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

President Biden’s appointment of Jenny Yang to Director of the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (“OFCCP”) on his first day in office signals a new direction in federal equal employment opportunity enforcement.  Prior to this appointment, Director Yang had a career as a plaintiff’s attorney before being appointed to Chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) under the Obama administration.  Notably, during Director Yang’s time as Chair of the EEOC, the agency introduced a highly contested requirement for employers to disclose certain employee pay data when filing EEO-1 Reports.

We expect that many of the Biden administration’s equal employment initiatives, including a renewed emphasis on pay discrimination, will be vetted through the OFCCP by Director Yang.  The EEOC may not experience as much of an immediate sea change since the Republican EEOC commissioners will remain in place through 2022.

Importantly, the OFCCP has the authority to audit private employers’ hiring and pay practices if the employer falls within the agency’s jurisdiction, which is broadly defined and applies to approximately 25% of private employers.  For example, a private employer is a government contractor or a subcontractor under the OFCCP’s jurisdiction if it has 50 or more

As states across the country see spikes in COVID-19 cases, employers continue to wrestle with how to handle “high risk” employees, i.e., employees who are at an increased risk for severe illness from COVID-19.  Guidance from a variety of agencies on the topic, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”), has been published in waves, leaving many to wonder how this guidance may or may not continue to be relevant.

Below are six important areas of the law to consider when navigating this evolving landscape.  As a reminder, each individual employee’s circumstances are unique, so while employers should have a consistent procedure in place for triaging high risk employees’ presence in the workplace, employers should also be prepared to develop individualized solutions based on an employee’s specific needs.

1. The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”): Employees with certain underlying health conditions may qualify as “high risk” and thus be entitled to a reasonable accommodation under the ADA.  While accommodations may include a leave of absence or telework arrangement, other possible accommodations include permitting the employee more frequent hygiene breaks, excusing
   

With all of the attention being given to COVID-19-related leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), we mustn’t forget the (traditional) Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”).  To remind us, the federal Department of Labor (“DOL”) recently issued new FMLA Q&A on COVID-19-related subjects.

COVID-19 Testing:  The DOL clarified that the FMLA’s “reinstatement” requirement does not interfere with an employer’s ability to require all employees to take a COVID-19 test before coming to the office.  (See Q&A #13.)  This is because employees who have taken FMLA leave are still subject to the same actions that would have applied to the employee had the employee not taken FMLA leave.

For BCLP discussions about what the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has said about COVID-19 related testing, see this blog post on 4 Takeaways from the EEOC’s New Guidance on Antibody Testing, Older Workers, and Accommodations and this one on EEOC Updates COVID-19 Guidance, Permitting Employers To Administer COVID-19 Tests and Clarifying Accommodation Obligations.

Telemedicine:  The DOL clarified that, until December 31, 2020, and in light of the current pandemic-related demands on health care providers and PPE/supplies, “telemedicine” visits will count as “in-person visits” for FMLA

With more and more states reopening their economies, employers are facing a barrage of new requirements from state and local governments.  But compliance with local law isn’t the only thing employers must consider as they resume business operations.  Federal anti-discrimination laws, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), continue to impact which workers may be required to return to work and what information employers may gather in the process.

Just as the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, so, too does guidance on these topics from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), the agency charged with enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws.  In its most recent publication, the EEOC offers new insights on antibody testing, older workers, and accommodations.  Below are four key takeaways from the updated guidance for every employer to consider.

1. Employers may not require employees to undergo antibody testing (i.e. serologic testing used to determine whether an employee was previously infected with COVID-19) prior to returning to the workplace. This is in contrast to diagnostic testing (i.e. viral testing used to determine whether an employee is currently infected with COVID-19), which an employer may require.
2. Employees are not entitled to an accommodation
   

As employers prepare their “Return To Work” plans, clear communications to employees about protocols and expectations will be critically important.  Recent updates to the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) COVID-19 publication, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and other EEOC Laws,” discuss “reminders” that employers should consider providing to employees on various EEO-related “Return To Work” topics.

Anti-Harassment Reminders

Near the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., as reports of harassing conduct towards Asian individuals increased, the EEOC was quick to remind employers that they could reduce the chance of harassment by explicitly communicating to the workforce that fear of the pandemic “should not be misdirected against individuals because of a protected characteristic, including their national origin, race, or other prohibited bases.”  (E.1.)

The EEOC reiterated that guidance in its recent updates, noting that workforce reminders should:

• Note Title VII’s prohibitions on harassment;
• Remind employees that harassment will not be tolerated;
• Encourage anyone who experiences or witnesses workplace harassment to report it to management; and
• Remind employee that harassment can result in disciplinary action up to and including termination.

(E.3.)  The EEOC further emphasized that managers in