Contact Us
Subscribe to this blog via RSS
Join us on LinkedInCategories
- SCOTUS
- FTC
- Emotional Support Animals
- Service Animals
- Employee Agreement
- Remote Work
- Federal Trade Commission
- LGBTQ
- Minors
- United States Department of Justice ("DOJ")
- Work from Home
- Arbitration
- Workplace health
- Intellectual Property
- Trade Secrets
- Corporate
- Center for Disease Control
- Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")
- FFCRA
- Opioid Epidemic
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”)
- COVID-19
- Families First Coronavirus Response Act
- H.R.6201
- Health Care Law
- IRS
- Paid Sick Leave
- Temporary Leave
- Treasury
- Coronavirus
- Worker Misclassification
- Labor Law
- Overtime
- Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission
- Sexual Harassment
- FMLA Retaliation
- Overtime Rule
- Employer Wellness Programs
- Kentucky minimum wage
- Minimum wage
- Employee Benefits
- Employment Discrimination Laws
- Employment Non-Discrimination Act ("ENDA")
- ERISA
- Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act ("GINA")
- Human Resource Department
- Independent Contractors
- OSHA
- Overtime Pay
- Paid Time Off ("PTO")
- Sick Employees
- Wage and Hour
- ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (“ADAAA”)
- Adverse Employment Action
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Civil Rights
- Compliance
- Department of Labor ("DOL")
- EEOC
- Employee Handbook
- Employee Misconduct
- Employment Law
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”)
- Kentucky Civil Rights Act (“KCRA”)
- National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- Pregnancy Discrimination Act
- Social Media
- Social Media Policies
- Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act
- U.S. Department of Labor
- U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
- Uncategorized
- Union
- Volunteer
- Young v. UPS
- Amazon
- Bring Your Own Device
- BYOD
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Federal contractors
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet’s Occupational Safety and Health Program (KOSH)
- Micro-unit
- Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947
- Security Checks
- Security Screening
- Specialty Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center of Mobile
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Cloud
- Creech v. Brown
- EEOC v. Hill Country Farms
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kaplan Higher Education Corp.
- Lane v. Franks
- Mine Safety and Health Administration ("MSHA")
- Non-exempt employees
- Northwestern
- Shazor v. Prof’l Transit Mgmt.
- Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
- Whistleblower
- "Ban-the-box"
- 2013)
- At-will employment
- Berrier v. Bizer
- Bullying
- Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
- Chenzira v. Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center
- Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Companionship services
- Compensatory time off
- Conestoga Woods Specialties v. Sebelius
- Consumer Credit Protection Act (“CCPA”)
- Crystalline Silica
- Davis-Bacon and Related Acts
- Drug-Free Workplaces
- Earnings
- 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
- Illness and Injury Reports
- Job applications
- Jury duty
- Kentucky Department of Workers’ Claims
- Kentucky Wage and Hour Act
- KYSHRM 2013
- Mandatory vaccination policies
- Maternity Leave
- McNamara O’Hara Service Contract Act
- Medical Exams
- NFL Bullying Scandal
- Payroll
- Permissible Exposure Level ("PEL")
- Private employers
- Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores
- Senate Bill 157
- SHRM
- Small Business Administration (SBA)
- Violence
- Wage garnishment
- WorkSmart Kentucky
- COBRA
- Contraceptive Mandate
- Defamation
- Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”)
- Employee Arrests
- Employee Forms
- Employee Hazards
- Employee of the Month Programs
- Employee photographs
- Employee Training
- Employer Group Health Plans
- Employer Mandate
- Employment Practices Liability Insurance
- Endorsements
- Federal Workplace Agencies
- FICA
- Form I-9
- Freedom of Speech
- Gatto v. United Airlines and allied Aviation Services
- Health-Contingent Wellness Programs
- HIPAA
- House Labor and Industry Committee
- KRS 391.170
- Litigation
- Madry v. Gibraltar National Corporation
- Megivern v. Glacier Hills Incorporated
- Motivating Factor
- Obesity
- Online Account Protection
- Online Defamation
- Participatory Wellness Programs
- Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
- Pennington v. Wagner’s Pharmacy
- Pension Plans
- Play or Pay
- Posting Requirements
- Record Retention
- Reference checks
- Religious Employer
- Right to Work Bill
- Sequester
- Severance Pay
- Social Media Ownership
- Supervisor
- Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits
- Tangible employment actions
- Tax Refund
- Telecommuting
- Title VII retaliation cases
- Troyer v. T.John.E Productions
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
- Unfair Labor Practice
- United States v. Quality Stores
- United States v. Windsor
- University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center v. Nassar
- Vance v. Ball State University
- White v. Baptist Memorial Health Care Corp.
- Crisis Management
- Federal Department of Labor
- Job Description
- Job Requirement
- Kentucky Labor Cabinet
- Kentucky’s Whistleblower Act
- Labor and Pensions ("HELP")
- Municipal Liability
- PhoneDog v. Kravitz
- Public Sector Liability
- Social Networking Online Protection Act (SNOP)
- Social Privacy Laws
- Strategic Enforcement Plan (SEP)
- Wilson v. City of Central City
- Workplace Politics
- Business Insurance
- Class Action Waivers
- Communications Decency Act
- Criminal Background Checks
- Employee Contracts
- Employee Performance Reviews
- Employee Personnel Files
- Federal Arbitration Act (FAA)
- Hiring and Firing
- Hosanna-Tabor Opinion
- Informal Discussion Letter (“EEOC Letter”)
- Insurance Coverage
- Internet & Media Law
- Internet Defamation
- National Labor Relations Act
- Non-Compete Agreement
- Retaliation by Association
- Salary Threshold
- Unemployment Benefits
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
- USERRA
- Workplace Discrimination, Harassment and Retaliation
Employee Temperature Checks and Confidentiality: Separating Fact from Fiction
The COVID-19 pandemic has sent employers scrambling for answers to questions regarding health, safety, and confidentiality in the workplace they may have never envisioned dealing with. Recently there have been questions concerning the regulatory requirements that an employer encounters when the employer performs temperature checks for employees to prevent the transmission of the COVID-19 virus among its employees and possible customers.
Generally, it is not HIPAA that imposes requirements on employers to maintain confidentiality of employees’ medical information unless an employer is a health care provider; rather, it is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other federal laws that impose confidentiality requirements on employers.
In general, the Americans with Disabilities Act protects applicants and employees from disability discrimination and regulates employers’ disability related inquiries and medical examinations for all applicants and employees including those who do not have ADA disabilities. In addition, the ADA prohibits covered employers from excluding individuals with disabilities from the workplace for health or safety reasons unless they pose a direct threat, which is a significant risk of substantial harm even with reasonable accommodation. The ADA requires reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities (absent undue hardship) during a pandemic.
Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and public health authorities determined in March 2020 that COVID-19 poses a direct threat to the health of the public and individuals, the Americans with Disabilities Act’s non-discrimination prohibitions do not prevent employers from taking temperatures of employees if performed in a non-discriminatory manner.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has specifically published guidance that states as follows:
“During a pandemic, may an ADA-covered employer take its employees’ temperatures to determine whether they have a fever?
Generally, measuring an employee’s body temperature is a medical examination. If pandemic influenza symptoms become more severe than the seasonal flu or the H1N1 virus in the spring/summer of 2009, or if pandemic influenza becomes widespread in the community as assessed by state or local health authorities or the CDC, then employers may measure employees’ body temperature.
However, employers should be aware that some people with influenza, including the 2009 H1N1 virus or COVID-19, do not have a fever.
Because the CDC and state/local health authorities have acknowledged community spread of COVID-19 and issued attendant precautions as of March 2020, employers may measure employees' body temperature. As with all medical information, the fact that an employee had a fever or other symptoms would be subject to ADA confidentiality requirements.”
Because temperatures are medical information, ADA regulations impose requirements to maintain medical information as confidential medical records in a separate form and separate medical file. Thus, if an employer does take temperatures, those records are confidential. An employer is specifically prohibited from telling coworkers that an employee has a disability, is receiving a reasonable accommodation, or is being sent home because of a high temperature.
There are other considerations that will need to be made outside of confidential medical record keeping. If the person taking temperatures is not a medical professional, the employer will need to ensure that person is properly trained (both in the process and confidentiality measures). This person should also be supplied with the proper protective wear and the resources needed to take employees' temperatures as privately as possible.
The EEOC also provided guidance with issues to testing at the pre-employment stage:
- Employers may take an applicant’s temperature as a post-offer, pre-employment medical exam.
- Employers may screen applicants for COVID-19 symptoms after making a conditional job offer.
- A start date can be delayed for applicants who have COVID-19 or related symptoms.
- A job offer can be withdrawn if the employer needs an individual to start immediately but the individual has COVID-19 or symptoms of it. This is based on CDC guidelines that the employee would not be able to safely enter the workplace.
In summary, the EEOC gave employers the ability to take employees’ temperature to prevent the spread of COVID-19 and assess the safety of the workplace. Taking a temperature, however, is considered a medical examination and produces confidential medical information that must be maintained in separate medical records that are secure and not disclosed without a release pursuant to ADA requirements. Additionally, employers will need to provide safe and private means with which to take temperatures.
Lisa English Hinkle is a Member of McBrayer law. Ms. Hinkle chairs the healthcare law practice and is located in the firm’s Lexington office. Contact Ms. Hinkle at lhinkle@mcbrayerfirm.com or (859) 231-8780, ext. 1256.
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.
Claire M. Vujanovic, member with McBrayer, is located in the firm's Louisville office. Ms. Vujanovic's practice is concentrated in the areas of labor and employment law and includes NLRA compliance, drafting and reviewing employment manuals and policies, drafting severance, non-compete and employment agreements, and counseling clients related to overtime and wage and hour regulations, laws and claims and workplace discrimination. Ms. Vujanovic can be reached at cvujanovic@mcbrayerfirm.com or (502) 327-5400, ext. 2322.
Services may be performed by others.
This article does not constitute legal advice.
