In a stunning show of ignorance, a Miami, Florida, private school has informed its staff that because the Covid-19 vaccine poses a health risk to those in close proximity to those who have been vaccinated, those who have already received the vaccine must physically distance from students and anyone vaccinated will not be permitted to return to work after the summer break.
McDonald's has lots of secrets. What's in its sauce? What part of the chicken do the McNuggets come from? How come every time I crave a cone the soft-serve machine is out of order? Why do their soft drinks taste better than anyone else's?
Something that's not a secret, however, is that McDonald's has a serious sexual harassment problem.
As we move into the vaccination campaign focused on working-age adults, one concern I've heard from so many Americans is that they can't afford to take the time off to get vaccinated or lose a day's work because they are feeling slightly under the weather after their shot. I'm calling on every employer, large and small, in every state to give employees the time off they need -- with pay -- to get vaccinated, and any time they need -- with pay -- to recover if they're feeling under the weather after the shot. No working American should lose a single dollar from their paycheck because they chose to fulfill their patriotic duty of getting vaccinated.
According to a recent Axios-Ipsos poll, vaccination efforts may have plateaued, and most people who've not yet been vaccinated don't plan to get vaccinated.
A couple of months ago I was approached by the That One Case podcast to record an episode. This show asks lawyers to share the story of one case that has stood out over their careers. As they pitched it, that case could be a big win that defined my career, a turning point that took my work down an unexpected path, or simply the case of which I am most proud.
Consider the following Covid safety and health violations OSHA recently uncovered at a Massachusetts tax preparation business.
I haven't taken a proper vacation in 25 months. We were supposed to go to Portugal last March, but then Covid happened. In the 13 months since, there's been little point in taking off from work for any length of time because I haven't been able to go anywhere. "I can't go anywhere, so I might as well work," has been a popular pandemic refrain (me included).
Americans were bad at vacations before Covid. The pandemic certainly hasn't helped our PTO hesitancy.
One of the lasting lessons of the Covid-19 pandemic for businesses is our broken state unemployment systems. State governments have paid out tens of billions of dollars in bogus unemployment claims. And with claims paid comes tax forms reporting the income related to those claims.
Consider the story of just one taxpayer, as relayed by the Wall Street Journal.
Michael Baird, a 33-year-old marketing manager in Chicago, hasn't lived in Texas for several years. And yet there was a tax form from the state of Texas sitting at his parents' house in Houston, showing that the state had paid him $1,014 in unemployment benefits.
In the history of this blog's 3,603 posts, I've never written about the False Claim Act. If you've been waiting with bated breath for me to fix this omission, today's your lucky day, thanks to United States ex rel. David Felten, M.D., Ph.D. v. William Beaumont Hosp. (6th Cir. 3/31/21). Before diving into the Felten case, let's first take a 61-word peek at the False Claims Act and to what it applies.
The False Claims Act is a federal statute that imposes liability on people and companies that defraud the federal government, and further, relevant to Felten, permits private citizens (which the law calls "relators") to file lawsuits (known as qui tam claims) on behalf of the government and protects relators from retaliation when the lawsuit they are filing is against their employer.
At issue in Felten is whether the FCA's anti-retaliation protections only cover current employees, or whether they also extend to an employer's former employee who blows the whistle by filing a qui tam suit.
Three weeks ago I returned to the office. That return matched my start date at Wickens Herzer Panza. I decided that it'd be difficult, if not impossible, to learn a new firm and its systems, and build camaraderie and teamwork with my new co-workers, if I'm working remotely. Thus, I made the decision to break free of my self-imposed Covid cocoon and start working most days in person in the office.
I thought about this decision as I read this article in the Wall Street Journal: After Covid, Should You Keep Working From Home? Here’s How to Decide.
Thirteen months into the pandemic, the COVID-related employment lawsuits are starting to roll into courthouses. Consider the following, all of which made headlines over the past couple of weeks.
Two weeks from today, H.B. 352 takes effect and brings the most significant changes to Ohio's workplace discrimination statute since its passage decades ago. What are these changes?
According to the Wall Street Journal, Covid-19 vaccination cards are our only proof of vaccination status and will soon be as essential as a drivers' license or passport. With no national or statewide centralized databases of vaccination records, the piece of paper you receive with your vaccine dose is your only proof of vaccination.
The article suggests that we'll need this record to do lots of things moving forward, such as travel. What about returning to in-person work? Can employers ask for or require that employees provide proof of vaccination?
According to the EEOC, the answer is yes as to the ask.
Is asking or requiring an employee to show proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination a disability-related inquiry?
No. There are many reasons that may explain why an employee has not been vaccinated, which may or may not be disability-related. Simply requesting proof of receipt of a COVID-19 vaccination is not likely to elicit information about a disability and, therefore, is not a disability-related inquiry. However, subsequent employer questions, such as asking why an individual did not receive a vaccination, may elicit information about a disability and would be subject to the pertinent ADA standard that they be “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” If an employer requires employees to provide proof that they have received a COVID-19 vaccination from a pharmacy or their own health care provider, the employer may want to warn the employee not to provide any medical information as part of the proof in order to avoid implicating the ADA.
The question then becomes what does an employer do if an employee cannot provide proof of vaccination? If the vaccine is mandatory and a condition of employment, it can deny access to the workplace or even terminate, provided that it is considering exceptions for employees' disabilities and sincerely held religious beliefs, practices, and observances. If the vaccine is not mandatory, why ask for the vaccine record in the first place?
We are entering a very interesting era of privacy, including employee privacy. If you are not mandating the vaccine, while you are within your legal right to ask about vaccination status, why would you? Do you really want to catalogue your employees' vaccination status and for what purpose?
* Photo by Marco Verch Professional Photographer on Flickr [Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)]