COVID-19

Subscribe to COVID-19 via RSS

The Oregon Health Authority recently updated the state’s COVID-19 guidance to expand the use of face coverings to public and private offices. Under the new rule, masks, face coverings, or face shields are required at all times for office employees, including in hallways, bathrooms, elevators, lobbies, break rooms, and other common spaces, unless employees…

On August 3, 2020, a federal judge in the Southern District of New York held that four provisions of the U.S. Department of Labor’s (DOL) Final Rule (the Final Rule) implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) are invalid.  This ruling is limited for now, as the court did not issue a nation-wide injunction, but its reasoning could be applied in other jurisdictions around the country.  For that reason, employers should be aware that changes to FFCRA obligations may be forthcoming.

As we discussed in a previous post, the FFCRA obligates employers to offer sick leave and expanded family leave to employees who cannot work because of certain reasons related to the pandemic.  At issue here are two major provisions of the FFCRA: Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (EFMLEA), which entitles employees to partially paid leave to care for a dependent child due to COVID-19 school or daycare closures, and the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA), which requires employers to provide paid sick leave to employees who are experiencing one of six qualifying COVID-19-related circumstances.  (See here for additional information.)

After concluding that New York had standing to challenge DOL’s Final Rule, the court considered the validity of four provisions: the work-availability requirement, the definition of health care provider, the prohibition on intermittent leave, and the documentation requirements.
Continue Reading New York Federal District Court Rules Four Provisions of COVID-19 Paid Leave Rule Invalid

The legal landscape continues to shift rapidly during the COVID-19 pandemic.  As we reported here and here, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) guidance allows employers to require employee temperature checks, as well as worker testing aimed at detecting COVID-19, even though such testing by an employer would ordinarily raise issues under the Americans with…

Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued an order this week making her earlier Mask, Face Shield, and Face Covering Guidance applicable statewide effective July 1, 2020.  Although the media has generally described the guidance as applying to all businesses, it is only required of the following covered businesses:

  • Grocery stores
  • Fitness-related organizations
  • Pharmacies
  • Public transit

…

On June 25, Governor Gary Herbert approved requests by leaders in Salt Lake and Summit Counties to require face coverings in indoor and outdoor settings where social distancing is difficult or impossible.  The Governor had previously mandated the use of face coverings in state buildings, including state offices, liquor stores, colleges, and universities.

Salt Lake…

On June 23, Governor Jay Inslee announced that facial coverings will be mandatory statewide.  Starting Friday, June 26, anyone in a public space must wear face coverings.  The mandate includes indoor public spaces and outdoor public areas where physical distancing of six feet is not possible.  Individuals may remove face coverings while eating or drinking…

Pursuant to Oregon Health Authority (OHA) guidance, employers in certain businesses must require employees, contractors, and volunteers to wear a mask, face covering, or face shield, unless an accommodation for people with disabilities or other exemption applies. On June 11, 2020, the OHA issued updated guidance explaining that face coverings are not required when eating/drinking…

Amendments to the Washington Paid Family and Medical Leave Act (“WPFMLA”) that went into effect June 11, 2020 include a new private right of action for employees. Under the WPFMLA, employers are prohibited from interfering with, discriminating against, or retaliating against employees exercising their rights under the Act. Previously, any claims of interference, discrimination, or…