Special thanks to Scott McMillen.
Looking Ahead: Exploring the Key Themes and Recommendations for US and Global Employers in 2023
Between maintaining business continuity and keeping your workforce safe, we know there’s been little time to track the rapidly changing employment, compensation and mobility law landscape — in Illinois, across the US, and globally.
Special thanks to presenters: Jennifer Bernardo, Jeremy Hann, Andrew Shaw, Ajanthana Anandarajah, Dave Bushuev, Matthew De Lio, Rono Khan, Junaid Malik & Juliette Mestre.
The new year brings new challenges for employers. Join us as we take stock of changes over the last year and strategize for
Effective January 1, 2023, California employers must continue to provide notification to employees of COVID-19 exposure in the workplace through 2023, but will be able to satisfy the notification obligation by displaying a notice in the workplace. On September 29, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2693 into law, revising and extending the existing obligation for
Special thanks to guest contributor, Melissa Allchin.
COVID-19 has been a mainstay for over two years now. Notwithstanding the pandemic’s devastating impacts, employers (and employees) have tired of thinking about COVID-19, and are ready to allocate their energy and resources to other pressing matters, such as the economic crisis or transformative geopolitical events.
Though
Special thanks to presenter Melissa Allchin.
The possibility of putting COVID-19 in our collective rearview mirrors grows every day. But before we declare the pandemic over, our Labor & Employment and Immigration lawyers discuss the key items employers should keep in mind as we head towards the pandemic’s exit, including:
Employers across the U.S. are requiring employees to return to the brick and-mortar workplace as COVID-19 cases drop, and they are looking forward to having employees work together again face to face.
But employers beware: employees have had little in-person interaction with their colleagues over the past two years, and some employees who were onboarded
As the COVID-19 Omicron wave recedes and the desire to get back to a pre-pandemic “normal” is stronger than ever, scores of states have either lifted mask mandates or have set a date for lifting them. But what should employers take into account before allowing employees to toss masks aside?
In this Quick Chat video,
As the Omicron wave recedes, a raft of states have announced plans to lift their mask mandates.
In the past few days alone, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island have announced changes to their face covering rules. And if the number of Omicron cases continues to dwindle
On February 9, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation (Senate Bill 114) providing up to two additional weeks of paid time off if an employee is sick with COVID-19, or if they have to take care of a family member who contracts the disease. The law takes effect immediately and is retroactive to January 1, 2022, but an employer’s obligation to provide 2022 COVID-19 supplemental California paid sick leave (CPSL) does not begin until 10 days after the governor signs: February 19, 2022. Leave is available through September 30, 2022.
The law is similar to legislation that expired in September last year.
Small businesses are exempt. The new law only applies to businesses with 26 employees or more.
Covered employees are those unable to work or telework due to certain reasons related to COVID-19, including:
On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court issued two opinions in which the Court (1) blocked enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (OSHA ETS) and (2) allowed enforcement of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate for healthcare workers at Medicare and Medicaid covered facilities.
While the federal contractor vaccination mandate (Contractor Mandate) was not the subject of those cases, the Supreme Court’s decisions hint at its future–and it’s grim.
The Contractor Mandate is Currently Stayed
The Contractor Mandate is currently stayed by multiple district courts. And the 6th Circuit and the 11th Circuit have both declined to lift those stays. There are two more appeals pending in the 5th and 8th Circuits. Resolution of these cases will take months. In the meantime, the federal government cannot enforce the Contractor Mandate. Therefore, the likeliest option is that the Supreme Court simply lets the various Contractor Mandate cases run their course.
However, there’s always a chance the Supreme Court decides to intervene and hear appeals on the stays – as it did with the OSHA ETS and CMS vaccine mandate. If this happens, the Contractor Mandate is in trouble. Here’s why.
The OSHA Opinion (NFIB v. OSHA): OSHA Is Not Authorized to Regulate Public Health
First, an overview of the Supreme Court’s OSHA opinion. On January 13, 2022, the conservative majority of Supreme Court ruled that the parties challenging the ETS are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that OSHA lacked statutory authority to impose the ETS. The majority held that while OSHA is empowered by statute to regulate workplace safety standards and occupational hazards, it has not been authorized to regulate “public health standards” and “the hazards of daily life” more broadly.
The Court acknowledged that the pandemic is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, but distinguished COVID-19 from the typical occupational hazard because it has spread everywhere “that people gather.” The Court characterized COVID-19 as a “kind of universal risk” that is no different from the “day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution or any number of communicable diseases.” The Court concluded that permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while working would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory purview.
The Court said that “we expect Congress to speak clearly when authorizing an agency to exercise powers of vast economic and political significance.” After reviewing the statutory text, the Court found that the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSH Act) does not clearly authorize OSHA to regulate public health through the ETS. The Court further noted that OSHA has “never before adopted a broad public health regulation…addressing a threat that is untethered…from the workplace.” Put simply, the Court decided that the ETS is not “what the agency was built for.”
