Subject: GEA - Special 38 - May 21th



COVID-19: News
and Updates
  Special #38 -  May 21, 2020

Articles and Updates Today

- Free Webinar: GEA is excited to give you information from our friends at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, for a four part series on "What Will Be After COVID-19?"

Legal Bulletin: Frequently Asked Questions when taking employee temperatures as a COVID-19 precaution in the United States
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete,LLC
By Andrew Witko / Washington DC Metro Office
May 19, 2020

¶46,977 Food store to pay back wages after denying paid sick leave for worker to care for child after COVID-19 school closure — FEDERAL NEWS,
(May 20, 2020)

¶46,978 AFL-CIO sues to force an emergency COVID standard — FEDERAL NEWS,
Written by Lisa Milam, J.D.
(May 20, 2020)

LEGAL BULLETIN: New regulations expected to expand applicability of OT exemption for commissioned retail sales workers
May 19, 2020

Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report  
 
GEA is excited to give you information from our friends at Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete, LLP, for a four part series on 
"What Will Be After COVID-19?"
Please let us know if you have any questions.


Join Constangy for a four-part series of webinars where some of the country’s foremost attorneys in a range of workplace law practices reveal what they believe are the most crucial problems employers will face once the pandemic crisis settles.


Cost: Complimentary
Continuing Education: HRCI / SHRM





Thursday, May 21 at 2:00 - 3:00 PM Eastern

Tuesday, May 26 at 2:00 - 3:00 PM Eastern

Webinar Four: OSHA and Workers' Compensation
Wednesday, May 27 at 12:00 - 1:00 PM Eastern

Legal Bulletin: Frequently Asked Questions when taking employee temperatures as a COVID-19 precaution in the United States

By Andrew Witko / Washington DC Metro Office


May 19, 2020


As retail, food service, and other industries continue to adapt to the ever-changing business environment, employers are implementing new screening programs to help ensure the safety of their workforce and customers during the COVID-19 crisis. Indeed, some form of employee screening is becoming mandatory in a number of cities and counties around the country.

Faced with the current outbreak, many employers—particularly those in food service or other customer-facing retail operations—are considering taking the temperatures of their employees before the employees are allowed to begin work. This bulletin seeks to answer some of the questions that employers, particularly retailers, might have when implementing such programs during the COVID-19 crisis. Note that the guidance is based on the current global pandemic and state of emergency related to COVID-19, and much of this guidance would not apply outside of that context.

1. Is it even legal to take an employee’s temperature, and to instruct employees to stay home if they have symptoms associated with COVID-19?

We covered this in our March 18, 2020 Bulletin, but, generally, the short answer is, “Yes, and Yes.” The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission recently clarified that in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic, employers may measure their employees’ body temperatures. The EEOC also says that employees with symptoms associated with COVID-19, including a fever, may be sent home from work.

2. Do any states require employers to take their employees’ temperatures?

Some states, Kentucky as an example, are now requiring businesses to conduct temperature checks for their employees. Others are encouraging employers to take the temperatures of their employees.

In addition, some cities and counties have issued orders that impose certain obligations on employers to implement a temperature check system. For instance, Tift County, Georgia, instructs employers to “make every effort to take the employee’s temperature and record the same.” Likewise, an order in Dallas County, Texas, instructs employers “to the greatest extent possible and when equipment becomes available” to take the temperatures of their employees. We expect other cities and counties to follow suit, particularly as part of the phase-in approach for business reopening plans.

3. If I want to take my employees’ temperatures, where do I begin?

Employees should be given notice that the company will be implementing a temperature-taking program. This can be done via an email to all employees or posting a notice inside the facility. The notice should say something to the effect of, “To ensure the safety of all of our employees and customers, starting on [DATE], we will begin to take the temperatures of all persons entering our facility. This will be done through a no-touch infrared scanner thermometer. Per the CDC guidelines, if your reading is 100.4 or above, we will not be allowing entry to our facility. We will provide instructions to you on next steps at that time.” By providing notice, you avoid surprising your employees and give them an opportunity to raise any concerns that they may have. Further, some jurisdictions require employers to provide such a notice in order to comply with state privacy laws.

4. I don’t have an infrared scanning thermometer. Will a minimal touch forehead thermometer work?

There is currently no guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as to the type of thermometer that an employer should use when taking its employees’ temperatures. The CDC says only, “Employers should measure the employee’s temperature and assess symptoms prior to them [sic] starting work.” Although minimal contact forehead thermometers may work, touchless infrared scanning thermometers are relatively inexpensive and preferred. No matter what type of thermometer is used, the individual conducting the screening should follow the manufacturer’s sanitization protocol between uses and should be trained on its use so that the results can be comfortably relied upon.

There is no need to conduct multiple tests of the same employee or otherwise question the results of the thermometer so long as the individual conducting the test understands what he or she is doing.

5. Who should conduct the screening?

Ideally a qualified third party would perform this screening, but, where not possible or practicable, we recommend the temperature checks be administered by management personnel or, if possible based on the device being used, self-administered.

6. Besides a thermometer, what else do I need in order to conduct the screening?

You will need to obtain hand sanitizer and personal protective equipment for the individual performing the screening. Such PPE may include disposable gloves, masks, and any other supplies needed to sanitize or operate the thermometer according to the manufacturer’s specifications. Employees being checked should also wear masks if available.

7. Where do I conduct the temperature checks?

You should make every effort to perform the testing before employees access the main areas of the facility. Ideally, the location would offer the individuals some privacy so that others (colleagues or customers) would not be able to observe or hear the results of the temperature check. The location should, if possible, allow individuals to remain six feet apart from one another. If your facility is relatively small, consider staggering start times to minimize the chance that lines will form and employees will congregate in a confined area.

8. At what temperature should an employee be sent home?

The CDC currently recommends that if an individual has a temperature of 100.4 degrees or higher, he or she should not leave the home (and therefore should be sent home after the test). Dallas County requires that a worker with a temperature above 99.6 degrees be sent home. Unless your jurisdiction instructs otherwise, defaulting to the CDC recommendation is advised. Note, however, that a fever does not mean that an individual has COVID-19, and the absence of a fever does not mean a person does NOT have COVID-19. As such, you should make sure employees don’t relax other good practices, such as proper and frequent handwashing, social distancing, etc., in reliance on temperature checks.

9. What records should I maintain and who should have access to them?

Generally, unless your jurisdiction requires it, you are under no obligation to maintain a record of employee temperatures or even document that temperature checks were performed. If you do choose to record and maintain the data, you will need to do that in a way that complies with the confidentiality requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and confidentiality and privacy considerations under applicable state and local laws. In addition, if the temperature checks are performed by a physician, nurse, or other health care personnel or technician, OSHA record-keeping requirements may be triggered.

10. What should I do if an employee’s temperature registers at or above 100.4 degrees (or the established CDC threshold)?

The employee should be sent home for the day, at least, and your policies or local requirements may require you to exclude individuals with COVID-19 symptoms for longer. The employer has discretion to determine whether to require that the employee provide a doctor’s note before returning to work, but, again, you should have a policy that you consistently follow and ensure your policy is consistent with any federal, state or local requirements.

11. What if an employee refuses to have his or her temperature taken?

If you are unable to reach a satisfactory resolution with the employee, you should send him or her home if your policy or practice is that all employees must be tested prior to starting a shift.

12. Can I ask the employee about other symptoms?

Yes. In fact, some jurisdictions are requiring that employers “screen” employees by asking about their symptoms, recent travel, and/or whether the individual has been exposed to COVID-19.

13. If an employee informs me that he or she has been exposed to COVID-19, am I required to send that person home?

That depends. Presently, the CDC advises that critical infrastructure workers may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to COVID-19, provided that they remain asymptomatic and that additional precautions are implemented to protect them and the community. That being said, different states and localities may, depending upon the circumstances, require the individual to self-quarantine for 14 days or more following exposure, and employers may adopt, and many are adopting, quarantine requirements, consistent with general obligations to provide a clean and safe work environment for all employees. We would also recommend not requiring an individual to work if a health care provider or governmental agency has instructed the individual to quarantine, as is true in many instances when an individual has been in close contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case.

14. Must I compensate my employees who administer the tests, or for employees’ time spent being screened?

Based on the Fair Labor Standards Act, we recommend compensating employees who are not FLSA-exempt at their normal hourly rate for time spent administering the testing, as that is time spent performing an assigned task for the benefit of the employer. Of course, if the employee administering the temperature check is an exempt manager, then the time would be compensated by the manager’s regular salary. The compensability of the time spent by the employee having his or her temperature taken is a more difficult issue, and arguments can be made both ways as to whether this time must be compensated. The conservative approach would be to treat the time as compensable; however, an employer with a greater risk tolerance could take the position that the time it takes to have your temperature taken is not compensable, or if it is, the amount of time involved is so small as to be de minimis. Ultimately, this is a decision each employer must make based on its own facts and circumstances and risk tolerance.

Further, you should also consider whether any “call-in” or “reporting pay” laws or predictive scheduling laws are applicable in the jurisdictions where you are operating, including whether those laws require any compensation in this situation. The same is true for more restrictive state minimum wage laws that may define "hours worked" more aggressively.

15. Can I require employees to take their own temperatures before coming to work?

So long as your jurisdiction does not require otherwise, employers may ask employees to take their own temperature before reporting to work. This may be an option for those businesses that lack the physical space, personnel, or equipment to conduct on-site temperature taking; however, we should note that availability of equipment for employees may also be a barrier for some employees, which may affect the overall consistency and effectiveness of this approach. Employers should adhere to the concepts outlined above if they decide to collect or document employee self-temperature checks that are performed at the employee’s home.

16. How long should I plan to be taking employee temperatures?

No one knows precisely how long the pandemic will last. Further complicating matters is the fact that some states and localities continue to be “hot spots” while evidence suggests that others might be moving on from the worst the virus has to offer.

As certain states begin to reopen, most are adopting a phased approach as they relax the restrictions imposed upon businesses. Employers should follow the guidance of the state or county where their stores and employees are located. Attention should also be focused on changing guidance from the EEOC. Although the EEOC has clearly stated that the taking of employee temperatures is a permissible response to the current global pandemic, at some point in the future the EEOC may change course on this guidance based on the continued evolution of the pandemic. Outside the context of a pandemic, employers are generally limited to conducting medical inquiries and exams that are job-related and consistent with business necessity.


¶46,977 Food store to pay back wages after denying paid sick leave for worker to care for child after COVID-19 school closure — FEDERAL NEWS,


(May 20, 2020)
from GEA's HR answers now


An investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division has led a Maui, Hawaii, retail store specializing in grocery, household, health and beauty products to pay $800 in back wages to an employee denied paid leave to care for their child whose school closed due to the coronavirus.

WHD investigators found Mana Foods Inc. violated the Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act (EPSLA) provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) by denying the leave. When advised of its EPSLA obligations, Mana Foods agreed to pay $800 in paid sick leave benefits to the employee as required. The employer also agreed to display the Family First Coronavirus Response Act poster, which details employer obligations and employee rights to coronavirus-related sick leave from April 1, 2020 through Dec. 31, 2020.

DOL reiterates its role. "The U.S. Department of Labor is working to protect employee rights and educate employers during the coronavirus pandemic," said Wage and Hour District Director Terence Trotter in Honolulu, Hawaii. "We encourage employers and employees to call us for assistance to improve their understanding of the new requirements under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act and use our educational online tools to avoid violations like those found in this case. WHD continues to provide updated information on our website and through extensive outreach efforts to ensure that workers and employers have the information they need about the benefits and protections of this new law."

FFCRA tips. The FFCRA helps the U.S. combat and defeat the workplace effects of the coronavirus by giving tax credits to American businesses with fewer than 500 employees to provide employees with paid leave either for the employee’s own health needs or to care for family members. Please visit WHD’s "Quick Benefits Tips" for information about how much leave workers may qualify to use, and the wages employers must pay. The law enables employers to keep their workers on their payrolls, while at the same time ensuring that workers are not forced to choose between their paychecks and the public health measures needed to combat the virus.

WHD provides additional information on common issues employers and employees face when responding to the coronavirus and its effects on wages and hours worked under the Fair Labor Standards Act and on job-protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act at https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic.

¶46,978 AFL-CIO sues to force an emergency COVID standard — FEDERAL NEWS,

Written by Lisa Milam, J.D.

(May 20, 2020)
from GEA's HR answers now

Hoping to compel the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue an enforceable standard to keep employees safe from the spread of COVID-19, the AFL-CIO sued the agency on May 18, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to step in as the nation’s workplaces begin to reopen as stay-at-home orders are lifted.

ETS sought. In a petition for a writ of mandamus filed Monday morning, the labor federation asks the appeals court to require OSHA to issue a formal emergency temporary standard (ETS) for Infectious Diseases within 30 days. According to the AFL-CIO, "OSHA has unlawfully withheld an ETS and should be compelled to issue one."

Under Section 6(c ) of the OSH Act, the agency "shall provide . . . for an emergency temporary standard to take immediate effect upon publication in the Federal Register if [it] determines (A) that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and (B) that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger," the petition notes. "The COVID-19 global pandemic caused by the novel coronavirus has produced exactly the type of workplace catastrophe that Congress intended an emergency temporary standard to address."

Millions infected. Thousands of essential workers who have stayed on the job throughout the COVID-induced quarantine already have contracted COVID-19, the AFL-CIO noted, and those numbers are expected to rise as more workers come back from quarantine. "Millions are infected and nearly 90,000 have died, so it’s beyond urgent that action is taken to protect workers who risk our lives daily to respond to this public health emergency," said AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka in a press statement announcing the lawsuit.

"We submit that in the face of a global health emergency causing more deaths in less time than any other workplace crisis OSHA has faced in its fifty-year existence, OSHA’s refusal to issue an ETS constitutes an abuse of agency discretion so blatant and of "such magnitude" as to amount to a clear "abdication of statutory responsibility," the petition states. "OSHA has a duty to issue an ETS when it finds there is a grave danger to working people and that a standard is necessary to protect them. It is clear that now is the time for the agency tasked with protecting workers to do its job," the AFL-CIO contends.

No undue hardship. The 12-million-member AFL-CIO and several affiliated unions have long petitioned OSHA to adopt a general infectious disease standard—going back as early as 2009 in the wake of SARS and other threatened pandemics. OSHA initiated rulemaking procedures but never issued a standard, and the Trump administration abandoned the process. The AFL-CIO, together with 23 national unions, petitioned OSHA to issue an ETS on March 6, and National Nurses United did so on March 4, according to the federation. To date, OSHA has taken no action on the petitions. Ordering the agency to do so within 30 days presents no undue hardship, the AFL-CIO reasons, given that OSHA had been considering an infectious disease standard for more than a decade, and has already received public comment, and drafted a proposed standard.

Guidances. The DOL has issued industry-targeted guidances to help minimize coronavirus-related hazards in specific types of workplaces—retail, restaurants, and meatpacking and processing facilities, to name a few—but these non-enforceable recommendations are expressly advisory in nature, and thus, essentially toothless. OSHA has yet to issue mandatory rules in response to the unprecedented public health crisis. (The agency has, however, issued an interim guidance announcing that it would back off enforcing recordkeeping requirements with respect to COVID-19 cases, at least for most employers, until further notice. It also adopted an interim enforcement response plan giving discretion to the agency’s field offices to prioritize and address COVID-19 related workplace hazards, and has drastically reduced on-site inspections. That directive was followed up with another interim guidance emphasizing deference to employer good-faith efforts to comply with safety and health measures during the pandemic, and advising the OSHA inspectors how to evaluate whether an employer has endeavored to comply in good faith.)

These half-measures have sparked criticism. In an April 8 letter, Senate HELP Committee Democrats pressed Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia to use OSHA’s emergency enforcement mechanism to issue an ETS that would provide employers with "a consistent roadmap of standards" to follow and, eventually, a permanent standard, in the event a similar public health crisis arises in the future.Weeks later, more lawmakers piled on: 29 senators sent a letter charging the DOL with failing to protect the nation’s workers and calling for OSHA to immediately issue an ETS, along with additional interpretations of existing standards to increase enforceable protections. They also asked Scalia to notify employers of the agency’s intent to enforce key portions of existing guidance under OSHA’s general duty clause—before reopening the economy—and to withdraw the interim guidance allowing employers to skirt COVID-19 recordkeeping obligations, and backing off on-site inspections.

Trumka has previously criticized OSHA as well, charging the agency with being "missing in action" in an April 28 letter to Scalia and, in a separate press release, urging immediate action to protect workers from exposure. But Scalia responded swiftly. In an April 30 reply to Trumka, he mapped out the agency’s flexible approach and ensured critics that "in fact, the cop is on the beat." Scalia pointed to existing OSHA standards, contending that OSHA’s general duty clause, combined with PPE, respiratory protection, and other standards already in place are mandate enough to meet the COVID-19 hazard. No additional mandates are needed, Scalia insisted, particularly given the novelty of the virus, the lack of "scientific certainty" around it, and the fact that circumstances are changing day to day. "Guidelines allow flexibility and responsiveness to that change, in a way a rule would not," Scalia said.

The AFL-CIO disagrees. "Simply put," its petition contends, "the five general standards and the general duty clause are insufficient to address the grave hazard and protect workers to the greatest extent possible as required by the OSH Act."
"It’s truly a sad day in America when working people must sue the organization tasked with protecting our health and safety," said Trumka. "But we’ve been left no choice. If the Trump administration refuses to act, we must compel them to."
The AFL-CIO has asked for expedited briefing and disposition, proposing that OSHA be given 10 days to respond to its petition.

Urgent need. The need for an ETS is urgent, the petition states, "because many states and localities have already begun the process of allowing businesses within their jurisdictions to reopen while others are coming under enormous pressure to do so—a reopening process that will expose millions more workers to grave danger to their life and health if OSHA fails to issue an ETS."

Source: Written by Lisa Milam, J.D.


LEGAL BULLETIN: New regulations expected to expand applicability of OT exemption for commissioned retail sales workers



May 19, 2020

From: 
Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete,LLC
By Jim Coleman / Washington DC Metro Office

The U.S. Department of Labor issued final regulations today that are expected to expand the number of workers who are exempt from overtime requirements because (among other things) they work for a retail or service establishment and are paid primarily on a commission basis.

One key requirement for this overtime exemption, also known as the Section 7(i) exemption because it is in section 207(i) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, is that the workers be employed by a “retail or service establishment.” To assist in determining which employers are and are not deemed “retail or service establishments,” the DOL published interpretive regulatory guidance in 1961 that included one list of industries that were presumptively designated as “retail” and one list of industries that were presumptively designated as not “retail.” As the economy and business concepts relating to the delivery of goods and services evolved over the decades, the lists remained relatively static.

The new final rule eliminates both lists. Through the years there has been much litigation about whether a particular employer qualified as a retail or service establishment, and the DOL notes that some courts have questioned the reasoning and logic behind the two lists. The DOL has clarified that the same standards and criteria for determining “retail or service” classification should be applied to all employers.

The criteria include that a retail establishment typically “sells goods or services to the general public,” “serves the everyday needs of the community,” “is at the very end of the stream of distribution,” disposes of its products and skills “in small quantities,” and “does not take part in the manufacturing process.”
In eliminating the two lists, the DOL went straight to publication of final regulations without first providing notice and an opportunity for public comment, and the regulations take effect immediately. The DOL contends that it did not have to comply with these procedures because the 1961 interpretive guidelines were themselves issued without notice and comment, and without a delayed effective date.

The DOL’s action is generally viewed to be favorable to employers. It is expected to expand the number of businesses that can be classified as retail or service establishments. However, retail and service employers should keep in mind that to fully qualify for the Section 7(i) overtime exemption, there are two additional requirements: (1) The commissioned sales employee’s regular rate of pay must be more than 1.5 times the applicable minimum wage rate for each hour worked in each work week, and (2) more than half of the employee’s total compensation measured over a representative period must come from commissions.

As noted previously, the effective date of the withdrawal of the two lists formerly contained in 29 CFR 779.317 and 29 CFR 779.320, is immediate.


Georgia Department of Public Health COVID-19 Daily Status Report For: 05/20/2020


These data represent confirmed cases of COVID-19 reported to the Georgia Department of Public Health as of 05/20/2020 7pm.
A confirmed case is defined as a person who has tested positive for 2019 novel coronavirus. (Total tests 402,940)


COVID-19 Confirmed Cases: 
Total 39,801
Hospitalized 7,171
Deaths 1,697


Visit Georgia Department of Health website for more information: https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report



Georgia Employers' Association
Georgia Employers' Association, 577 Mulberry Street, Suite 710, 31201, Macon, United States
You may unsubscribe or change your contact details at any time.