The IRS just released IRS Notice 2022-04 that provides the updated fee for Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) paid by fully insured and self-funded health plans for the upcoming tax reporting period.
Even though the original PCORI fee assessments under the Affordable Care Act were scheduled to end after September 30, 2019, Congress extended these fees to be assessed by the IRS under the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020 for another ten years, until at least September 30, 2029.
The updated PCORI fee is now $2.79 per covered life for all plan years ending on or after October 1, 2021, and before October 1, 2022, up from $2.66 for the prior period. As a reminder, fully insured plans are to be assessed the applicable PCORI fee amount through their monthly premium payments made to their health insurance carrier. Self-insured plans pay this fee as part of the annual IRS Form 720 filing due by July 31 of each year.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has lifted the Fifth Circuit’s stay of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on COVID-19 vaccination and testing for employers with at least 100 employees.
Multiple parties, including 27 states, have filed emergency motions with the U.S. Supreme Court to block the ETS.
In an opinion authored by Judge Jane B. Stanch, a three-judge panel determined in a 2-1 vote that, in light of the continued spread of COVID-19 variants, OSHA “must be able to respond to dangers as they evolve.” Judge Stanch was appointed to the bench by President Barack Obama. She was joined by Judge Julia Smith Gibbons, an appointee of President George W. Bush. Judge Joan Larsen, an appointee of President Donald Trump, dissented, noting employees are exposed to COVID-19 even while not working and OSHA had not established there was “grave danger” in the workplace or the ETS requirements would correct that.
OSHA quickly announced that it will not issue citations for noncompliance before January 10, 2022. The agency also stated it will exercise its discretion and not issue citations for noncompliance with testing requirements under the ETS before February 9, 2022, if an employer is exercising reasonable, good faith efforts to come into compliance with the standard.
The ETS includes face covering requirements, a written policy, collection of proof of vaccination, creation of a vaccination status roster, removal of COVID-19 positive or untested employees from the workplace, maintenance of employee medical records, and certain employee communications about the employer’s policies and vaccine information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Covered employers will need to decide whether to adopt a mandatory vaccination policy, subject to reasonable accommodations and required exemptions, or a vaccination or weekly test policy. Covered employers implementing a mandatory vaccination plan still must comply with all other requirements, such as weekly testing for employees who are excused from the mandate as a reasonable accommodation.
None of the 22 approved State Plans covering private employers have taken steps to enact an ETS, but they are required to notify OSHA of their intentions to do so within 15 days of promulgation of the standard, and to act within 30 days. In addition, California’s Cal/OSHA has approved revisions to the state’s existing COVID-19 emergency temporary standard. It is unclear whether it will take further action now with respect to the OSHA ETS. It is also unclear whether the Fifth Circuit stay that was in effect until December 17 tolls the deadlines for OSHA State plan adoption deadlines. The ETS has immediate effect in the other 29 states and territories, albeit with the new enforcement delays.
Employers in states and localities that prohibit or restrict vaccination or face covering requirements must be mindful of state and local laws, ordinances, and executive orders that might limit the employer’s ability to require vaccination or otherwise conflict with ETS requirements, particularly if an employer opts for the ETS’s mandatory vaccination policy. While the Sixth Circuit lifted the stay, it has yet to decide the case on the merits, including arguments over whether the ETS overrides state or local laws due to federal preemption. Significantly, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, North Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia have enacted measures that would restrict or impact vaccination requirements. Some of these states are OSHA State Plans and some are actually federal OSHA jurisdictions, creating additional compliance confusion.
Several petitioners have already appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to stay enforcement of the ETS, emphasizing the irreparable harm they will suffer in having to implement the ETS and providing supporting witness declarations. They continue to argue irreparable harm based on labor shortages, the unavailability of tests and unintended (and ironic) consequences of laying off vaccinated workers to financially support compliance. In addition to the challengers’ concerns about the economic viability of their businesses, they argue their likelihood of success in enjoining the standard on the merits and balance of equities weigh in favor of a stay.
Emergency appeals, such as the request for a stay of a ruling by a Circuit Court, go directly to a justice assigned to that Circuit — in this case, to Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is assigned to the Sixth Circuit. The assigned justice may distribute the application to the full court to consider or decide the request on their own. Just a few months ago, Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an emergency request made by a group of Indiana University students seeking to block enforcement of the school’s vaccine mandate after the Seventh Circuit refused to enjoin the mandate. Justice Barrett did not refer the emergency application to the full Supreme Court and did not provide an explanation in the denial of the petitioners’ request.
If you have questions or need assistance on the OSHA ETS, please reach out to AAG for guidance.
The draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for the 2021 reporting season were released in late September 2021 with subtle, but important changes. To an untrained eye, these changes may fly under the radar. However, for the first time since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) inception, employers who file incorrect or incomplete Forms 1095-C with the IRS may suffer costly penalties. The remainder of this article will explore the changes made in the draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in 2021.
The 2020 instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C included language that asserted no penalty would be imposed under IRC sections 6721 or 6722 for incorrect or incomplete Forms 1095-C so long as the employer showed that it made good-faith efforts to comply with the information reporting requirements. Similar language has been included in Notices released by the IRS that correspond to all the ACA reporting seasons to date. However, Notice 2020-76, the Notice that extended the good-faith efforts relief for the 2020 reporting season and was incorporated into the final instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in 2020, stated that the good-faith efforts relief would not continue for tax reporting seasons past 2020.
As a result of the good-faith efforts relief no longer applying, if an employer submits a Form 1095-C to the IRS or furnishes a Form 1095-C to an employee that is incorrect or incomplete, the employer could be penalized $280 per return. It should be noted that this penalty would apply twice to the same Form 1095-C, once for the Form 1095-C that is furnished to the employee and once for the Form 1095-C that is submitted to the IRS for a total of $560.
The chart below details the cost an employer could incur depending on the percentage of its Forms 1095-C that are filed incorrectly or incompletely. While the chart only discusses the penalty under IRC section 6721, if the IRS were to aggressively penalize an employer, the penalty could be doubled by the IRS by utilizing the penalty under IRC section 6722. The column labeled “# of Forms 1095-C” states the number of Forms 1095-C filed by the employer. The columns labeled with a “x%” state the presumed number of Forms 1095-C that are hypothetically filed incorrectly or incompletely. The dollar figure in the chart states the hypothetical penalty.
| # of Forms 1095-C | 1% | 3% | 5% | 10% | 15% | 20% | 25% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 | $280 | $840 | $1,400 | $2,800 | $4,200 | $5,600 | $7,000 |
| 1,000 | $2,800 | $8,400 | $14,000 | $28,000 | $42,000 | $56,000 | $70,000 |
| 2,500 | $7,000 | $21,000 | $35,000 | $70,000 | $105,000 | $140,000 | $175,000 |
| 5,000 | $14,000 | $42,000 | $70,000 | $140,000 | $210,000 | $280,000 | $350,000 |
| 10,000 | $28,000 | $84,000 | $140,000 | $280,000 | $420,000 | $560,000 | $700,000 |
| 25,000 | $70,000 | $210,000 | $350,000 | $700,000 | $1,050,000 | $1,400,000 | $1,750,000 |
| 50,000 | $140,000 | $420,000 | $700,000 | $1,400,000 | $2,100,000 | $2,800,000 | $3,500,000 |
As the chart above displays, an employer who submits 1,000 Forms 1095-C to the IRS with 10 percent of the Forms 1095-C being incorrect could be subject to a penalty of $28,000 under IRC section 6721. Additionally, that employer could be subject to a separate $28,000 penalty for furnishing incorrect Forms 1095-C to employees under IRC section 6722. Many employers and service providers in the ACA space have submitted Forms 1095-C to the IRS that have a much higher error rate than 10 percent in previous years. Consequently, it is easy to envision staggering penalties under IRC sections 6721 and 6722 if the IRS stringently enforces these penalties. As a result, employers must be confident that the information reported to the IRS on the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C is complete, meticulous and error free in order to avoid IRS penalties.
Additionally, for the first time in ACA reporting history the IRS appears set on keeping the deadline of January 31, 2022 to furnish the Forms 1095-C to employees. The 2021 draft instructions provide guidance on how an employer can request a 30 day extension. This extension is not automatically granted and therefore should not be relied upon by employers.
Two other small changes were made in the draft instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. First, the maximum penalty under IRC sections 6721 and 6722 increased from $3,392,000 in 2020 to $3,426,000 in 2021. Second, two new codes were added for individual coverage health reimbursement arrangements (ICHRAs). Each new code involves employers who offered ICHRAs to the employee and the employee’s spouse.
Code 1T – Individual coverage HRA offered to employee and spouse (no dependents) with affordability determined using employee’s primary residence location ZIP code.
Code 1U – Individual Coverage HRA offered to employee and spouse (not dependents) using employee’s primary employment site ZIP code affordability safe harbor.
Since both new codes deal with ICHRAs and both should never be used, as the new codes do not offer coverage to dependent children, these new codes will have little impact on employers. Any employer who is using an ICHRA as part of their ACA strategy should be utilizing codes 1M, 1N, 1P, or 1Q depending on who in the employee’s family is eligible to utilize the ICHRA.
We anticipate the final instructions will be released any week with minimal, if any, changes compared to the draft instructions. While it is still possible the IRS may release a Notice extending the good-faith efforts relief to 2021 reporting and extend the due date to furnish the Forms 1095-C to full-time employees, employers should not rely on such a Notice this year. As a result, it is essential that employers make sure that every line 14 and 16 code combination submitted to the IRS is error free.
During a special legislative session, Florida just passed a new law banning private employers from mandating COVID-19 vaccines unless several exemptions are offered to employees. The law, signed by the governor on 11/18/21, comes as OSHA’s national emergency temporary standard mandating vaccines is embroiled in legal challenges. What do Florida employers need to know about this new law, which takes effect immediately?
Who is Covered and What Does It Do?
The law applies to all private employers in Florida, regardless of size. It prohibits those employers from requiring employees to get vaccinated against COVID-19 unless various exemptions are offered.
What are the Exemptions?
Some of the exemptions in the new law will sound familiar to employers. Others are unique. If an employer receives a statement from an employee (as described below), they must allow the employee to opt-out of the vaccine mandate. The Department of Health will be creating template forms for each of these exemptions.
This includes for reasons of pregnancy or anticipated pregnancy. To receive a medical exemption, an employee must submit a signed statement by a physician or physician assistant that vaccination is not in the best interest of the employee. While not addressed in the legislation, we suspect that this exemption will function similarly to those provided for disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
An employee must present a statement that they decline the vaccine because of a “sincerely held religious belief.” Although that term is undefined, it likely refers to sincerely held religious beliefs as understood under federal lawA.
An employee must show “competent medical evidence” that they have immunity to COVID-19, which is documented by the results of laboratory testing on the employee. The law does not state what “immunity” is but directs the Department of Health to establish a standard for determining that immunity.
An employee must provide a statement indicating that they will comply with the employer’s requirement to submit to regular testing. Although “regular testing” is not defined, the law directs the Department of Health to adopt emergency rules specifying requirements for frequency of testing. Importantly, any testing must be at no-cost to the employee.
Because this exemption has no ties to existing federal law such as Title VII and the ADA, and the law does not address any “undue hardship” defense, it is likely that an employer cannot decline to pay for the testing if there is a charge the employee would otherwise incur.
An employee must present a statement that they agree to comply with the employer’s reasonable written requirement to use employer-provided personal protective equipment when around others. “Personal protective equipment” is not defined. It is unclear whether the use of the term would implicate OSHA regulations or CDC guidance on “personal protective equipment.”
But What About Federal Law?
The CMS Rule and Federal Contractor vaccine mandate requirements, which both require that covered staff be vaccinated and only allow for exemptions for medical conditions (ADA) and sincerely held religious beliefs (Title VII), should preempt this Florida law to the extent the laws directly conflict. The CMS Rule explicitly provides that it preempts state and local laws.
If OSHA’s ETS survives in the courts, it is likely that Florida’s new law will conflict with the OSHA ETS at least in so far as an employer (with 100 or more employees) might want to implement a mandatory vaccination policy instead of allowing employees to choose to be vaccinated or undergo weekly testing. However, the scope of that conflict is unknown and will depend on the final terms of the ETS if it survives.
How is the Law Going to be Enforced?
Florida’s vaccine mandate law will be enforced by the Department of Legal Affairs, in the Attorney General’s office. Employees can file complaints that an exemption was not offered or was improperly applied or denied, which will then be investigated. If the Department finds a violation, it must notify the employer of its determination and allow the employer the opportunity to cure the noncompliance. If the Department finds that an employee was improperly terminated and the employer does not restore the employee to their position with back pay, then the Department may fine the employer up to $50,000, depending on employer size and other factors. Employees who are wrongfully terminated may also be entitled to unemployment benefits. The Department of Legal Affairs will be issuing rules to further flesh out the complaint and investigation process.
What We Don’t Know Yet
There are many unanswered questions. For example, the new law does not address workers’ compensation claims and remains an open question whether an employee’s side effects to a mandated vaccine is covered by workers’ compensation.
What About Public Employers or Schools?
The legislature also passed statutes banning vaccine mandates for public employees and prohibiting any public educational institution or elected or appointed local official from imposing a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for any student. Unlike private sector employers, public sector employers are prohibited from mandating the vaccine — even if they offer the enumerated exemptions.
There are also provisions prohibiting public schools from requiring a student to wear a face mask, a face shield, or any other facial covering. Instead, such issues are left to the parent’s sole discretion. Further, the law prohibits public schools from barring any student or employee from school or school-sponsored activities or subjecting them to other disparate treatment based on an exposure to COVID-19, so long as the student or employee remains asymptomatic and has not received a positive test for COVID-19.
What Employers Can Do
Importantly, the law is not an outright prohibition on vaccine mandates. Private employers can still have a vaccine mandate, so long as you offer the various exemptions discussed above.
Neither does the law prohibit employers from “stacking” their COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts. Meaning, for example, you likely can still require both use of PPE and regular testing in order to protect its workforce. In other words, the statute is a ban on vaccine mandates without certain opt-out accommodations, but it is not a ban on your organization opting to require testing and/or continued use of PPE.
It is worth noting that this new law does not address employers’ immunity against COVID-19 claims. In March 2020, Florida passed a law granting businesses immunity from COVID-19 claims. Absent any more specific legislation, if an employer meets the standards of the immunity law (specifically, demonstrating good faith effort to comply with government-issued health guidance), the language of the immunity law is clear that the employer is immune from civil liability. This new law does not affect that.
You should also keep an eye out for the implementing rules to be issued by the various state agencies. According to the statute, such rulemaking must occur initially by filing emergency rules within 15 days after the effective date of the statute, followed by regular rulemaking thereafter. For the next 15 days (unless the Department of Health files its emergency rules earlier), employer COVID-19 vaccination mandates are deemed invalid under this statute.
What’s Next?
This new law is yet another issue facing employers, who are increasingly confronting a myriad of conflicting orders at the state and federal levels. Unfortunately, the issue of COVID-19 vaccines in the workplace remains incredibly fluid and will surely continue to evolve through the holiday season. As always, we will continue to monitor the situation regarding employers’ vaccine mandates and provide updates as warranted.
The IRS has released the 2022 contribution limits for FSA and several other benefits in Revenue Procedure 2021-45. The limits are effective for plan years that begin on or after January 1, 2022.
Citing potential “grave statutory and constitutional issues” with the mandate-or-test emergency vaccine rule unveiled by OSHA on Thursday (11/4/2021), a federal appeals court just issued an order blocking the ETS from taking effect on a nationwide basis. That the ETS faced immediate litigation from opponents and was at least temporarily sidelined should come as little surprise – many law firms predicted an onslaught of legal challenges well before this move took place. The bigger question left in the wake of Saturday’s legal order: what should employers do now?
What Happened?
As every employer should know by now, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published a mandate-or-test Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) late last week which will soon require all covered employers with 100 or more employees to either mandate their workforce receive the vaccination against COVID-19 or test them weekly to ensure they are not infected.
On Friday (11/5/21), a number of parties – including a management company, multiple supermarkets, and several individuals – filed suit in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit challenging OSHA’s ETS the day it came into effect. A quirk in the way OSHA’s emergency standards can be challenged allows opponents to bypass the lower courts and go directly to a federal Court of Appeals. The Fifth Circuit challenge is not alone; similar cases have also been filed in the Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits.
The Fifth Circuit petition asked the Court to find the ETS either exceeded the scope of OSHA’s authority or that it was unconstitutional. The challengers also pleaded with the Fifth Circuit to “stay” – or temporarily stop – enforcement of the ETS until it could be reviewed by the courts.
Within 24 hours, the Fifth Circuit issued a brief order staying the ETS until it could be fully reviewed by the Court. The order was extremely terse, stating that “the petitions give cause to believe there are grave statutory and constitutional issues” with the ETS (perhaps purposefully mimicking the claim by OSHA that “grave” danger exists such to justify the emergency rule).
What’s Next?
The Fifth Circuit instructed the government to respond to the request for a permanent injunction by 5:00pm on Monday, November 8, and allowed the challengers to reply to the government’s response by 5:00pm on Tuesday. This means it is possible that we will hear a final decision from the Fifth Circuit in the very near future.
We will probably see further rulings in the coming days and weeks from other federal appeals courts as well, some following in the Fifth Circuit’s footsteps and blocking the ETS, others ruling that the ETS stands on solid legal footing. With a patchwork of various legal rulings expected, there will ultimately be a unifying judicial order having the final say on this matter. Whether that ruling comes from the multidistrict litigation panel (an assembly of federal judges that manages certain kinds of national litigation spanning several jurisdictions) or the U.S. Supreme Court remains to be seen.
Where Does This Leave Employers?
At the moment, the outcome of the OSHA ETS is uncertain. While OSHA must refrain from enforcing the ETS until the Fifth Circuit says otherwise, this could change in the blink of an eye if a full panel of appeals court judges removes the stay. And again, with several separate lawsuits filed in different courts challenging the ETS, it is likely that a final binding and unifying determination will not be made for weeks or even months.
What Should You Do?
As of right now, an employer’s best course of action is to familiarize yourself with the requirements of the OSHA ETS and prepare to implement those requirements if the stay is lifted and the emergency rule is revived. After all, OSHA will most likely have little patience with non-compliant employers who claim they held off implementing the mandate-or-test rule while awaiting a final court ruling – and the agency has significant weapons at its disposal in the form of citations and penalties for those not following the ETS edicts.
Employers should spend the coming weeks preparing for the ETS as if it will take effect but waiting to implement its measures until the final judicial outcome is certain. The earliest effective date for any of the ETS requirements is December 5, which includes the need for you to have a vaccination policy and various other technical standards in place. You will be hard pressed to develop these materials overnight, so spend this interim limbo time efficiently and be prepared to comply should the ETS ultimately be upheld.
The ETS places additional burdens on employers (and employees) already straining under workforce shortages, supply chain issues, and varying standards and guidance related to COVID-19. The ETS is expected to face multiple legal challenges.
The OSHA ETS applies to employers with at least 100 employees company-wide.
It does not apply to:
The ETS also does not apply to the employees of covered employers:
At any time during the duration of the ETS, if an employer employs at least 100 workers, the requirements of the ETS will apply regardless of fluctuations in the size of the employer’s workforce.
OSHA’s ETS requires employers who have at least 100 employees (company-wide, not just at one facility) to institute either a mandatory vaccine policy or a weekly testing and mask policy.
Employers must inform employees of their policies and procedures designed to comply with the ETS, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s “Key Things to Know About COVID-19 Vaccines,” OSHA’s prohibition against retaliation for reporting workplace illnesses or injuries and OSHA’s whistleblower protections, and the criminal penalties associated with knowingly supplying false statements or documentation.
If an employer adopts a mandatory vaccination policy to comply with the OSHA ETS, it must require vaccination of all employees (and of all new employees as soon as practicable), other than those:
The employer must require each vaccinated employee to provide acceptable proof of vaccination status, including whether they are fully or partially vaccinated.
Acceptable proof of vaccination status is:
According to the OSHA ETS, the employer must maintain a record of each employee’s vaccination status. The employer must preserve acceptable proof of vaccination for each employee who is fully or partially vaccinated, along with a roster of each employee’s vaccination status. Significantly, employers that have already ascertained vaccination status prior to the effective date of the ETS through another form, attestation, or proof and retained records, are exempted from re-determining the vaccination status of individuals whose fully vaccinated status has been previously documented.
In addition, the employer must maintain a record of each test result provided by each employee.
These records and roster are considered employee medical records and must be maintained as such records. They must not be disclosed except as required or authorized by federal law. These records and roster must be maintained and preserved while this section remains in effect, but are not subject to OSHA’s standard 30-year retention requirement.
According to the ETS, employers must provide paid time off for employees to get vaccinated (up to four hours) and to recover from any side effects. The ETS requires up to four hours of paid time to receive each dose of the vaccine, including travel time, at the employee’s regular rate of pay. The ETS requires “reasonable time and paid sick leave” to recover from the side effects of each dose of the vaccine.
OSHA permits employers to pass the expense for testing to employees, subject to the requirements of other laws.
Whether employers can require employees to pay for their own tests will depend on state law and whether testing is offered as a reasonable accommodation. Many states have laws requiring employers to pay the cost of any required medical exams or tests or expense reimbursement laws, which may be implicated.
The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and state law will govern whether employers have to pay for the time associated with getting testing and awaiting results.
It is also unclear at this time whether, under the FLSA, the cost of testing may drop an employee’s effective rate of pay below the federal minimum wage.
Although some states have their own state OSHA plans, such plans generally must be “at least as effective as” the standard set by OSHA. In those states, the federal OSHA ETS will not apply immediately.
There are currently 22 states that have OSHA-approved State Plans regulating private sector employers. (Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Tennessee, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico.) Those states have 30 days to adopt the federal standard or inform OSHA of their plans to do something else. In addition to their own OSHA plans, some states have passed laws prohibiting or limiting employers’ ability to require COVID-19 vaccines.
OSHA’s ETS is intended to comprehensively address the occupational safety and health issues of vaccination, wearing face coverings, and testing for COVID-19. It, therefore, preempts any state or local requirements on these issues, except those from an OSHA-approved State Plan. Thus, the ETS preempts any state or local requirements banning or limiting an employer from requiring vaccines, face coverings, or testing.
According to the OSHA ETS, the COVID-19 test must be:
Examples of tests that satisfy this requirement include tests with specimens that are processed by a laboratory (including home or on-site collected specimens that are processed individually or as pooled specimens), proctored over-the-counter tests, point-of-care tests, and tests where specimen collection and processing is done or observed by an employer.
Employees who are not fully vaccinated must submit to testing at least weekly if present in the workplace at least once a week or within seven days before returning to work if away from the workplace for a week or longer.
For individuals who have received a positive COVID-19 test or who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, the ETS provides an exception from testing for the 90-day period following the positive diagnosis or test.
Employees who are not fully vaccinated and do not meet the testing requirements must be removed from the workplace pending a test result.
Regardless of vaccination status, employees who test positive for COVID-19 or who are diagnosed with COVID-19 must be removed from the workplace until they meet certain return-to-work criteria. The ETS does not require paid leave for employees who are removed, but acknowledges that other laws may impose such obligations.
Masking: Subject to limited exceptions, employers are required to enforce the wearing of masks for those who are unvaccinated when indoors and when occupying a vehicle with another person for work purposes. Like testing costs, the ETS does not mandate employers to pay for face coverings required by the ETS.
Reporting: Employers are required to report work-related COVID-19 hospitalizations and fatalities to OSHA (within 24 hours of hospitalization and eight hours of a fatality). Under OSHA’s normal reporting standards, work-related hospitalizations and fatalities must be reported only if they occur within a certain time period following the work-related incident (24 hours for hospitalization and 30 days for a fatality). Those time periods do not apply to work-related COVID-19 hospitalizations or fatalities, meaning, employers must still notify OSHA even if the hospitalization or fatality occurs after those time periods.
Notice: Employers must require employees to provide prompt notice when they receive a positive COVID-19 test or are diagnosed with COVID-19.
The OSHA ETS takes effect immediately, except in those states that have their own state plans. However, employers have 60 days to comply with the testing requirements of the ETS and 30 days to comply with the remaining provisions. State plan states have 30 days from the effective date to adopt the federal standard or inform OSHA of their plans to do something else.
As vaccine mandates increase, employers may face yet another headache in the continuing stream of pandemic-related concerns: employees presenting fake cards when asked to establish proof of vaccination. What can you do if you believe an employee has presented a fake vaccine card? And can your company be liable for relying on such falsified records?
How Widespread Is the Practice?
There are a growing number of Americans who are attempting to avoid vaccine mandates by using fake or bogus vaccination cards. As with the fake IDs used by underaged students to obtain alcohol, the internet has spawned a cottage industry marketing the bogus cards. The fake cards are increasingly available for vaccine hesitant customers, students, and employees who are willing to pay for the cards.
Fake vaccination documents can be purchased through a variety of social media sites, the black market, and other internet platforms. Vaccine-hesitant employees and customers have also been caught making homemade versions of vaccine cards.
Bogus vaccination cards are illegal under federal and certain state laws. Indeed, workers using counterfeit vaccine cards are running a significant legal risk. The use and forgery of government seals such as the CDC vaccination card is illegal, with violations ranging from a fine of up to $5,000 or up to five years imprisonment. Many state laws also prohibit such activity.
Unfortunately, there is increasing evidence that many vaccine-hesitant people are willing to take the risk of criminal prosecution.
There have been increasing demand by some leaders, including Senator Chuck Schumer (NY), for law enforcement to step up efforts to shut down internet or online sales of fraudulent certification cards.
What’s at Risk?
Regardless of how many counterfeit vaccine cards are floating around, the key question is whether you may face safety or legal exposure if any of your employees have falsified or misrepresented their vaccination status.
From a workplace safety standpoint, there is no doubt that someone who has skirted your rules can present a threat to other workers, members of the public, and other third parties at the worksite. If you have eased safety and social distancing measures for employees who are vaccinated, and/or discontinued any COVID-19 testing requirements for inoculated workers, an unvaccinated person who slips through the cracks could pose a danger to those around them. This concern alone requires you to take this emerging problem seriously.
Fortunately, your company’s legal liability in such a scenario is most likely low. As long as you have taken reasonable measures to check the vaccination status of your workforce, someone who has misled you by using a fake vaccine card is unlikely to subject the company to a high level of legal exposure. Certainly, your company could be sued, but your odds of successfully defending such a claim would hinge on the reasonableness of your verification process. This means that you should establish reasonable parameters to check vaccine cards, not simply allowing managers or other gatekeepers to give them a quick, cursory glance without reviewing key details. The more reliable your verification system, the better your odds of defeating any negligence claims relating to an employee’s use of a phony vaccine card. The obvious implication is that simply using an “honor system” appears less likely to withstand challenges, from plaintiffs’ lawyers or agencies such as OSHA.
What Can You Do About It?
If you suspect that an employee has presented a falsified vaccine card – what can you do about it? You can certainly take serious action, up to an including termination of employment. If you are concerned about this issue, thee following five steps can put your company in a much stronger position:
Halloween may be the spookiest time of the year, but it doesn’t have to be frightening for HR professionals. Organizations can plan a fun event that is work-appropriate and accessible to all employees.
An office-based scavenger hunt is the favorite Halloween celebration to date for one company. The HR director remembers the scavenger hunt clues were Halloween-themed riddles and puzzles, and some employees dressed up and hid in broom closets to scare people. The scavenger hunt lasted 20 to 30 minutes, and the prize was a giant pumpkin head full of candy and a $100 gift card to Starbucks.
Any Halloween event—whether in-person or virtual—should be voluntary. With that in mind, these tips and pieces of advice can help your group plan an event employees enjoy.
No court has ever ruled that a “Halloween defense” applies to a business facing a misconduct charge, so it’s necessary to provide guidelines for what costumes and conduct are and aren’t appropriate.
In today’s fraught political environment, even masks depicting our national leaders (of either party) are inadvisable costume choices, especially if one wishes to remain on good terms with co-workers. Employees should also refrain from sharing pics [over e-mail] of themselves in a questionable get-up. One quickly loses control over who sees them—ultimately leading to HR issues.
Keep it simple when reminding staff about costumes, but there is a tendency to over-complicate the message. A lengthy manifesto outlining what costumes are appropriate versus which are not, will likely go unread.
Employees don’t have the attention span to read a lengthy e-mail like that. The better approach is to let your employees know that Halloween costumes are fine, so long as they don’t violate the spirit or letter of your company dress code.
At a company in Indiana, they are planning to resume the company’s long-standing dress-up tradition. The company set a COVID-19-related theme for Halloween this year. Staff members choosing to dress up must incorporate a mask into the costume. Remote employees have received special Zoom invitations to join in from home and are also encouraged to dress up.
In the age of Zoom, it’s easy to involve remote workers in in-office events. Last year, the company encouraged remote employees to adopt spooky Halloween-themed backgrounds for Zoom calls, and that is continuing into this year.
Remote employees can decorate their home office with Halloween stuff, but the company also encourages them to use digital Halloween backgrounds for calls rather than the typical blurred background.
Events involving collaboration and teamwork provide the most employee engagement. Eliciting employees’ ideas for Halloween-themed advertising, packaging or window displays, or planning an outdoor scavenger hunt with clues related to the company’s history or products and services are often a hit.
It is prudent to avoid activities that include religious elements and anything overly terrifying. Stay away from contests that involve physical contact, such as mummifying co-workers in toilet paper, as doing so can create potential COVID-19 as well as definite inappropriate conduct risks.
Dressing up is the first idea that comes to mind for Halloween celebrations, but the holiday is ideal for unique, creative themes. This year, a digital marketing agency is hosting weekly remote watch parties of Halloween episodes of iconic TV shows. The company also mailed acrylic paint markers to staff and encouraged them to paint a pumpkin and share their creations in Slack.
The company chose TV shows instead of movies because they’re shorter and more digestible. Employees can pop into the watch party around lunch, and it’s a fun time without distracting too much from work. They are also leaving space in the Friday companywide video call on Oct. 29 so employees can show off costumes.
Last year when business operations went fully remote, another company replaced its traditional costume dress-up with a “Crazy Hat” party. Employees came up with unique hat ideas showcased in a virtual event. This year the company is hosting a “Hocus Pocus”-themed event in which the remote employees can connect over Zoom or Skype.