Contact Us
Categories
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Temporary Leave
- IRS
- Treasury
- Paid Sick Leave
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Salary Theshold
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- overtime rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- ERISA
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- Overtime Pay
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- U.S. Department of Labor
- Union
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Compliance
- copyright
- Intellectual Property
- Work for Hire
- Amazon
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Screening
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Security Checks
- Micro-unit
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- Creech v. Brown
- Lane v. Franks
- Cloud
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Whistleblower
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- "Ban-the-box"
- Bullying
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Companionship services
- EEOC v. Fabricut
- EEOC v. The Founders Pavilion
- Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
- Federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”)
- Giant Food LLC
- Government employees
- Government shutdown
- Home Health Care Workers
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- Medical Exams
- Private employers
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- COBRA
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Endorsements
- Freedom of Speech
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Reference checks
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Tangible employment actions
- Title VII retaliation cases
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- Employee Hazards
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Litigation
- Online Account Protection
- Play or Pay
- Record Retention
- Sequester
- severance pay
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- tax refund
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee photographs
- Form I-9
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- posting requirements
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Telecommuting
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Municipal Liability
- Public Sector Liability
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Crisis Management
- Federal Department of Labor
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- social privacy laws
- Workplace Politics
- Class Action Waivers
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
- Business Insurance
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Insurance Coverage
- National Labor Relations Act
- Retaliation by Association
- Unemployment Benefits
- Communications Decency Act
- Employee Contracts
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
Employers, Take Note: EEOC Releases COVID-19 Vaccine Guidance
Throughout the course of 2020, employers have had to stay abreast of a myriad of COVID-19 regulations in the workplace. This includes understanding the ways that CDC guidelines, local and federal regulations, and public health recommendations intersect with the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘ADA’), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (‘GINA’), and more. In addition to the existing recommendations, the EEOC has released guidance for employers to stay compliant when managing the distribution of the newly approved coronavirus vaccines in the workplace.
The first piece of guidance the EEOC offers is that employers must try to make reasonable accommodations for employees who cannot get vaccinated due to disability or sincerely held religious beliefs. However, if there are no reasonable accommodations possible for the employee—which might be the case if the employer is requiring the vaccine for the safety of the workplace as a whole—the employer may be able to lawfully exclude the employee from being in the workplace. This does not mean that the employer may automatically terminate the employee, but they should explore options that keep everyone in the workplace safe while abiding by compliance regulations.
It is important for employers to note the connection between requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and the ADA’s provisions on medical examinations and disability-related questioning. While administration of the vaccine itself is not considered a medical examination, employers should still be aware of the implications of pre-vaccine screening. Questions asked as part of the screening will likely provoke responses from employees about any disabilities and therefore may be categorized as disability-related inquiries. This means questions should be carefully constructed and employers should ensure that they are both “consistent with business necessity” and “job-related.” This applies in scenarios when an employer-hired third party is administering the vaccine and pursuing the line of inquiry.
A similar set of regulations applies to GINA considerations. The use of mRNA in the vaccination has sparked concerns about GINA, but requiring employees to receive the vaccination is unrelated to GINA’s restrictions on acquiring and disclosing genetic information. However, if questioning included in vaccination screening requires the employee to disclose genetic information, including family medical history, the GINA provisions would be implicated.
Two exceptions to this rule may apply, however. The first is if employers do not require employees to get the vaccination but allow them to do so on a voluntary basis. Voluntarily receiving the vaccination suggests employees will voluntarily answer any screening questions; if they choose not to answer the screening questions, they may not be able to receive the vaccine. If this occurs, the employer may not retaliate in any way. The second exception is if the required vaccine comes from the employee’s health care provider or another source that does not have a contract or agreement with their place of employment.
If employers require employees to get the vaccine, and thus require a receipt or documentation as proof, they should warn their employees to ensure the receipt doesn’t include other medical information, particularly about disability status or genetics. Inquiry into why an employee did not get the vaccination should be carefully considered as well, as this line of questioning could elicit responses about disability status and fail to meet ADA requirements.
If an employee refuses to get the vaccine mandated by their employer, the employer should consider the ADA’s allowance that one individual should not pose a threat to the safety of other individuals in the workplace – thus, if someone with a disability is excluded from the workplace because their disability status prevents them from receiving the vaccination, the employer must be able to prove that the employee would be a direct threat to the safety of others. Direct threats are defined by duration, severity, likelihood of others being harmed, and imminence of the threat.
Much like the other regulations for employers during the pandemic, guidance on vaccine distribution is anything but simple. To read more about COVID-19 and other EEO laws, visit our blog, or contact your McBrayer attorney today.
Cynthia L. Effinger, Member with McBrayer, is located in the firm’s Louisville office. Ms. Effinger’s practice is concentrated in the areas of employment law and commercial litigation. Her employment law practice is focused on drafting employment manuals and policies, social media, wage and hour, non-compete agreements and workplace discrimination. Ms. Effinger can be reached at ceffinger@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2316.
Services may be performed by others. This article does not constitute legal advice.