Unfortunately, we live in an environment that requires all employers to think about, prepare for, and take appropriate actions to ensure the safety of all employees in active shooter or other emergency situations. Therefore, it is important for employers to offer employees both training and action plans. Most security experts, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) stress the following key points in response to active shooter preparedness:
- Have evacuation and emergency plans in place in all locations.
- Conduct drills and ensure that all employees are trained to be aware of the environments in which they work and to react quickly to evacuate the area in the event of an active shooter situation.
- Ensure that all employees know the locations of the exits nearest to their work areas.
- If evacuation is not possible, employees should know the locations of the best shelter areas and what to do, such as closing and locking the doors and windows immediately, turning off lights and silencing cell phones, establishing sturdy barricades that could possibly withstand gunshots, etc.
- If the situation allows, employees may be trained to take necessary steps to incapacitate the shooter (tackle the shooter or otherwise attempt to incapacitate).
- The simple advice is to run, hide, and as a last resort, fight.
Whenever possible, create your emergency action plans with assistance from local law enforcement authorities. The plan should include all of the following:
- Preferred method of contacting 911.
- Lockdown and evacuation plan.
- Contact information for local hospitals.
- Contact information for, and responsibilities of, individuals to be contacted under your employee assistance plan, if applicable.
In all cases, preparing and having a plan for an active shooter or other emergency will help both employees and managers better prepare for dealing with such a high-stress situation. We also recommend preparing your plan in coordination with law enforcement to ensure best practices.
While your state does not have any specific statutory provisions that would protect an employee who engages in lawful off-duty conduct, I would recommend caution in using such information as the basis for discipline or other harmful employment actions such as restricting their ability to work.
Certain elements of employees’ off-duty conduct (such as attending church for example) may be tied to protected characteristics that could make such actions discriminatory.
Additionally, if engaging in such activities is permissible under state public health ordinances then it may be inconsistent to object to their off-duty conduct as being a threat to workplace safety. If there are not activities prohibited by the state law/executive order that you could point to then you could point to the general CDC guidance recommending that individuals socially distance themselves and avoid gathering in large groups
You would also want to provide some type of advance notice to employees that make it clear that their engaging in certain off duty activities could result in their access to the workplace being limited. You would want to distribute the CDC guidance (found here) to make employees aware that if you find evidence that they are not following such guidance in or out of work that they may be asked to remain outside of the workplace for a specified period of time in the interest of providing a safe work environment under OSHA’s general duty clause.
However, taking action on off-duty behavior can be complicated unless an employee is self-reporting it as your awareness of it would otherwise be coming from third party reports which may not be reliable. You would generally want to have some other type of evidence other than a report by others before taking harmful employment action against an employee.
Again, it may be fine to communicate your expectations and to ask employees about whether they are complying with social distancing recommendations outside of work. Such inquiries may not be viewed as invading an employee’s privacy too much, where it’s a public health recommendation. It may be more complicated to take action if an employee admits to violating CDC guidance or trying to prove it if the employee denies it.
If you have ongoing concerns about workplace safety, then you may first consider using screening procedures (asking employees if they are experiencing symptoms or even temperature checks) and perhaps require employees to wear cloth face coverings as an alternative to potentially disciplining for off-duty conduct.
We recommend extreme caution when deciding to replace an employee who refuses to work because of concerns about COVID-19. Generally, employees do not have a right to refuse to work based only on a generalized fear of becoming ill if their fear is not based on objective evidence of possible exposure. However, under the current circumstances, where COVID-19 continues to be a threat across the country, we think it would be difficult to show that employees have no reason to fear coming in to work, particularly but not exclusively in a location with a shelter-in-place rule. Returning employees may also have certain rights under state and federal law. Here are few things to keep in mind:
-
- Recalled employees may have a right to job-protected leave under a city ordinance, state law, or the federal Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). See our overview of the FFCRA. (Clients Only)
- Employees who are in a high-risk category — either because they are immunocompromised or have an underlying condition that makes them more susceptible to the disease — may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or state law if their situation doesn’t qualify them for leave under the FFCRA (or if they have run out of that leave). It would be a reasonable accommodation under the circumstances to allow the employee to work from home or take an unpaid leave, if working from home is not possible.
- Employees who live with someone who is high risk are not entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal law, but we strongly recommend allowing them to work from home if possible or take an unpaid leave. Otherwise, they may decide to quit and collect unemployment insurance. If you want to keep them as an employee, being compassionate and flexible is your best bet.
- Under Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) rules, an employee’s refusal to perform a task will be protected if all of the following conditions are met:
- Where possible, the employee asked the employer to eliminate the danger, and the employer failed to do so;
- The employee refused to work in “good faith,” which means that the employee must genuinely believe that an imminent danger exists;
- A reasonable person would agree that there is a real danger of death or serious injury; and
- There isn’t enough time, because of the urgency of the hazard, to get it corrected through regular enforcement channels, such as requesting an OSHA inspection.
Check state and local law to see if additional protections may apply.
Instead of replacing employees who express fear at this time, we recommend that you consider methods to encourage employees to come to work and to help put their minds at ease.
Consider emphasizing all of the safety methods you have put in place (such as scheduled hand washing, frequent disinfection of surfaces, social distancing rules, reduced customer capacity, staggered shifts, or more extreme measures if warranted by your industry).
We recommend relying on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and local health department guidance for establishing safe working conditions at this time. You might also consider offering premium pay (a.k.a. hazard pay) or additional paid time off for use in the future to employees who must come to work.
While there is no law that prohibits employers from mandating flu shots — and in some states, the law requires all healthcare workers to get flu shots — you should carefully determine if the benefits to your business outweigh the risks. There has been a rise in litigation brought by employees who object to this requirement for medical, religious or personal reasons. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed or joined several lawsuits over claims that inflexible mandatory vaccination policies are discriminatory.
Employees may be entitled to exemptions from a flu shot policy for medical reasons under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or religious reasons under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Requests for exemptions must be evaluated individually yet treated consistently; a difficult task. You will need to engage in an interactive process with the employee, just as you would for any other request for accommodations, to determine if they can be granted without presenting undue hardship to your company.
The EEOC recommends against mandatory flu shot policies, instead suggesting employers encourage employees get vaccinated on their own. Offering no-cost flu shots on site can further improve workplace vaccination rates by making it more convenient for employees.
If you choose to enact a mandatory flu shot policy, write it carefully to protect your company from the risk of discrimination claims and be sure to run it by your legal counsel. Make sure the policy:
- Is worded concisely.
- Outlines the reasoning behind the policy.
- Is applied consistently. (Managers who enforce it should be trained on the policy and how to handle requests for exemptions.)
- Explains the process for requesting exemptions due to medical contraindications or sincerely held religious beliefs. Any medical information obtained as part of the request for an exemption should be kept confidential.
Most cases of the common flu do not meet the definition of “serious health condition” and would not be eligible for Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) leave.
Some cases of the flu, however, are severe or result in complications, and these have the potential to meet the FMLA definition of “serious health condition.” This is defined as an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves inpatient care or continuing treatment by a healthcare provider. Continuing treatment means:
- The employee has been incapacitated for a period of more than three full days; and
- Consults with a doctor two or more times within 30 days, or
- Has one consult with a doctor and a regimen of continuing treatment.
If an employee is out sick with the flu for more than three days, consider whether the need for FMLA leave may exist. This doesn’t mean that you need to go through the whole FMLA process to determine eligibility for each flu absence; just that you shouldn’t automatically reject FMLA requests for the flu either.
Review each case based on the facts, keep the “serious health condition” definition in mind, and if the illness is severe, ask the employee to submit certification from a health care provider to support the their need for leave protection under the FMLA.
