COVID-19

Private Sector Vaccine Mandate Blocked by United States Supreme Court

On January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States (“SCOTUS”) ruled against the Biden Administration’s vaccine mandate for private U.S. Companies leaving only one exception for health care workers. 

The Private Sector Vaccine Mandate was announced by the Biden Administration in November of 2021 and required U.S. companies with at least 100 employees to require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested on a weekly basis starting January 4, 2022. The mandate was set to be enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”). 

The SCOTUS ruled that the Biden Administration cannot enforce a vaccine-or-test requirement for private entities. However, an exception was made for healthcare workers employed at federally funded healthcare facilities. The Court’s ruling allows for most health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested on a weekly basis. As a result, OSHA will continue to enforce the vaccine mandate for the small population of unvaccinated health care workers. 

Despite the ruling, the traditional rules of exemption continue to apply. Click here to learn more about the religious and disability exemptions that apply

What You Need to Know About the New Vaccine Mandate for Companies with More Than 100 Employees

Today, more than 70 percent of Americans are vaccinated against COVID-19. President Biden and his administration continue to take active efforts to close the gap to ensure all Americans are vaccinated.

As a result, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has issued a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private U.S. companies with at least 100 employees along with supporting guidelines. The vaccine mandate will cover 84 million people employed in the private sector. 

Starting January 4, 2022, workers at U.S. companies with at least 100 employees will be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or be tested on a weekly basis. Workers must receive their second shot of Pfizer or Moderna’s two-dose vaccines or a single of Johnson & Johnson by January 4, 2022, or be subjected to weekly testing. 

While employers are not required to pay or provide testing for unvaccinated employees, they may be required to do so under local laws or collective bargaining agreements.

In addition, starting December 5, 2021, all qualifying employers are required to provide paid time for their employees to get vaccinated, and if needed, sick leave to recover from side effects experienced that preclude them from working. 

As of November 10, 2021, the OSHA guidelines preempt any inconsistent state or local laws, including laws that ban or limit an employer’s authority to require vaccination, masks, or testing. 

Who is exempt?

Employees who work remotely, perform their work exclusively outside, or go to a workplace where other people are not present will not be required to be vaccinated or meet the weekly testing requirements. 

However, the traditional religious and disability exemption apply. Click here to learn more about the religious and disability exemptions that apply. 

Proyecto de Ley en California Protégé a Trabajadores de Almacén de Cuotas Inseguras

El 8 de Septiembre 2021, el Senado de California paso AB 701, un proyecto de ley dirigido hacia proporcionar limitaciones a las empresas que les imponen cuotas de velocidad a los trabajadores de almacén en centros de distribución de almacén. 

El proposito del proyecto de ley es asegurarse que los empleados no sean requeridos a cumplir las cuotas que previenen el cumplimiento de períodos de comida o descanso, uso de baños o leyes de salud y seguridad ocupacional.

Si se firma como ley, ¿qué protecciones se requerirán?

El proyecto de ley requiere que los empleadores proporcionen una descripción por escrito de cada cuota a la que están sujetos los empleados, incluida la cantidad cuantificada de proyectos que se realizarán o materiales que se producirán o manipularán, y cualquier acción laboral adversa potencial que pudiera resultar de no cumplir con la cuota dentro de 30 días después de la contratación o dentro de los 30 días posteriores a la entrada en vigencia de la ley.

El proyecto de ley proporciona transparencia entre la empresa y el empleado en cuanto a los niveles de productividad esperada de cada empleado. Tambien évitara que las empresas despidan a sus empleados por no cumplir con cuotas poco realisticas que forzan a los empleados a comprometer su salud y seguridad para cumplir con las demandas de las empresas.

Empleados Tienen El Derecho a Solicitar y Revisar Cuotas

Bajo AB 701, si un empleado actual o anterior cree que cumplir con una cuota causó una violación de su derecho a una comida o un período de descanso o requirió que violaran cualquier ley o norma de salud y seguridad ocupacional, el empleado tiene el derecho de solicitar, y el empleador es requerido a proporcionar, una descripción por escrito de cada cuota a la que el empleado esta sujeto, al igual que una copia de los últimos 90 días de los datos personales de velocidad de trabajo del empleado.

Adémas, hay una presunción refutable de represalia si un empleador de cualquier manera discrimina, toma represalias, o toma alguna acción adversa contra cualquier empleado dentro de los 90 días de la empleado: 

(a) Solicitar al empleador que proporcione información sobre una cuota o datos personales de velocidad de trabajo; o

(b) Presentar una queja relacionada con una cuota alegando cualquier violación de la ley, ante el empleador, el comisionado, la división o la agencia gubernamental local o estatal.

Honorarios de Abogados

En particular, el proyecto de ley prevé los honorarios de los abogados para aquellos que busquen acciones legales de conformidad con AB 701, que crea acceso a la justicia para los empleados afectados.

Publicación de datos por el Comisionado Laboral 

Para el 1 de enero de 2023, el Comisionado Laboral debe reportar:

(1) el número de reclamos presentados ante el comisionado bajo este proyecto de ley,

(2) datos sobre cuotas de producción de almacén en almacenes donde las tasas anuales de lesiones de los empleados están por encima del promedio de la industria, y

(3) el número de investigaciones y acciones de ejecución iniciadas.

Si se convierte en ley, la AB 701 expondrá las cuotas de trabajo inseguras establecidas por empresas como Amazon y dará poder a los empleados que dependen de estos trabajos para mantener a sus familias y hasta ahora no han tenido otra alternativa que priorizar el cumplimiento de las cuotas sobre su propia seguridad.

Safer Federal Workforce Task Force Provides Guidance for Federal Contractors Pursuant to the Vaccine Mandate

On September 13, 2021, the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force issued guidance pursuant to President Biden’s executive order on Ensuring Adequate Covid Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors.  

Which Federal Contractors are Subject to the Vaccine Mandate?  

The Vaccine Mandate applies to Federal contracts entered on or after October 15, 2021.  These contracts must have a provision agreeing to comply with all guidance for contractor or subcontractor workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force. Furthermore, executive departments and agencies will be required to ensure that these contracts contain a provision that the contractor and any subcontractors (at any tier) shall incorporate these provisions into lower-tier subcontracts.

The Contractor I Work for is Not Subject to the Federal Mandate. What rules apply to me?

If the federal contractor you work for is not subject to the federal vaccine mandate, you are still subject to the current safety protocols. 

The contractor is required to ask if you are vaccinated, and you must attest to the truthfulness of your response. If you disclose that you are not fully vaccinated or decline to say, the contractor is required to treat you as not fully vaccinated for purposes of implementing safety measures. 

Onsite contractor employees who are not fully vaccinated or decline to provide information about their vaccination status must provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test from no later than the previous 3 days before entering a federal building. However, if a contractor is regularly tested as part of an agency testing program, they do not need to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test. 

How the Federal Vaccine Mandate May Affect You

UPDATE: The Federal Vaccine Mandate has been repealed as of January 13, 2022. Read here to learn more.

On September 9, 2021, President Biden issued an executive order that all federal employees and contractors who do business with the federal government must be vaccinated.

The vaccine mandate comes at the heels of the rise in COVID-19 cases the US has seen in the second half of 2021. President Biden issued this order to increase the number of vaccinated individuals and in return slow the spread of COVID-19. 

Who is Required to Get the Vaccine?

All persons employed by the federal government are required to be vaccinated subject to exemptions for employees with accommodations for disabilities, religious belief, or pregnancy. This includes members of the armed forces. 

I Work for a Government Contractor, Do I Have to be Vaccinated?

Generally, yes. The vaccine mandate applies to any individuals working on or in connection with a Federal Government contract or contract-like instrument in any workplace location in which an individual is working in connection with a contract, as specified by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force.

What if My Disability Prevents Me From Getting Vaccinated?

If your disability prevents you from getting vaccinated, you may seek an accommodation from your employer. Upon requesting an accommodation, you and your employer are required to engage in the interactive process. There, your employer is obligated to consider different options for you to be able to continue working. However, only accommodations that do not cause an undue hardship to the employer will be considered. Employers are not required to provide accommodations that cause a significant difficulty or expense to the employer.  

 

What if My Religion Prevents Me From Getting Vaccinated? 

Your employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it poses an undue hardship on the entity. Employers are to consider the same factors in providing a religious accommodation as they do for employees with disabilities.

Further, employers are required to assume your request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held belief. However, if your employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice or observance, your employer is justified in requesting additional supporting information.  

What if My Pregnancy Prevents Me From Getting Vaccinated? 

Employees who are not vaccinated due to pregnancy are entitled to the same accommodations as those with disabilities and religious accommodations for the duration of their pregnancy. 

HAE Represents Former County of San Diego Chief Medical Officer In Disability Discrimination Lawsuit

HAE attorneys Alreen Haeggquist, Aaron Olsen, and Jenna Rangel have filed a disability discrimination lawsuit against the County of San Diego on behalf of Dr. Nicholas Yphantides, who led the County’s early response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Dr. Yphantides, or “Dr. Nick,” served as San Diego County’s Chief Medical Officer for 11 years and was one of the County’s first public faces leading San Diego’s response to the COVID-19 crisis. But that work came at a great personal cost. By October of 2020, Dr. Nick – like so many of his colleagues in the healthcare community – was suffering from crippling depression, anxiety, and insomnia.

 

In a lawsuit filed September 8 in federal court in San Diego, Dr. Nick says he requested and took a four-week medical leave to care for his mental health in October 2020.  But when he returned to work in November 2020, the lawsuit alleges, members of the County’s leadership presumed Dr. Nick was damaged goods. The County then began to unfairly scrutinize Dr. Nick’s performance, looking for proof to substantiate its illegal presumption. In January 2021, despite effectively leading the County through the holiday induced COVID spikes, the County forced Dr. Nick to take another leave of absence for his “mental health” or face immediate termination. Left without meaningful choice, Dr. Nick took an additional seven weeks of leave. But, before Dr. Nick could resume his job duties, the County then demanded he take a fitness for duty test – a request that Dr. Nick’s legal team says violated the County’s own policies and the law.  Before that exam could be completed, the County fired him without providing any reason for doing so.

 

“To put it simply, Dr. Nick is a healthcare hero,” Aaron Olsen, one of the attorneys representing Dr. Nick, says. “After years spent deftly guiding the County through its response to not one but multiple public health crises – and after devoting months of his life to serving on the front lines of the COVID19 pandemic – he should be applauded for putting his mental health first. He was transparent and genuine with the County of San Diego when he shared what he was going through – and in response, they fired him. This cannot stand.”

 

The case is pending in United States District Court in San Diego. MEMBERS OF THE MEDIA: please email media@haelaw.com to schedule an interview on this case.

Translate »