Page 1 of 4
Courtesy of Fisher Phillips
While new presidents are typically judged based on their actions in their first 100 days, the current Trump administration has moved at such a rapid speed that we think another recap is needed at the halfway point. Here’s your employer cheat sheet on Trump’s first 50 days.
DEI and Equal Opportunity Compliance
Affirmative Action and Federal Contract Compliance
Department of Labor + Workplace Safety
Employee Defection and Trade Secrets
Artificial Intelligence
Education
Conclusion
The Trump administration has showed no signs of slowing down, and we expect that to continue throughout the next 50 days and beyond.
President Donald Trump is just 21 days into his second term in office, but you might already be struggling to keep up with the number of changes and policy shifts coming from the new administration. While new presidents are typically judged based on their actions in their first 100 days, Trump’s whirlwind first three weeks warrant taking a pause to make sure you’re caught up on all the changes impacting key workplace issues. Major policy shifts have already affected immigration, DEI programs, equal employment opportunity, labor relations, and artificial intelligence. Here’s your 21-day recap:
1. Immigration
2. Affirmative Action and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)
3. “Gender Ideology” and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
4. Labor Relations
5. Artificial Intelligence
Conclusion
President Trump’s second term kicked off at a rapid pace, and we expect to see a lot more to come during his first 100 days and beyond. We will continue to monitor developments related to all aspects of workplace law.
Courtesy of Fisher Phillips
As more employers incorporate wearable technology in the workplace, including those enhanced by artificial intelligence, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)’s new fact sheet “Wearables in the Workplace: The Use of Wearables and Other Monitoring Technology Under Federal Employment Discrimination Laws,” offers important considerations for employers. The EEOC explains how employers can navigate the complexities of using wearable technologies while ensuring compliance, primarily, with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), and to a lesser extent, Title VII and GINA.
What Are Wearable Technologies?
Wearable technologies, or “wearables,” are electronic devices that are designed to be worn on the body. These devices are often embedded with sensors that can track bodily movements, collect biometric information, monitor environmental conditions and/or track GPS location. Common examples of wearables include:
Other examples of wearables that are beginning to be used in the workplace include smart glasses and smart helmets that can measure electrical activity of the brain referred to as electroencephalogram or “EEG” testing or detect emotions. Exoskeletons are also being used to provide physical support and reduce fatigue.
Wearables in the workplace may implicate federal and state employment, data privacy, AI, and potentially other laws when employers require employees to wear them or if the information collected from the employee’s wearable is reported to the employer.
Key Considerations From the EEOC Guidance
The EEOC’s new guidance outlines several important considerations for employers using wearable technologies with employees:
This overview highlights the key points from the EEOC’s new guidance. Employers should review the full guidance to ensure compliance and consult with legal counsel if they have specific questions or concerns. In addition to compliance with discrimination laws, the adoption of wearables and other emerging technologies in the workplace to manage human capital raises a number of additional legal compliance challenges including privacy, occupational safety and health, labor, benefits and wage-hour compliance to name a few.
Courtesy of Jackson Lewis P.C.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has issued final regulations and Interpretative Guidance to implement the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA). The PWFA went into effect on June 27, 2023. The PWFA requires that employers with at least 15 employees provide reasonable accommodations, absent undue hardship, to qualified employees and applicants with known limitations related to, affected by, or arising out of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions.
The PWFA required the EEOC to publish final regulations by December 29, 2023. However, the EEOC did not issue final regulations until April 15, 2024. The final regulations are slated to be published in the Federal Register on April 19, and will go into effect 60 days after publication. The final regulations were issued after over 100,000 public comments were submitted in response to the proposed regulations.
In the final regulations the EEOC clarifies, and in some instances, expands upon the circumstances in which an employer must reasonably accommodate an employee, absent undue hardship. The following is a list of some of the issues addressed in the 400+ pages of final regulations.
If you have any questions about the PWFA or the implications of the regulations for your organization please let us know.
Employers using or thinking about using artificial intelligence (AI) to aid with workplace tasks received another reminder from the federal government that their actions will be closely scrutinized by the EEOC for possible employment discrimination violations. The federal agency released a technical assistance document on Thursday warning employers deploying AI to assist with hiring or employment-related actions that it will apply long-standing legal principles to today’s evolving environment in an effort to find possible Title VII violations. What are the five things you need to know about this latest development?
1. EEOC Confirms That Employers’ Use of AI Could Violate Workplace Law
The EEOC started by confirming its crystal-clear position in its technical assistance document: an improper application of AI could violate Title VII, the federal anti-discrimination law, when used for recruitment, hiring, retention, promotion, transfer, performance monitoring, demotion, or dismissal. The EEOC outlined four instances where the use of AI during the hiring process – and one example during an employment relationship – could trigger Title VII violations:
The agency didn’t say that these are the only types of workplace-related AI methods that could come under fire – or that these types of tools are inherently improper or unlawful. It did say, however, that preexisting agency regulations (the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures) that have been around for over four decades can apply to situations where employers use AI-fueled selection procedures in employment settings.
The agency said this is especially true in “disparate impact” situations – where employers may not intend to discriminate against anyone but deploy any sort of facially neutral process that ends up having a statistically significant negative impact on a certain protected class of workers.
2. “Four-Fifths Rule” Can Be Applied to AI Selections
The EEOC pointed out that employers can use the “four-fifths” rule as a general guideline to help determine whether an AI selection process has violated disparate impact standards (and we apologize in advance for the impending use of math). The test checks to see if a selection process is having a disparate impact on a certain group by comparing the selection rate of that group with the most “successful” selection rate. If it’s less than four-fifths of that selection rate, then you might be subject to a disparate impact challenge. If that sounds confusing to you, here is the example provided by the EEOC.
Assume your company is using an algorithm to grade a personality test to determine which applicants make it past a job screening process.
Note, however, that the EEOC said that this kind of analysis is merely a rule of thumb. It’s a rudimentary way to draw an initial inference about the selection processes. If you end up finding problematic numbers, it should prompt you to acquire additional information about the procedure in question, according to the EEOC, and isn’t necessarily indicative of a definitive Title VII violation. Similarly, just because your numbers clear the four-fifths hurdle doesn’t mean that the particular selection procedure is definitely lawful under Title VII. It can still be challenged by the agency or a plaintiff in a charge of discrimination.
3. EEOC Encourages Proactive Self-Audits
In a statement accompanying the release of the technical assistance document, EEOC Chair Charlotte Burrows said that employers should test all employment-related AI tools early and often to make sure they aren’t causing legal harm. This doesn’t mean just using the four-fifths rule, but also using a thorough auditing process involving a variety of potential examination methods on all AI functions. “I encourage employers to conduct an ongoing self-analysis to determine whether they are using technology in a way that could result in discrimination,” she said.
But not mentioned by the EEOC: a reminder that you should approach any self-audit with the help of legal counsel. Not only can experienced legal counsel help guide you about the best methodologies to use and assist in interpreting the results of any audit, but using counsel can help cloak your actions under attorney-client privilege, potentially shielding certain results from discovery. This can be especially beneficial if you identify changes that need to be made to improve your process to minimize any unintentional impacts.
4. You’re On the Hook For Problems Caused by Your AI Vendors
The agency also noted quite clearly that you can’t duck your responsibilities by using a third party to deploy AI methods and then blaming them for any resulting discriminatory results. It said that you may still be responsible if the AI procedure discriminates on a basis prohibited by Title VII even if the decision-making tool was developed by an outside vendor.
“In addition,” said the EEOC, “employers may be held responsible for the actions of their agents, which may include entities such as software vendors, if the employer has given them authority to act on the employer’s behalf.” This may include situations where you rely on the results of a selection procedure that an agent administers on your behalf.
The EEOC recommends that you may want to specifically ask any vendor you are considering to develop or administer an algorithmic decision-making tool whether steps have been taken to evaluate whether that tool might cause an adverse disparate impact. And it also recommends asking the vendor whether it relied on the four-fifths rule of thumb or whether it relied on a standard such as statistical significance that is often used by courts when examining employer actions for potential Title VII violations.
5. EEOC’s Guidance is Part of Bigger Trend
This technical assistance document is part of a bigger trend we’re seeing from federal agencies that are increasingly interested in the ways that AI may lead to employment law violations. Just last month, in fact, EEOC Chair Burrows teamed up with leaders from the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to announce that they would be scrutinizing potential employment-related biases that can arise from using AI and algorithms in the workplace.
And within the past year, the EEOC teamed up with the DOJ to release a pair of guidance documents warning that relying on AI to make staffing decisions might unintentionally lead to discriminatory employment practices, including disability bias, followed by the White House releasing its “Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights” that aims to protect civil rights in the building, deployment, and governance of automated systems.
While none of these guidance documents create new legal standards or can be relied upon with the force of law like a statute or regulation, they do carry weight, may signal where the agencies are focusing their enforcement efforts, and can be cited to by agencies and plaintiffs’ attorneys as best practices that employers should follow. And states have gotten into the action too, with New York City’s law set to take effect in July, and a new bill advancing towards the Governor in California. And for that reason, you should take this guidance seriously and adapt your employment practices as necessary to stay up to speed with the pace of change that is rapidly unfolding before our eyes.
The Department of Labor (DOL) has launched a new concentrated outreach initiative. For business owners, that means the DOL has promised to actively reach out via radio announcements, social media platforms and neighborhood posters informing employees of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
You may now be thinking “What does that have to do with me? I pay my employees to work”. While this may be mostly true, often we (or our managers) inadvertently allow or encourage our employees to work off the clock. Before your internal defenses kick into high gear, let me provide a few examples of how this could occur:
Over the past year, business owners and managers have dedicated their time, energy and focus to keeping the essential business doors open or attempting to reopen and get employees back in the office. To allow employees to safely return to work, you have had to operate/reopen your business within CDC guidelines, transition your business to accommodate a remote workforce, follow OSHA’s recommendations, keep up with Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as the interaction between the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA). It is no wonder some of our focus on day-to-day compliance may have slipped.
My company’s mission is to be The Employer Advocate. Under the new administration, changes are happening at lightning speed and, as your advocate, we are here to help you navigate through changes as they occur. Administrators Advisory Group (AAG) is a benefits brokerage that works with small to mid-size businesses, specializing in human resources compliance. We work alongside your human resource team to keep you up to date with the latest workplace rules and regulations.
The Department of Labor (DOL) campaign is the first in our four-part series designed to let you know what changes have taken place that may affect your business. In the following weeks, we will cover changes regarding the Family First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) as amended under the CARES Act, changes occurring within OSHA, and a new federal taskforce created whose goal is to unionize your employees.
While Wage & Hour rules have not changed, the informational outreach by the DOL has just begun. The biggest change comes in the form of visibility and accessibility of the information, beginning with the revamp of their website. The DOL has promised to proactively reach out to employees using radio public service announcements, national webinars, social media messages, and posters.
Reminding employers and employees alike that employees must be paid for ALL hours worked is the center of this outreach! Even if you don’t ask an employee to work overtime, even if it’s done remotely, and even if you aren’t aware (but should have been), the employee is entitled to be paid.
Wage & Hour rules can be one of the many landmines that employers have to navigate on a daily basis. With AAG on your side, we will help you ensure you are prepared in case the DOL shows up on your doorstep. Let us know if you have questions or would like to review some of your existing practices or policies.
Now that most states, the CDC, and OSHA have (or may soon) lift mask mandates for vaccinated workers, what is an employer to do about revealing an employee’s vaccination status? Under any relaxed masking guidance applicable to those who are fully vaccinated, customers, visitors, and co-workers are likely to draw their own conclusions about the vaccination status of everyone else in the workplace based upon whether or not they are wearing a mask. This addresses some of the legal and practical considerations for employers dealing with a partially vaccinated workforce and provides seven options for you to consider as you navigate this rapidly evolving area.
The Push to Unmask
Anxious to get back to normal after more than a year of mask mandates and social distancing, employers and employees are ready to do away with COVID-19 restrictions. Employees in certain industries (such as health care workers and educators) will likely continue to be required to mask up and social distance for the foreseeable future. However, other employers are developing various approaches and policies to lift masking requirements for employees (and others) who are fully vaccinated following new CDC and OSHA guidance.
Unmasking Employees Based On “Proof” of Vaccination
“Proof” of vaccination status is and will continue to be a significant consideration for employers when lifting mask mandates. Indeed, many employees are under the mistaken belief that an employer cannot ask vaccine status. However, per the guidance of the EEOC and other state agencies, you are permitted to request vaccination status. In California, local health authorities such as in Santa Clara County, have already mandated that businesses and government entities ascertain the vaccination status of all employees, independent contractors, and volunteers who are or will be working at a facility or worksite in the county.
Indeed, the inquiry may be required to determine which employees can and which employees cannot unmask. As an example, the Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Administration has already issued guidance that requires employers to “verify the vaccination status” of workers before permitting them to unmask. The CDC, OSHA, and many state authorities agree that only those employees who are fully vaccinated can follow relaxed COVID-19 protocols, while those who are not fully vaccinated must continue to observe safety protocols such as mask wearing and social distancing. During COVID-19 inspections, OSHA will likely require employers to show how they have documented or “verified” vaccination status where employees are permitted to work under the relaxed COVID-19 safety protocols.
In determining an employee’s vaccine status, however, you must carefully limit any vaccine-related inquiry only to vaccination status and not inquire further, as such follow-up could improperly elicit information about an employee’s medical disability or other family medical information. Given that this is likely considered medical information, such information should be kept separate and confidential. Additionally, employers subject to the CCPA in states such as California need to understand that collecting vaccine-related information triggers the CCPA notice obligation.
Navigating State Limitations on Requiring Proof of Vaccination Status
Even though some federal, state, or local agencies may require or request that employers track employee vaccine status, there is a growing move in some states to protect vaccine status as confidential, private information. States are literally all over the map when it comes to vaccine disclosure or use of so called “vaccine passports.” Some states have adopted or are considering laws that promote vaccine passports. New York, for example, launched a COVID-19 vaccine passport initiative known as the Excelsior Pass that allows users to provide proof of vaccination where required. Other states, like Hawaii, have or are considering similar passport systems that promote vaccine disclosure to assist in safe reopening of business and public access.
However, many other states have gone in the opposite direction to protect individual privacy rights. These states have acted to restrict vaccine passports, with government entities and businesses barred from requiring proof of vaccinations. For example, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis recently signed into law a statute that prohibits the use of vaccine passports by government entities or businesses, stating that “in Florida, your personal choice regarding vaccinations will be protected and no business or government entity will be able to deny you services based on your decision.” Other states such as Alabama, Arizona, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Georgia, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming have also restricted vaccine passports or requirements.
Arkansas and Montana have taken a more aggressive approach to address individuals’ privacy concerns and limit disclosure of vaccination status. Governor Hutchinson signed into law a statute that prevents state and local government entities from requiring proof of vaccinations as a condition of employment or to access goods and services. The law provides some exceptions for state-owned medical facilities. Montana Governor Gianforte has signed into law a statute that provides even greater protections for the unvaccinated, generally prohibiting employers from requiring any of the current vaccinations.
Given the fluidity in this area, you should remain mindful of the need to monitor these developments and check with counsel before implementing any vaccine-tracking policies.
Additional Landmines if Fully Vaccinated Employees Unmask
Aside from the spate of state and local government restrictions and mandates, employers face other potential legal landmines and practical problems when tracking and/or disclosing an employee’s vaccination status. As mentioned above, you should consider the legal privacy considerations in requesting and maintaining the vaccination status of employees.
As employers move to allow fully vaccinated workers to unmask employees, there will likely be legal, privacy, and employee morale issues related to any express or perceived disclosure of employee vaccination status. Indeed, even without an explicit disclosure, others will likely be able to decipher the vaccination status of employees. While employees are choosing to voluntarily disclose their vaccination status to their co-workers, you should not adopt such a casual attitude. You should consider the ramifications of disclosure of vaccine status without employee consent or as a result of a “company policy” or practice. Such practices could potentially give rise to exposure in areas of breach of confidentiality, privacy, discrimination, retaliation, and more.
Company disclosure of vaccine status may also inadvertently expose employees with legitimate disability issues or religious objections related to the vaccine. Employee morale could be compromised if employees believe they are being pitted against each other due to their vaccine status, especially if the company is somehow involved in the disclosures. Additionally, a policy of company-wide disclosure might even boomerang, potentially discouraging employees who do not want to be ridiculed or harassed by co-workers who are opposed to the vaccination.
What Should Employers Do? 7 Options to Address a Partially Vaccinated Workforce
How to relax restrictions for those who are fully vaccinated while maintaining confidentiality and a safe workplace for all? How to balance the possible exposure and potential federal and state safety agency fines if you don’t get it right? While there are rarely clear answers, and legal liabilities remain unclear, below are some options employers have been adopting to deal with the dilemma of the partially vaccinated workforce.
Conclusion
Each of these options come with some level of risk. You should explore the various paths available to you with your legal counsel before adopting any of them, especially in light of rapidly changing state and local laws in this area. Also, note that every option in which some employees are masked and some are unmasked includes the risk of employee conflict or harassment issues. This risk should be evaluated and addressed up front through training, ongoing communications emphasizing the importance of mutual respect in the workplace, adoption of written policies and procedures, and effective management oversight.
The EEOC kicked off the unofficial start of summer with a bang by clearing the way for employers to offer their employees incentives to get the COVID-19 vaccine in new guidance released on the eve of the Memorial Day weekend. The May 28 updates to the agency’s COVID-19 Technical Assistance guidance now provides employers with two clear options, drawing a key distinction based on who administers the shot:
Regardless of which path you travel, there are still hoops to jump through if you want to provide vaccine incentives – providing accommodations, ensuring confidentiality, etc. – but you now have a clear direction to take to encourage your workers towards vaccination. What do you need to know about this critical update?
Why Was This Guidance Necessary?
Before we take a deeper dive into discussing the options and other considerations, some employers may be wondering why this guidance was even necessary. Couldn’t you just offer some cash or PTO or some other reward to induce employee behavior without concern about the legal ramifications?
The main sticking point troubling employers for months concerned wellness program rules. Historically, the EEOC has indicated it didn’t want employers to force employees to make medical-related decisions through the use of incentives. Until this latest guidance, the EEOC believed that too significant of an incentive could coerce employees to participate, thus leading to legal violations if employees are “forced” to disclose protected medical information to gain the incentive. Through rules, guidance, and federal litigation, the EEOC has taken steps to ensure that any employment decisions in this regard were genuinely voluntary.
Earlier this year, the EEOC issued a proposed rule expressly permitting only de minimis incentives as passing muster under participatory wellness programs. The proposed rule contained language referring to a permissible incentive as a “water bottle” or something of equivalent value. However, the Biden administration withdrew the proposed rule under a regulatory freeze typically seen when new leadership takes charge at the White House. The proposed rule is still pending review and it is unclear when or what form it may re-emerge. Against the backdrop of this uncertainty, employers have been attempting to navigate the thorny path of vaccine incentives, concerned that offering robust incentives could bring about a higher legal risk. At the urging of business groups seeking clarity on the matter, the EEOC finally heeded the call and provided the certainty that employers have been craving.
Option 1: Unlimited Incentives
Under the first option, you are seemingly permitted to provide unlimited incentives to your workforce so long as your employees voluntarily provide you with documentation or other confirmation they received the COVID-19 vaccine, and they received the vaccination on their own from a third-party provider that is not an “agent” of your organization. The EEOC describes such third parties as pharmacies, public health departments, or other health care providers in the community.
Option 2: Restricted Incentives
On the other hand, if employees are voluntarily vaccinated by you or your “agent,” you can offer only incentives that are “not so substantial as to be coercive.” Which leads to two questions: what is an “agent,” and how substantial is “substantial”?
Definition of “Agent” and How to Avoid This Designation
Definition of “Substantial” and How to Avoid Violations
Other Considerations
Whichever path you take, there are several other considerations to keep in mind when offering vaccine incentives based on voluntary inoculations.
Accommodations
Some employees may have legitimate medical or religious reasons not to get vaccinated, and failure to provide them with the same types of incentives could lead to claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Title VII. You will need to consider offering alternative means by which an employee can earn an incentive if they cannot be vaccinated due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Alternative ways to earn the incentive might be watching a workplace COVID-19 safety video or reviewing CDC literature on mitigating the spread of COVID-19 in the workforce.
Confidentiality
Once you gather information from employees about whether they have been vaccinated or not, you must maintain confidentiality. You should maintain the records as you would any other medical-related documentation (in a separate file, accessible to only those who need to know, etc.) and comply with all other state-specific privacy rules (such as in California).
Family Members
While you can offer an incentive to employees to provide documentation or other confirmation from a third party not acting on your behalf that their family members have been vaccinated, the EEOC confirmed that you may not offer incentives to your employees in return for their family members getting vaccinated by your organization or your agent. This would be considered a violation of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) Title II health and genetic services provision. Asking pre-screening medical questions would lead to you receiving genetic information in the form of family medical history of the employee, and GINA regulations prohibit employers from providing incentives in exchange for genetic information. However, you can still offer an employee’s family member the opportunity to be vaccinated by your organization or your agent if you take certain steps to ensure GINA compliance.
Possible Incentives to Consider
If you are now considering what kind of incentives to offer your workforce in light of this new guidance, you might find comfort knowing that employers’ two most common incentive options include cash/gifts (38%) and paid time off (30%). This is according to an FP Flash Survey conducted earlier this year, which found that more than one in five employers were providing vaccine incentives. That number is bound to rise given that close to half of all respondents (43%) said they were unsure about whether to offer some form of incentive, many commenting that the then-current legal uncertainty fueled their hesitancy.
Declaring that the state is “no longer in a state of emergency,” Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday, May 3rd, banning vaccine passports while issuing two executive orders immediately suspending and invalidating local government COVID-19 restrictions, including mask mandates. But the news doesn’t necessarily mean you should rush to ease up on your facemask requirements for workers or visitors, nor impact your decision to mandate vaccines for your workers. Below is a summary of the implications for Florida businesses.
Vaccine Passports Banned
As the vaccine rollout progresses, businesses and employers nationwide have been wondering if a “vaccine passport” – an official document certifying that an individual has been vaccinated against COVID-19 – can lead to a path back to normalcy. A Florida law now prohibits businesses operating in Florida from implementing those measures with respect to customers. The new law does not come as a surprise to most Floridians. On April 2, Governor DeSantis signed Executive Order 21-81 prohibiting vaccine passports. This new law, however, solidifies the ban and provides more guidance for businesses.
Specifically, the new law says that “business entities,” including for-profit and not-for-profit entities, cannot require that patrons or customers provide documentation certifying that they received the COVID-19 vaccine or certifying that they have recovered from the virus to enter or receive a service from the business. Licensed health care providers are exempt from this provision.
The law also provides that educational institutions, including both public and private schools, cannot require students or residents to provide documentation certifying that they received the COVID-19 vaccine or have recovered from the virus.
Importantly, the law does not prohibit private businesses from requiring that their own employees show proof of vaccination or certification that they recovered from the virus. Of note, recent guidance from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission clarifies that it is generally permissible for employers to ask employees about whether they have been vaccinated, but employers should avoid further inquiries.
Further, the new law permits covered entities to continue to use screening protocols (such as temperature checks) in accordance with state or federal law to protect public health.
Governor Eliminates Current Local Restrictions After Florida Surgeon General Discourages Masks
On April 29, Florida State Surgeon General Dr. Scott Rivkees issued a Public Health Advisory rescinding prior public health advisories. Notably, the advisory states that fully vaccinated people should no longer be advised to wear face coverings or avoid social and recreational gatherings except in “limited circumstances.” Those limited circumstances are not defined, but the advisory appears to cover masking both indoors and outdoors.
Noticeably, the Surgeon General’s advisory is less restrictive than CDC guidance. Although the CDC recently announced that fully vaccinated people can forego masks in certain situations (for example, if they are indoors with other vaccinated people, indoors with unvaccinated people from the same household, or outdoors in spaces that are not crowded), the CDC generally recommends that fully vaccinated people continue to wear masks or face coverings in other scenarios.
To follow the Surgeon General’s advisory, Governor DeSantis issued a pair of executive orders on May 3 suspending and invalidating local government COVID-19 restrictions, including mask mandates. These orders effectively eliminate all existing coronavirus-related restrictions imposed by local governments. This means that local orders requiring, among other things, masks, sanitizing, and capacity limits are no longer effective. The orders do not affect restrictions issued by school districts.
Noticeably, the governor’s orders only prohibit local governments from issuing and enforcing COVID-19 restrictions using their emergency procedures. They specifically allow local governments to enact ordinances under regular enactment procedures. Thus, it is possible that local governments will counter the governor’s orders by enacting ordinances continuing to require such measures as masking and distancing.
However, the state’s guidance does not mean that private businesses cannot – or should not – enforce their own policies. The orders only prohibit local governments from issuing and enforcing restrictions on individuals or businesses using emergency powers. Local governments may still enact such procedures using regular procedures. Businesses can still generally enforce their own measures, including mask mandates, if they choose to.
What Should Employers Do Now?
Pushing forward to a new normal, Florida employers should be aware of how to proceed. Despite the state’s guidance, you should continue to enforce safety measures.
Florida recently passed a new COVID-19 liability protection law for businesses. Although very favorable to businesses, the law requires that businesses make a “good faith effort to substantially comply with authoritative or controlling government-issued health standards” to gain its protection. If there are different sources of guidance in effect, a business may follow any of them. This means that although they are different, a business can likely be protected from liability by following either Florida or CDC guidance. However, an employer may have stronger defenses and be able to undercut possible claims earlier by following CDC guidance, which takes a more conservative approach than current Florida guidance.
Further, OSHA requires that employers maintain a workplace free of recognized hazards. COVID-19 is such a recognized hazard. By not following CDC guidance, a Florida employer may open themselves to exposure under OSHA’s General Duty Clause, even in the absence of a state mandate.
Employers should also consider the business realities of having unmasked employees. Among other things, customers and vendors may not feel comfortable entering your business if they see employees unmasked, even if they are vaccinated.
Finally, because the Surgeon General’s recommendations only apply to fully vaccinated people, your business may have an inconsistent patchwork of some employees wearing masks while others are not. This may result in a situation where different standards apply to different employees depending on their vaccination status. Employers should avoid this, as OSHA has issued guidance stating that businesses should not treat unvaccinated employees differently than vaccinated employees. Additionally, inconsistency among employees wearing masks may inadvertently reveal who is and is not vaccinated, which may be disruptive and may unintentionally single out employees who do not get the vaccine, including for medical or religious reasons.