID-19 diagnostic tests performed by a laboratory, such as PCR and antigen tests, with no beneficiary cost sharing when the test is ordered by a physician, non-physician practitioner, pharmacist, or other authorized health care professional.

Back To Top

4

Supreme Court Halts OSHA ETS

The United States Supreme Court has halted the OSHA vaccine-or-test Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). As a result, covered employers (those with 100 or more employees) are not currently required to comply with the ETS.

Employers should continue to comply with all other federal, state, and local requirements— this ruling only affects the OSHA ETS. If you’re in a state with an OSHA State Plan,
you should continue to keep an eye out for state OSHA requirements.

The Supreme Court ruling was limited to whether the stay should be put back in place. The case now returns to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to determine whether the ETS is beyond OSHA’s authority. Based on the reasoning of the Supreme Court, which indicated that OSHA had overstepped its bounds by regulating public health generally rather

than just occupational health, it seems unlikely that the ETS will be revived. This post has been changed since its original publication.

Back To Top

5

Processing Vaccination Accommodation Requests under the ADA

On January 14, 2022, the Job Accommodation Network published Processing Vaccination Accommodation Requests under the Americans with Disabilities Act outlining a sample process for employers to determine whether they must grant a vaccination exception or delay as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA when employees are subject to a federal or state-imposed vaccination mandate or an employer policy. When an employee requests an accommodation and the disability and need for the accommodation are not obvious or already documented, the employer can require reasonable medical documentation. There is no required ADA medical documentation request form, but the Safer Federal Workforce provides a template for federal employers that can be modified by other employers as needed.

Is the employee unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 because of a disability?

No: Deny the request under the ADA, apply other laws if appropriate, or follow usual policies.
Yes: Can the employee safely work while unvaccinated in the current job and work environment?

Yes: Allow the vaccination exception or delay.
No: Can accommodations be provided to eliminate or reduce exposure risk to an acceptable level, absent undue hardship?

Yes: Grant the vaccination exception or delay and provide the accommodations.
No: Deny the request under the ADA, apply other laws if appropriate, or follow usual policies.

More information is located at FAQ: COVID-19 Vaccination and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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: December 2021

Employment Law Updates: December 2021

Four Federal, one District of Columbia, and fourteen State Law Updates have been issued this month.  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.

Federal Labor Law Updates:

1

Federal Contractor Minimum Wage and Final Tip Rules: Compliance Reminder

Minimum Wage

Beginning January 30, 2022, the minimum wage for work performed on or in connection with covered federal contracts will increase to $15.00 per hour. The minimum base wage for covered tipped employees will be $10.50 per hour.

A helpful FAQ can be found here.

80/20 Tip Credit Rule Restored

The Department of Labor’s (DOL) tip rule has been in limbo for the last year, but as of December 28, 2021, a new rule will be in effect. In the rule, the DOL makes it clear that an employer may only take a tip credit when its tipped employees perform work that is part of the employee’s tipped occupation. Work that is part of the tipped occupation includes work that produces tips as well as work that directly supports tip-producing work, provided that the directly supporting work is not performed for a substantial amount of time.

The DOL gives some useful examples of work that would be considered part of the employee’s tipped occupation and work that would not be considered part of their tipped occupation.

  • A server providing table service, such as taking orders, making recommendations, and serving food and drink — YES. That server preparing food, including salads, and cleaning the kitchen or bathrooms — NO.
  • A bartender making and serving drinks, talking to customers at the bar and, if the bar includes food service, serving food to customers — YES. That bartender cleaning the dining room or bathroom — NO.
  • A nail technician performing manicures and pedicures and assisting the patron to select the type of service — YES. That nail tech ordering supplies for the salon — NO.
  • A busser assisting servers with their tip-producing work for customers, such as table service, including filling water glasses, clearing dishes from tables, fetching and delivering items to and from tables, and bussing tables, including changing linens and setting tables — YES. That busser cleaning the kitchen or bathrooms — NO.
  • A parking attendant parking and retrieving cars and moving cars to retrieve a car at the request of customer — YES. That parking attendant servicing vehicles — NO.
  • A hotel housekeeper cleaning hotel rooms — YES. That housekeeper cleaning non- residential parts of a hotel, such as the exercise room, restaurant, and meeting rooms — NO.
  • A hotel bellhop assisting customers with their luggage — YES. That bellhop retrieving room service trays from guest rooms — NO.

 

In addition to work that produces tips (like the YES examples above), employees often perform work that is directly supporting their tip-producing work. For example, a server’s directly supporting work includes dining room prep, such as refilling salt and pepper shakers and ketchup bottles, rolling silverware, folding napkins, sweeping or vacuuming under tables in the dining area, and setting and bussing tables. Employers can take a tip credit when employee are doing directly supporting work up to a limit — once an employee spends a substantial amount of time on directly supporting work, the DOL considers them to be no longer engaged in their tipped occupation.

A substantial amount of time is defined as more than either 20% of the employee’s hours worked in a workweek while the employer is taking a tip credit or 30 continuous minutes. Once an employee has done directly supporting work for a substantial amount of time, the employer must stop taking a tip credit until the employee resumes clearly tip-producing activities.

Work that does not directly support their tip-producing work (such as the “NO” examples above) must always be paid without a tip credit.

You can read the rule and a lengthy explanation of how the DOL arrived where it did here. To find examples of how to calculate the amount of time that can be spent on directly supporting work while still applying a tip credit, search the linked document (the rule) for “5 hours.”

Back To Top

2

Federal: EEOC Guidance on COVID-19, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Disability

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission updated its What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws guidance by adding Section N that addresses:

  • How the ADA defines disability and how the definition applies to COVID-19.
  • When COVID-19 is an actual disability under the ADA and that it isn’t always an actual disability.
  • Examples of way that an individual with COVID-19 might or might not be substantially limited in a major life activity.
  • Depending on the facts, a person who has or had COVID-19 can be an individual with a record of a disability.
  • A person can be regarded as an individual with a disability if they have COVID-19 or their employer mistakenly believes they have COVID-19.
  • Examples of an employer regarding a person with COVID-19 as an individual with a disability.
  • An employer has not automatically discriminated against a person by regarding them as having a disability, for example the employer took an adverse action against the person because they have COVID-19 that is not both transitory and minor, for purposes of the ADA. It’s possible that an employer may not have engaged in unlawful discrimination under the ADA even if it took an adverse action based on an impairment. For example, an individual still needs to be qualified for the job held or desired.
  • A condition caused or worsened by COVID-19 can be a disability under the ADA.
  • An individual must establish coverage under a particular definition of disability to be eligible for a reasonable accommodation.
  • Employers can request supporting medical documentation before granting an employee’s request for a reasonable accommodation related to COVID-19.
  • Employers may voluntarily provide accommodations requested by an applicant or employee due to COVID-19, even if not required to do so under the ADA.
  • Employers that subjected an applicant or employee to an adverse action, and the applicant or employee is covered under any one of the three ADA definitions of disability, haven’t automatically violated the ADA because having a disability, alone, does not mean an individual was subjected to an unlawful employment action under the ADA.
  • ADA protections do apply to applicants or employees who do not meet an ADA definition of disability because the ADA’s requirements about disability-related inquiries and medical exams, medical confidentiality, retaliation, and interference apply to all applicants and employees, regardless of whether they have an ADA disability.


(Updated December 14, 2021)

Back To Top

3

Federal: Extension of Form I-9 Flexibility Into 2022

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) extended the Form I-9 compliance flexibility until April 30, 2022 due to necessary COVID-19 precautions. This extension continues to apply the guidance previously issued for employees hired on or after April 1, 2021, and work exclusively in a remote setting due to COVID-19-related precautions. Those employees are temporarily exempt from the physical inspection requirements for the Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9) until the earlier of:

Their working non-remotely on a regular, consistent, or predictable basis; or The extension ends.

On March 20, 2020, the Department of Homeland Security announced its deferral of the physical presence requirements for the Form I-9 to protect employees and employers from COVID-19. However, 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 the form.

(ICE announcement December 15, 2021)

Back To Top

4

Federal: OSHA Vaccine-or-Test Mandate is Back with New Deadlines

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay on the OSHA vaccine-or-test mandate (the Emergency Temporary Standard, or ETS), which applies to employers with 100 or more employees. This decision is already being appealed, and the ETS could be put on hold once again. We’ll let you know if that happens.

Lifting of the stay means that the ETS is in immediate effect nationwide and employers should begin to comply. The first compliance deadline was December 6 (for policies, notices, masking, vaccination status, etc.), and employers were supposed to begin testing unvaccinated employees by January 4. However, OSHA recognizes that compliance in such a short time frame is not feasible for many employers, so has said the following about enforcement:

“To provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance, OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements
before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard. OSHA will work closely with the regulated community to provide compliance assistance.”

We encourage you to review the materials that have been released by OSHA to help you understand your compliance obligations. Keep in mind that they likely haven’t updated the deadlines in the materials yet.

Back To Top

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: December 2020

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.

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 Lawspublication 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.

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

State Employment Law Update: June 2020

Use Code: CVD19 for 14 Days Free

Federal & State Employment Law Updates: June 2020

Seventeen states have updated their employment laws so far this month, alongside eight Federal Employment Law Updates.  Our HR Advisors are versed and ready to answer all your HR questions and help your company through working remotely, coming back to work and all year long.

June 2020 States Law Updates

Labor Law Updates for June 2020

1

DOL and Pandemic’s Effects on Employees and the Workplace

On June 26, 2020, the U.S. Department of Labor released the following two Field Assistance Bulletins (FAB) to clarify issues relevant to the pandemic’s effects on employees and the workplace.

  • FAB 2020-3: Schools that are physically closed in response to COVID-19 are in session under federal child labor laws for minors under 16 who are working in agricultural and nonagricultural employment. Generally, school is in session if the local, public school district requires its students to participate in virtual or distance learning, even if they are physically closed. Conversely, a physically closed school is not in session if virtual or distance learning is not required.
  • FAB 2020-4: An employee may take Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) leave if they are unable to work or telework because they need to care for their child whose place of care is closed because of COVID-19. A place of care is a physical location in which care is provided for the employee’s child while the employee works and includes summer camps and summer enrichment programs.

See all FABs

2

Form I-9 Examples for Temporary COVID-19 Policies

On June 16, 2020, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services updated its webpage with the following Form I-9 examples related to temporary COVID-19 policies:

  • How to notate remote inspections and subsequent physical inspections.
  • How to notate extended List B documents.

These examples demonstrate how the Department of Homeland Security recommends that employers notate Form I-9 when remotely inspecting employment authorization and identity documents and then subsequently performing the required physical inspection once their normal operations resume. Employers are not required to update their Forms I-9 based on these examples if there are differences.

3

COVID-19 and Immigration Suspensions

On June 22, 2020, President Trump continued and expanded limitations on immigration during COVID-19 by signing a Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants and Nonimmigrants Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak. This is an extension of Proclamation No. 10014, Proclamation Suspending Entry of Immigrants Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market During the Economic Recovery Following the COVID-19 Outbreak, which was originally enacted on April 22, 2020.

Accordingly, entry to the U.S. pursuant to any of the following nonimmigrant visas is prohibited:

  • H-1B visa;
  • H-2B visa (unrelated to temporary labor or services essential to the U.S. food supply chain);
  • J visas (except for interns, trainees, teachers, camp counselors, au pairs, or in connection with a summer work travel program);
  • L visas.

These proclamations include additional suspension and entry limitations (see each proclamation for the specifications) and do not apply to U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, or valid immigrant visa holders. Additionally, they provide exceptions for the following:

  • Certain healthcare professionals critical to COVID-19;
  • Those seeking U.S. entry under an EB-5 investor visa;
  • U.S. citizens’ spouses and children (categories IR2, CR2, IR3, IH3, IR4, IH4);
  • U.S. Armed Forces members and their spouses and children;
  • Those seeking to enter the U.S. under an Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa (SQ or SI-SIV).
  • Those seeking to provide temporary labor services essential the United States food supply chain; and
  • Those whose entry would be in the national interest as determined by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or their respective designees. 

Routine visas services also continue to be suspended at U.S. posts worldwide as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, but embassies and consulates may continue to provide emergency and mission-critical visa services. Mission-critical immigrant visa categories include applicants who may be eligible for an exception under these presidential proclamations, such as: IR/CR1, IR/CR2, IR/IH-3, IR/IH-4, SQ, SI, certain medical professionals, and those providing temporary labor or services essential to U.S. food supply chain, as well as cases involving an applicant who may age out of their visa category.  

The extended proclamation took effect June 24, 2020 and expires December 31, 2020.

4

COVID-19 and Taxpayer Relief for Retirement Plan Distributions or Loans

On June 19, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released guidance for COVID-19-related distributions and loans from retirement plans under the CARES ACT. Under the CARES Act, qualified individuals may treat as COVID-19-related distributions up to $100,000 from their eligible retirement plans (including IRAs) between January 1 and December 30, 2020. A COVID-19-related distribution is:

  • Not subject to the 10 percent additional tax that otherwise generally applies to distributions made before an individual reaches age 59 ½;
  • Can be included in income in equal installments over a three-year period; and
  • Individuals have three years to repay this distribution to a plan or IRA and undo its tax consequences.

 

The CARES Act also allows plans to suspend loan repayments that are due from March 27 through December 31, 2020, and the dollar limit on loans made between March 27 and September 22, 2020, is increased from $50,000 to $100,000.

As authorized under the CARES Act, the IRS guidance expands the definition of qualified individuals to anyone who:

  • Is diagnosed, or whose spouse or dependent is diagnosed, with COVID-19 by a test approved by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (including a test authorized under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act); or
  • Experiences adverse financial consequences because they, their spouse, or a member of their household is:
    • Quarantined, furloughed or laid off, or their work hours were reduced due to COVID-19;
    • Unable to work because of a lack of childcare due to COVID-19;
    • Closing or reducing the hours of their owned/operated business due to COVID-19;
    • Experiencing a reduction in pay or self-employment income due to COVID-19; or
    • Experiencing a job offer rescission or delay in start date due to COVID-19.

 

Employers can choose whether to implement these COVID-19-related distribution and loan rules, and qualified individuals can claim the tax benefits of COVID-19-related distribution rules even if plan provisions are not changed. Administrators may rely on an individual’s certification that they are qualified individual (and who provides a sample certification), but an individual must also actually be a qualified individual in order to obtain favorable tax treatment. Employers have a safe harbor procedure for implementing the suspension of loan repayments otherwise due through the end of 2020, but there may be other reasonable ways to administer these rules.

Read the guidance and more on the IRS Coronavirus Tax Relief pages.

5

Supreme Court Upholds DACA

On June 18, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled, in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act. The ruling states:

“In the summer of 2012, DHS announced an immigration program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. That program allows certain unauthorized aliens who entered the United States as children to apply for a two-year forbearance of removal. Those granted such relief are also eligible for work authorization and various federal benefits. Some 700,000 aliens have availed themselves of this opportunity.

Five years later, the Attorney General advised DHS to rescind DACA, based on his conclusion that it was unlawful. The Department’s Acting Secretary issued a memorandum terminating the program on that basis. The termination was challenged by affected individuals and third parties who alleged, among other things, that the Acting Secretary had violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by failing to adequately address important factors bearing on her decision. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the Acting Secretary did violate the APA, and that the rescission must be vacated.”

SCOTUS’s decision was not a final resolution on the DACA program, but instead addressed the current Presidential administration’s attempt to terminate it without adequate justification. Subsequent to this holding, DACA and its protections, will remain in place pending any future legal action.

Read the ruling and archived material about DACA

6

SCOTUS Rules Federal Law Prohibits Employment Discrimination Against LGBTQ+ Employees

On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in a landmark case, Bostock v. Clayton County, that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII).

Under Title VII, it is unlawful for an employer to discriminate against any individual in any employment-related benefit, term, or condition (hiring, firing, promotion, etc.) because of their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. In this case, the court discussed that an employer violates Title VII when it intentionally fires (or refuses to hire) an individual based in part on sex. It is irrelevant if other factors, aside from the individual’s sex, contributed to the employer’s decision. This is because it is a Title VII violation if an employer intentionally relies in part on an individual employee’s sex when deciding to discharge them. In Bostock, the court held that because discrimination on the basis of homosexuality or transgender status requires an employer to intentionally treat individuals differently because of their sex, an employer who intentionally penalizes an individual for being homosexual or transgender also violates Title VII.

The court also clarified that:

  • It is irrelevant what an employer might call its discriminatory practice, how others might label it, or what else might motivate it. When an employer fires an employee for being homosexual or transgender, it necessarily intentionally discriminates against that individual in part because of sex. 
  • An individual’s sex does not need to be the sole or primary cause of the employer’s adverse action. It is of no significance if another factor, such as an individual’s attraction to the same sex or presentation as a different sex from the one assigned at birth, might also be at work, or even play a more important role in the employer’s decision.
  • Employers cannot escape liability by demonstrating it treats males and females comparably as group. An employer who intentionally fires an individual homosexual or transgender employee in part because of their sex violates the law even if the employer is willing to subject all male and female homosexual or transgender employees to the same rule.

The court clearly stated, “In Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee. We do not hesitate to recognize today a necessary consequence of that legislative choice: An employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.”

This ruling takes immediate effect.

Read the ruling

7

Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act

On June 5, 2020, President Trump signed legislation (H.R. 7010) enacting the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act (PPPFA), which amends the CARES Act’s Payroll Protection Program (PPP). Some of the key amendments are:

  • The covered period during which borrowers must spend PPP funds was expanded to 24 weeks (from eight weeks), or by December 31, 2020, whichever is earlier. This is effective immediately and applicable to all loans as if the language were part of the original CARES Act. However, borrowers may choose to retain the eight-week covered period if they received their PPP loans prior to June 4, 2020.
  • The date when workers must be rehired was extended to December 31, 2020 (originally June 30, 2020).
  • Rehiring requirements were relaxed through a new loan forgiveness exemption based on employee availability from February 15 – December 31, 2020. During this time, loan forgiveness will be determined without regard to a proportional reduction in the number of full-time equivalent employees if the borrower can document in good faith that:
    • They were unable to rehire former employees on February 15, 2020 and are unable to hire similarly qualified employees for unfilled positions by December 31, 2020; or
    • They are unable to return to their pre-COVID-19 level of business activity (prior to February 15, 2020) because of federal safety and health requirements (issued from March 1 – December 31, 2020) for sanitation, social distancing, or any other worker or customer COVID-19-related safety requirement.
  • Businesses now have five years to repay a loan and the first payment will be deferred for six months after a forgiveness determination. This is only applicable to loans made on or after June 5, 2020.
  • Borrowers must now spend 60 percent of the loan on payroll (the prior allocation was 75 percent payroll and 25 for other expenses).
  • Employers may delay paying Social Security payroll taxes through December 31, 2020. This is effective immediately and applicable to all loans as if the language were part of the original CARES Act.

The Small Business Association and Treasury Department are expected to release detailed guidance on the PPPFA and more.

Read US H.R. 7010.

8

Mental Health and Stress Resources

In response to the COVID-19 outbreak and subsequent fallout, the following federal resources are available to share with your employees:

  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Coping with Stress page provides information about handling the stress of an outbreak, reactions, caring for yourself and your community, who is at a higher risk, and coming out of quarantine.
  • The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) offers the following resources:
    • COVID-19 Behavioral Health Resources lists a collection of resources created by federal agencies and their partners to help healthcare providers, caregivers, and the general population prepare for and manage the negative behavioral effects that can accompany a public health emergency.
    • Mental Health and Coping links to resources and advice to help individuals cope and to support their mental and behavioral health during the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these resources are available in multiple languages.
  • The HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) COVID-19 resources page links to resources to help individuals, providers, communities, and states across the country deal with mental health challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) COVID-19 Partner Toolkit links to CMS and HHS materials on COVID-19. 
  • The National Council for Behavioral Health’s Resources for COVID-19 provides links to resources for managing mental health during COVID-19 as well as tax, loan, and leave information for employers and employees.
  • The National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors COVID-19 Resource Links page provides federal government COVID-19 compliance resource links, state health department links, and more.

Individual State Labor Laws

State Specific Labor Law Updates

Compliance can weigh down even the most experienced professionals. Our HR Advisors, automatically updating 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