Coronavirus

Subscribe to Coronavirus via RSS

We recently covered the new paid sick and family leave requirements under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) here. The FFCRA marks the first time Congress required federal paid leave for private sector workers. That is not the case at the state and municipal level, where for years, employers have had to navigate…

In jurisdictions across the country — especially COVID-19 “hot spots” — courts have entered emergency orders suspending trials and hearings, tolling the statute of limitations, and shuttering their doors to conducting anything but the most essential business. Non-essential hearings — including hearings related to non-emergency civil matters — are being conducted through Zoom and Skype to continue court proceedings without violating shelter-in-place orders and social distancing guidelines. In jurisdictions where shelter-in-place orders consider certain “legal services” as essential businesses which must remain open, those partaking must still abide by social-distancing guidelines (including six-foot spacing, and not gathering in groups of more than a minimal number such as 5 or 10), which can make something as routine as taking in-person depositions impossible. At the same time, businesses are reeling from the economic impact of COVID-19, and may find it beneficial to slow the pace of pending litigation. Responding to interrogatories, culling through thousands of emails to find responsive documents, and taking the time to prepare for depositions may not be front-of-mind for businesses simply trying to focus on retaining employees and staying afloat.
Continue Reading Emergency Court Rules for COVID-19 Slows Litigation and Provides Choices for Businesses

Unfortunately, the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic is forcing employers to implement a range of cost-cutting measures — furloughs, temporary office and location closings, and layoffs. As employers continue to adjust operations during these extraordinary times, it is essential to remember the notice obligation under the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification, or WARN, …

As we reported previously, on March 27, 2020, the Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance requiring large employers to provide emergency supplemental paid sick leave to employees affected by COVID-19 who work in the city limits. The ordinance was set to take effect upon signing by Mayor Eric Garcetti as emergency legislation.

However, last night, Mayor Garcetti returned the ordinance to the City Council unsigned, instead issuing a Public Order requiring paid sick leave under his emergency authority. Mayor Garcetti applauded the City Council for passing a supplemental paid sick leave ordinance, but found that the ordinance as drafted needed modification to strike a better balance between helping workers who will likely suffer through layoffs if the City imposes excessive burdens and costs upon businesses, and ensuring that City regulations do not unintentionally cause staffing shortages at hospitals and critical health facilities during the pandemic. The Mayor’s Public Order supersedes the March 27 City Council ordinance, and will remain in effect until two calendar weeks after the expiration of the COVID-19 local emergency period.

The Public Order is available here, and we have summarized its key provisions below. It creates new exemptions for employers with more generous leave programs, and gives credit for paid leave during closures.

Covered Employers, Employees and Required Leave

The Public Order applies to employers with (i) 500 or more employees within the City of Los Angeles or (ii) 2,000 or more employees within the United States.  Employers who do not meet these criteria are not required to provide sick leave – a change from the City Council ordinance that would have applied to employers with 500 or more employees anywhere in the U.S.Continue Reading Los Angeles Mayor Issues Executive Order Modifying LA Emergency Paid Sick Leave Ordinance

Government-imposed stay-at-home orders, essential business designations, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, and employers’ duty to bargain under the National Labor Relations Act recently collided. To complicate matters, unions have proven very aggressive in their demands for information about employer’s responses to COVID-19.

Many unions have demanded decision bargaining over layoffs, or changes in health …

With special thanks to Teresa Michaud and Sara Pitt for contributing.

Revised Health Orders were handed down yesterday across the Bay Area (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Santa Clara, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Berkeley Counties), intended to “clarify, strengthen, and extend” the terms of the prior shelter-in-place orders. Each supersedes its prior order, and provides that the county order is intended to implement more stringent county-level restrictions, to complement the “baseline statewide restrictions” set by Governor Newsom’s Executive Order. In addition, where a conflict exists between the county order and any state public health order, “the most restrictive provision controls,” unless the State Health Officer formally determines that a given provision is a public nuisance.

Under the new orders, “Essential Businesses” remain “strongly encouraged” to remain open, but should maximize the number of employees working from home, and may only require employees to work on-site if their duties cannot be performed from home.

Most importantly, the revised county orders require that businesses that include an essential component, along with non-essential components, must (to the extent feasible) scale down their operations to the essential business component only. In addition, “Essential Businesses must follow industry-specific guidance issued by the Health Officer related to COVID-19.”Continue Reading Revised Bay Area Health Orders Clarify, Extend, and Strengthen Prior Shelter-in-Place Orders

We hope that you, your families and colleagues are safe and doing well. We know these are difficult and challenging times for everyone, including US employers.  As always, we are here to help you navigate the complexities of our current — and quickly changing — environment.

Click here to view our 40-minute on-demand webinar —…

The EEOC recently updated its Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act Guidance, first published in 2009, to specifically address the COVID-19 pandemic. The updated guidance is here.

Significantly, the EEOC confirms that the COVID-19 pandemic meets the “direct threat” standard for employee medical examinations and disability…

At noon today, San Francisco, Alameda, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Marin, and Contra Costa counties extended their Shelter-In-Place Orders until at least May 1, 2020. The original Shelter-In-Place Orders were set to expire on April 7. The joint press release may be found here.

These Orders require all individuals ordered to shelter in place in their residences and for businesses to cease all activities at facilities located within the listed counties and with certain exceptions for: (1) “Essential Businesses” (as defined by the Orders); and (2) “Minimum Basic Operations” for businesses that do not qualify as “Essential Businesses.” The Shelter-In-Place Orders now remain in effect through “at least May 1, 2020,” with the term “at least” indicating further extensions are likely.

The intent of the Orders is to ensure the maximum number of people self-isolate in their places of residence to the maximum extent feasible, while enabling essential services to continue, and to slow the spread of COVID-19 to the maximum extent possible. Although each of the seven Bay Area counties issued a separate Order, the substantive terms of the Orders are the same. Information about California’s separate, state-wide Shelter-In-Place Order may be found here.

What Businesses are Covered by the Orders?Continue Reading San Francisco Bay Area Shelter-In-Place Orders Extended Until “At Least” May 1, 2020

A Statewide Executive Order and comprehensive list of Texas counties and cities with shelter-in-place or stay-at-home orders has been complied.

Note that this does not cover counties that may have less restrictive orders in place, similar to the restaurant and bar bans that were prevalent last week (i.e., a county or city’s absence…