The State of the Law Regarding Marijuana, Drug Testing and Background Checks [Webinar Recording]

July 29, 2021Theresa Green Leave a comment

On July 13, 2021, Dan Deacon, Aaron Gelb, and Ashley D. Mitchell presented a webinar regarding “The State of the Law Regarding Marijuana, Drug Testing and Background Checks”.

The green wave continued to roll through America during 2020, as several new jurisdictions legalized marijuana in some form. However, new regulatory developments regarding medical and recreational marijuana have created a host of compliance concerns for employers. 35 states and the District of Columbia have passed legislation giving medical marijuana usage the green light. Fifteen states and the District of Columbia have legalized recreational marijuana. Several states have also enacted laws making the possession of small amounts of the drug a civil, not criminal, offense. Although marijuana is currently still illegal under federal law, for the first time in fifty years, a bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives to remove marijuana from the Schedule I controlled substances list in the Controlled Substances Act. In sum, it seems to be only a matter of time before marijuana is legalized in some form throughout the entire country.

This webinar explored the changing legal landscape concerning marijuana, analyzed potential issues related to zero-tolerance policies, and reviewed tips for developing effective drug testing and background check policies. More specifically, participants learned: Continue reading →

New DOL Proposed Rule Reverses Course on Treatment of Tipped Employees

June 28, 2021June 27, 2021Lindsay A. DiSalvo Leave a comment

On Monday, June 21^st, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“NPRM”) that would alter regulations interpreting who is considered a “tipped employee” under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) yet again. Specifically, the NPRM proposes (1) to withdraw the dual jobs portion of the Final Rule promulgated in December 2020; and (2) a new regulatory framework by which to determine whether an employee is performing work that meets the definition of a tipped occupation and allows the employer to take a tip credit under the FLSA. Specifically, the FLSA allows an employer to pay a tipped employee less than the minimum wage – specifically $2.13 per hour under Federal law – only when the worker is engaged in a tipped occupation because the tips the employee receives should make up for the rest of minimum wage hourly rate. The NPRM creates a revised standard by which an employer would determine who is a “tipped employee” and for what portion of that employee’s work hours the employer can take a tip credit and pay the employee at the lower rate. The standard the DOL proposes to adopt generally reflects the interpretive guidance it maintained for decades before a new standard was established during the Trump Administration – the “80/20 Rule” – along with some other changes that the DOL asserts better define tipped work.

Background of the Dual Jobs Standard for Tipped Employees

Under the FLSA, “tipped employees” are defined as those employees who customarily and regularly receive more than $30 a month in tips. As stated, employers can pay tipped employees a reduced cash wage and claim a “tip credit” to make up the difference between the reduced cash wage and hourly minimum wage. When the DOL first published its regulations on application of the tip credit, it directly addressed the scenario where an employee has “dual jobs” under 29 C.F.R. 531.56(e) – two jobs for the same employer. In that situation, employers can take the tip credit only for the tipped job (i.e., the one routinely satisfying the $30-a-month provision). Later, the DOL revised its Field Operations Handbook (FOH), vastly broadening the scope of its “dual jobs” distinction by applying it to dual tasks. It stated that when “tipped employees spend a substantial amount of time (in excess of 20%) performing preparation work or maintenance, no tip credit may be taken for the time spent in such duties.” This is what’s known as the “80/20 rule.”

The DOL enforced this interpretation until 2018 when Continue reading →

New Guidance Recommends Employers Engage with Employees and Unions to Mitigate COVID-19 in the Workplace

June 17, 2021Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By: Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Taskforce

On June 10th, federal OSHA published significant updates to its principal workplace COVID-19 guidance – Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. This was an update to the original version that issued on January 29, 2021 in response to Pres. Biden’s Day 1 OSHA Executive Order, and the first time it has been updated since the COVID-19 vaccines became widely available.

At its core, OSHA’s new guidance was updated to align with CDC’s May 13, 2021 guidance regarding relaxing requirements for vaccinated individuals and advises that, unless otherwise required by another jurisdiction’s laws, rules, or regulations, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect their fully vaccinated workers who are not otherwise at-risk from COVID-19 exposure.

To the extent workers are not vaccinated or are otherwise at risk, however, OSHA states that employers must continue to implement controls to help protect them, include:

separating from the workplace all infected people, all people experiencing COVID symptoms, and any unvaccinated people who have had a close contact with someone with COVID-19
implementing physical distancing
maintaining ventilation systems, and
enforcing the proper use of face coverings or PPE when appropriate.

Importantly, OSHA recommends employers engage with workers and their representatives to determine how to implement multi-layered interventions to protect unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers and mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by taking some combination of these actions:

Providing paid time off for employees to get vaccinated.
Instructing unvaccinated workers who experience a close contact exposure, and any worker (vaccinated or unvaccinated) who experience COVID-19 symptoms or who are confirmed to be infected to stay home from work.
Implementing physical distancing for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers in all communal work areas. At fixed workstations where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are not able to remain at least 6 feet away from other people, install transparent shields or other solid barriers (e.g., fire resistant plastic sheeting or flexible strip curtains) to separate these workers from other people.
Providing unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers with face coverings or surgical masks, unless their work task requires a respirator or other PPE in accordance with relevant mandatory OSHA standards.
Training workers on your COVID-19 policies and procedures in formats and languages they understand.
“Suggesting” that unvaccinated customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings, especially in public-facing workplaces such as retail establishments, if there are unvaccinated or at-risk workers there who are likely to interact with them.
Maintaining existing ventilation systems.
Performing routine cleaning and disinfection.
Recording and reporting COVID-19 infections and deaths.
Setting up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19-related hazards.
Implementing protections against retaliation.

The recommendation that employers engage with workers and their representatives (such as labor unions) will likely spur requests to meet and negotiate over what the employer is doing to implement these steps, and the recommendation to have an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19 hazards could lead to a rise of internal investigations and workplace responses.

While OSHA does make clear that its updated guidance is not a standard or regulation, and it creates no new legal obligations, OSHA does specifically reference its enforcement authority under the OSH Act’s General Duty Clause. Thus, as more employers increase their efforts to safety return their employees to the workplace this Summer and Fall, it would be prudent for employers to review the recommendations set forth in OSHA’s guidance and update their policies and procedures, including training of employees, accordingly.

[Webinar] Federal OSHA’s New COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard and Updated COVID-19 Workplace Guidance

June 14, 2021June 13, 2021Theresa Green Leave a comment

On Wednesday, June 16, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. ET, join Conn Maciel Carey’s national OSHA Practice for a webinar regarding Federal OSHA’s New COVID-19 ETS and Updated COVID-19 Workplace Guidance.

On June 10^th, federal OSHA finally revealed its much anticipated COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), but rather than a rule applicable to all industries, OSHA developed a regulation that is narrowly tailored only to certain healthcare settings. For everyone else, federal OSHA simultaneously published significant updates to its workplace COVID-19 guidance that it had originally prepared in January 2021in response to President Biden’s Day 1 OSHA Executive Order.

The COVID-19 ETS, and its 900+ page Preamble, is a dizzying piece of regulation. While there are lots of generalizations about how it applies only to hospital settings, there are quirks in the Applicability section that could sweep in other employers, including on-site medical clinics at manufacturing plants, COVID-19 testing facilities in otherwise non-healthcare workplaces, and general facilities support at healthcare locations, such as maintenance, housekeeping, and laundry services. And in terms of substantive provisions, the ETS does depart from the COVID-19 landscape we have all grown accustomed to over the past year and a half – the ETS requires creation of new roles, will likely require updates to written prevention plans and training, may require new engineering installations and work on HVAC systems, and will definitely affect record making, recordkeeping, and reporting policies.

The updated guidance for all other industries will also likely result in material changes to the way employers are managing the COVID-19 crisis in the workplace. However, those will be mostly welcome changes, as, at its core, OSHA’s updated guidance aligns OSHA’s recommendations with the CDC’s May guidance regarding dropping masks and distancing for fully vaccinated workers. But the devil is in the details.

Participants in this webinar will learn the following:

To whom, where, and when does Fed OSHA’s new COVID-19 ETS apply
What does OSHA’s COVID-19 ETS require and prohibit
What employers need to know about OSHA’s updated COVID-19 workplace guidance
The impact of vaccination and verifying vaccination status on both the ETS and OSHA’s guidance

Click here to register for the June 16th webinar.

* * * * * * * * * *

For resources on issues related to COVID-19, please visit Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Resource Page for an extensive index of frequently asked questions with our answers about HR, employment law, and OSHA regulatory developments and guidance, as well as COVID-19 recordkeeping and reporting flow charts. Likewise, subscribe to our Employer Defense Report blog and OSHA Defense Report blog for regular updates about the Labor and Employment Law or OSHA implications of COVID-19 in the workplace. Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Task Force is monitoring federal, state, and local developments closely and is continuously updating these blogs and the FAQ page with the latest news and resources for employers.

Is Your Workplace Covered by Fed OSHA’s New COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard?

June 14, 2021June 13, 2021Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Task Force

Nearly 16 months after the pandemic began, federal OSHA revealed its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (the ETS) that imposes a series of requirements on healthcare employers. While OSHA’s issuance of an ETS comes as no surprise to many who have been tracking the agency since Pres. Biden’s inauguration, the fact that it applies only to the healthcare sector and not to all industries is not what we expected. Looking back, the promulgation of an ETS applicable to all workplaces seemed a foregone conclusion when President Biden took office in January and issued an Executive Order that same day directing OSHA to update its COVID-19 guidance, adopt a COVID-19 National Emphasis Program, evaluate whether an ETS was necessary and, if so, issue the ETS on or before March 15, 2021.

On April 27, 2021, OSHA delivered to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) an ETS, which, by all accounts, was a broad rule applicable to all industries, but because this was an emergency rulemaking, the proposed regulatory text was not available to the public. In the weeks that followed, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), within OMB, hosted a series of meetings to hear from stakeholders regarding a proposed rule they had not seen. On behalf of the Employers COVID-19 Prevention Coalition, Conn Maciel Carey organized and led two OIRA meetings at which we and our coalition members provided input and recommendations to OSHA and OMB. As the meetings continued, the success of the vaccine rollout became clearer, with a corresponding drop in COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, and then came the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) game-changing guidance on May 13, 2021 relaxing protocols for vaccinated individuals. All of this caused many to question whether an OSHA ETS was still necessary. With conditions on the ground improving rapidly, we continued to help stakeholder schedule and participate in OIRA meetings to argue that a general industry ETS was no longer needed.

On June 10, 2011, after more than 50 OIRA meetings, a final ETS applicable only to the healthcare industry was sent to the Office of the Federal Register for publication. The standard appears at 29 C.F.R. Section 1910.502, and will appear in the Federal Register within a couple of weeks.

Explaining the purpose of the ETS for Healthcare, U.S. Secretary of Labor Marty Walsh offered this statement: Continue reading →

EEOC Updates COVID-19 Vaccination Guidance

June 1, 2021Aaron Gelb Leave a comment

By Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Task Force

Last week, Conn Maciel Carey posted a blog article about How to Navigate the Thorny Legal Landscape Around Employee Vaccination Status. One of the observation in that article was that we were all on the edge of our seats waiting for the EEOC to issue promised guidance about employer incentives and mandates about the COVID-19 vaccination. On Friday, the EEOC finally issued much-anticipated updated FAQs about the legal landscape of various employer vaccinations policies.

Here is a summary of the vaccine section of the guidance:

May employers ask employees about vaccination status under federal law? See FAQs K9, K5, K15, K16, K18, K19

Yes – does not violate ADA or GINA.
However, employer should not ask “why” an employee is unvaccinated, as this could compel the employee to reveal disability information that is protected under the ADA and/or GINA.
Recommended practice: If employer requires documentation or other confirmation of vaccination, “notify all employees that the employer will consider requests for reasonable accommodation based on disability on an individualized basis.”

Is vaccination information “confidential” under the ADA? See FAQ K4

Yes, this includes documentation (i.e., the white vaccination card) or “other confirmation” of vaccination, which we presume means any self-attestation form or email from the employee, as well as any record, matrix, spreadsheet, or checklist created by the employer after viewing employees’ vaccination cards or receiving a verbal confirmations from employees.
The records or information must be kept confidential and stored separately from employee personnel files.

How may employers encourage employees and family members to get vaccinated? See FAQ K3 Continue reading →

ADA Website Compliance Issues – Best Strategies for Employers [Webinar Recording]

May 21, 2021Theresa Green Leave a comment

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021, Jordan B. Schwartz and Megan S. Shaked presented a webinar regarding ADA Website Compliance Issues – Best Strategies for Employers.

The pandemic has not decreased the number of lawsuits filed against businesses, hotels, and other places of public accommodation alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Indeed, dozens of lawsuits continue to be filed daily against hotels for their failure to identify and describe accessible features at their properties in sufficient detail on their websites. In a relatively new twist, many of these lawsuits now also allege that hotels are fully liable for the failure of Online Travel Agencies such as Orbitz or Expedia to provide information on their website about the accessible amenities of the hotel, including its guestrooms, or to allow an individual with a disability to book an accessible guestroom.

[Webinar] ADA Website Compliance Issues – Best Strategies for Employers

May 17, 2021Theresa Green Leave a comment

On Tuesday, May 18, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. EST, join Jordan B. Schwartz and Megan S. Shaked for a webinar regarding ADA Website Compliance Issues – Best Strategies for Employers.

While many ADA lawsuits also continue to be filed alleging that hotel websites cannot be used by individuals with visual or hearing impairments, there is positive news in that regard, as a recent business-friendly ruling out of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals may make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring claims against companies for inaccessible websites. That being said, this ruling conflicts with rulings from other circuits that reach the opposite conclusion and thus, a supreme court review of this issue may be brewing. Regardless, it remains important that businesses ensure the accessibility of their websites while also providing an appropriate “accessibility statement” explaining to users the steps you have taken to improve your website’s accessibility.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that ADA lawsuits are slowing down. On the contrary, serial plaintiffs continue to file dozens of these lawsuits each and every day. This presentation will present practical tips and cost-effective strategies for managing the risk of ADA-related litigation in this ever-evolving area of the law.

Participants in this webinar will learn:

Continue reading →

CDC Drops Mask and Distancing Requirements for Fully Vaccinated Individuals — What About the Workplace?

May 14, 2021Kara Maciel Leave a comment

By Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Task Force

By now you have likely heard the big news that yesterday, May 13th, the CDC updated guidance related to masks and physical distancing for individuals who are fully vaccinated (i.e., two weeks after receiving a single-dose vaccine or after the second dose in a two-dose series). Specifically, in its updated guidance — “Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People” — the CDC now says fully vaccinated individuals may resume essentially all indoor and outdoor pre-pandemic activities in almost all circumstances. As of now, there is no outside limit to one’s status as fully vaccinated.

In a public video released just before the CDC posted its updated written guidance, CDC Director Dr. Walensky shared that “based on data about vaccine effectiveness and the low risk of transmission to others, and universal access to vaccines today, the CDC is updating our guidance for fully vaccinated individuals. Anyone who is fully vaccinated can participate in indoor and outdoor activities—large or small—without wearing a mask or physical distancing.” Even in the case of “breakthrough” infections, Dr. Walensky acknowledged that there is likely low risk of transmission to others. Dr. Walensky cautioned that “over the past year, we saw how unpredictable this virus can be, so we may have to change these recommendations if things get worse.”

The question everyone is asking is whether this updated guidance applies to employees and workplaces. The best answer we can give now is that the guidance does technically apply to workplaces, but there is a significant exception relative to workplaces built into the new guidance that swallows most of the relief it purports to provide, at least for now in many jurisdictions. Here’s our analysis about why this new guidance does apply to workplaces, but how geographically limited the relief is for the time being. Continue reading →

Court Concludes That A Business’s Website Does Not Need To Comply With The ADA

May 6, 2021May 7, 2021Jordan B. Schwartz 1 Comment

New,Technologies,,A,Side,View,Of,An,Open,Laptop,,Millennials We have been blogging for more than five years about the rising litigation threat over website accessibility, and the surrounding confusion about what type of compliance, if any, is required. In our initial blog post on this topic in January 2016, we stated that the question as to whether a business’s website and mobile app needed to be accessible with the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) had no definitive answer at that time because (i) although Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals on the basis of disability with regard to their participation and equal enjoyment in places of public accommodation, the statute did not explicitly define whether a place of public accommodation must be a physical place or facility; (ii) there were no regulations from the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (the federal agency that enforces Title III of the ADA) regarding website accessibility and without applicable regulations, it was unclear how a court would address a lawsuit over website accessibility; and (iii) adding to this uncertainty, the DOJ had emphasized that, despite the lack of regulations, businesses should make websites accessible to the disabled, and relied on a set of guidelines called the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (“WCAG”).

Five years later, this question still has no definitive answer. And, the DOJ still has yet to promulgate regulations regarding businesses’ obligations to make websites accessible to individuals with visual and hearing impairments. In April, however, an extremely positive development occurred for businesses when, in the matter of Gil v. Winn-Dixie Stores Inc., the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers Florida, Georgia, and Alabama) held that websites are NOT places of public accommodation and thus are NOT covered by Title III of the ADA.

Continue reading →