As COVID-19 vaccines become more widely available and efforts are underway to increase dissemination, employers are considering whether to require employees to be vaccinated in order to be present on Company property.  This Q&A addresses key issues regarding a mandatory workplace vaccine program or policy. In Part 1 of the three-part article, we address six of the most commonly asked questions.

As a prefatory note to the questions and answers below, we strongly recommend employers consult with legal counsel when contemplating a workplace vaccine program.  While mandatory vaccination programs may generally be permitted, the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has long taken the position in its pandemic guidance that employee vaccination should be encouraged rather than required.  As such, before implementing a mandatory program, employers should consider whether an alternative approach may be preferable for their workforce.  Examples of such alternatives include:  encouragement programs, voluntary incentive programs (which have their own set of risks), teleworking arrangements, mandatory diagnostic testing programs, and implementation of additional social distancing and protective measures.

(1) May an employer require employees who will be present on company property to obtain a vaccine when it becomes readily available to the general public?

Generally, yes; provided that

Summary

We understand that our clients and contacts will be addressing complex redundancy issues related to COVID-19 in multiple jurisdictions. BCLP, together with our local counsel friends, have produced a global Q&A document covering 40 jurisdictions. We cover questions around dismissals, compensation, collective consultation and alternatives to redundancy.

Please download our global Q&A document here.

The document covers the following questions:

• Is there any legislation, order or mandate prohibiting an employer from dismissing an employee in circumstances where the employer has obtained the benefit of Coronavirus government support?
• Does an employee with a qualifying period of employment have any statutory protection against redundancy dismissal?
• What redundancy compensation is payable to an employee who is dismissed by reason of redundancy?
• Should an employer take into consideration a Coronavirus government support scheme before dismissing an employee?
• Are employers subject to separate collective consultation obligations?
• If an employer is subject to collective consultation obligations, is there any defence for a failure to comply?
• If an employer is subject to collective consultation obligations, what is the sanction for a failure to comply?
• What alternatives to redundancy dismissal are open to an employer?

Summary

We understand that our clients and contacts will be addressing complex COVID-19 related HR issues in multiple jurisdictions. BCLP, together with our local counsel friends, have produced a global Q&A document covering 35 jurisdictions.

Please download our global Q&A document here.

The document covers the following questions:

• What if an employee refuses to attend work due to fear of the coronavirus?
• What if an employee refuses to undertake work travel to an ‘at risk’ area?
• Can an employee be stopped from holidaying to an ‘at risk’ area?
• If an employee is off sick due to the coronavirus are they entitled to sick pay?
• What should we do if someone suffering from the coronavirus comes into the workplace?
• What if the workplace needs to be closed?
• Can an employee be required by their employer to ‘self-isolate’?
• What physical measures should employers be taking?
• How should employers deal with discriminatory behaviours?

If you have any questions that we have not covered, please contact any member of the team and we could be happy to help.

On Monday, May 8, 2017, the Missouri Legislature passed Senate Bill 66.  Senate Bill 66 amended a number of sections of the Missouri Workers’ Compensation Act.  Of significant note for employment litigators, Senate Bill 66 modifies the burden of proof for workers’ compensation retaliation claims under §287.780 R.S.Mo.  This change was a direct response to the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., 433 S.W.3d 371 (Mo. 2014).  

In Templemire v. W&M Welding, Inc., the plaintiff alleged he was fired in retaliation for filing a workers’ compensation claim. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the employer.  The Missouri Supreme Court ultimately reversed and held that to make a submissible claim of retaliation under §287.780 R.S.Mo., “an employee must demonstrate his or her filing of a workers’ compensation claim was a ‘contributing factor’ to the employer’s discrimination or the employee’s discharge.”  The Templemire decision was regarded by employers in Missouri as controversial.  Templemire rejected stare decisis and overturned two prior Missouri Supreme Court cases that had held that a plaintiff asserting a claim under § 287.780 must prove an exclusive and casual relationship between plaintiff’s actions and defendant’s actions.  Templemire rejected these prior holdings in

Today, the Missouri House of Representatives passed Senate Bill 43, which makes significant changes to the Missouri Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Missouri’s fair employment practices law.  Having now passed both Chambers, Senate Bill 43 now goes to Governor Greitens desk for approval.  Senate Bill 43 makes a number of important changes to the MHRA: 

Burden of Proof Changed to Motivating Factor

The burden of proof on claims under the MHRA is changed to “motivating factor.”  In 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court held there was a right to a jury trial under the MHRA.  In 2005, an advisory committee on Missouri’s jury instructions considered the need for a new instruction for claims under the MHRA, and ultimately recommended that the burden of proof for claims under the MHRA be “contributing factor.”  The Supreme Court adopted that recommendation, and in Daughtery v. City of Maryland Heights, 213 S.W.3d 814 (Mo. banc 2007) held that this standard must be applied to MHRA discrimination claims, and in Hill v. Ford Motor Co., 277 S.W3d 659 (Mo. banc 2009) held that this standard must be applied to MHRA retaliation claims.  Since then, there have been numerous efforts in the Missouri Legislature to