OSHA Updates Non-Healthcare Employer Guidance on COVID-19 | FIRST, VERIFY

Aug 19, 2021

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) updated its COVID-19 guidance for non-healthcare employers, Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace, on August 13, 2021.


While embracing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) updated recommendations for fully vaccinated people in areas of substantial or high transmission of COVID-19, OSHA also echoes the protocol President Joe Biden adopted for many federal employees and on-site employees of federal contractors and suggests that employers may want to “consider” adopting a policy requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or submit to regular COVID-19 testing.


In July 2021, the CDC issued new recommendations that everyone, including fully vaccinated individuals, wear masks in indoor public settings in all areas experiencing substantial or high transmission of COVID-19. That CDC guidance also recommended that fully vaccinated individuals test for COVID-19 and mask after having close contact with an individual suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19. With respect to schools, the CDC recommended universal indoor masking for all teachers, staff, students and visitors to K-12 schools.


The CDC recommendations were precipitated by new evidence regarding the more transmissible Delta variant of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which causes COVID-19. As explained by OSHA, “preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant can be infectious and can spread the virus to others.”


OSHA’s guidance now includes the following recommendations:


All workers, including fully vaccinated people, wear a face covering, as appropriate, in public indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission (unless their work requires a respirator or other personal protective equipment [PPE]);


Employers suggest or require all customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings in public, indoor settings in areas of substantial or high transmission of COVID-19;

Employers consider adopting policies that require workers to get vaccinated or undergo regular COVID-19 testing — in addition to masking wearing and physical distancing — if they remain unvaccinated; and


Fully vaccinated workers who have a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 be tested three days to five days after exposure and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result.


What This Means for Employers


The latest guidance expressly states that it is not a standard or regulation, and that it creates no new legal obligations. The recommendations are advisory in nature and intended to help employers recognize and eliminate hazards likely to cause death or serious physical harm as part of their obligation to provide a safe and healthful workplace. The guidance makes clear that many healthcare settings are still covered by OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard. Employers should also remain cognizant of different requirements under state OSHA plans.


However, as employers reassess their COVID-19 workplace practices, they should keep in mind that during the Biden Administration, OSHA has more than tripled its use of the General Duty Clause of the Occupational Safety and Health Act to cite employers for COVID-19 hazards not covered by an existing standard. Under the General Duty Clause, OSHA can cite an employer in the absence of a specific OSHA standard, such as those that govern respiratory protection, PPE, and sanitation. It will become even more important to keep abreast of industry best practices, especially related to industries at higher risk of spreading COVID-19, such as construction, manufacturing, agriculture, and meat and poultry processing. Considering OSHA’s new guidance, employers may need to review policies and procedures regarding any potential COVID-19 exposure to employees and consider developing an infectious disease plan.


OSHA continues to recommend that employers adopt a layered approach to minimizing the spread of COVID-19 in the workplace and summarizes the many protective measures employers may choose to use. Regardless of the measures employers choose to implement, their obligation to provide reasonable accommodations for religious, pregnancy-related, and medical reasons, absent undue hardship, continues. OSHA’s guidance notes that accommodation issues may arise with respect to face coverings (including respirators or other PPE) or vaccination requirements. Further, it states that certain medical conditions may put employees at higher risk of contracting COVID-19, by virtue of the condition itself or the inability to use face coverings or be vaccinated due to the condition. Such individuals may be entitled to other reasonable accommodations to protect them from contracting COVID-19.


Source: https://www.natlawreview.com/article/osha-updates-non-healthcare-employer-guidance-covid-19

You might also like

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

28 Oct, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S. Lowenstein Source: https://vanblacklaw.com/construction/contractor-takeover-leads-to-tortious-interference-with-contract-and-conspiracy-claims/

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

21 Oct, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur. Texas and California, two states opposite politically and in law making, have instituted legislation expanding sex harassment protections for employees in the workplace that go even further than federal protections. Indeed, both laws have similarities. Texas and California Similarities In Texas , as of September 1, 2021, under expanded protections against sexual harassment, individuals in management and companies that have even only one employee can be held liable. In the construction industry, this expansion could sweep many subcontractors and tradesmen under the new law. The new law will challenge the definition of who is a manager. In California, under the 2019 law, an employer may be liable for acts of nonemployees concerning any type of harassment (not just sex harassment) against employees and other nonemployees working as interns or volunteers and service contractors. In Texas, the new law increases the time limit to file a sex harassment charge from 180 days to 300 days, making it consistent with federal law. Similarly, in California, an employee has up to 10 years to file a civil action for sexual assault or attempted sexual assault, or within three years after an employee discovers an injury or illness as a result of the assault or attempted assault, whichever is later. In Texas, instead of requiring supervisors to “take prompt remedial measures,” individual liability will hang on whether supervisors “knew or should have known” about the sex harassment in the workplace. The new law also requires “immediate and appropriate corrective action.” Certainly, the standard of “knew or should have known” will be case-specific and fact-intensive, making it difficult to dismiss cases before they reach trial. In California, recent amendments to the Fair Employment and Housing Act have made it easier for employees to prevail in sex harassment actions. They also lowered the employee’s burden and standard of proof.  Implications What does this mean for employers of all sizes? More frequent training, updating sex harassment policies and employee handbooks, expansion of human resources departments to respond more quickly to complaints, and a closer evaluation of what constitutes a managerial position are required. In California, recent legislation requires training for even the smallest of employers (a minimum of five employees). As of January 2020, California imposed minimum time requirements for the length of such training for supervisors and other employees. To be sure, in the multi-employer setting, companies also may need to verify that other companies they work alongside have sex harassment policies, that they conduct periodic training, and that their employee handbooks have been updated to comply with the law. Author: Victor N. Corpuz Source: https://www.jacksonlewis.com/publication/new-sex-harassment-laws-making-strange-bedfellows-construction-industry
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management

During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

13 Oct, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today

Share by: