Category Archives: Legal

Игроки всегда ценят удобный и стабильный доступ к играм. Для этого идеально подходит зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые ограничения, обеспечивая доступ ко всем бонусам и слотам.

OSHA Revises Stance on COVID-19 Record-Keeping and Enforcement

Posted on by

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) recently issued two enforcement memos regarding COVID-19. The first of these memos revised OSHA’s requirements for employers as they determine whether individual cases of COVID-19 are work-related. The second revised OSHA’s policy for handling COVID-19-related complaints, referrals, and severe illness reports. The changes in these revisions include:

Record-Keeping and Reporting

OSHA’s position for months has been that cases of COVID-19 are subject to record-keeping and reporting requirements if they are work-related. On May 26, 2020, OSHA’s new memorandum superseded the previous April 10, 2020 memorandum on the subject of work-relatedness.

The April 10 memorandum essentially provided most employers latitude to assume that cases of COVID-19 were not work-related, absent evidence to the contrary. The May 19 memorandum revises OSHA’s position, requiring employers to investigate COVID-19 cases more heavily before concluding whether they are work-related.

The primary thrust of the agency’s revised position is that OSHA enforcement officers should consider three primary factors when evaluating whether an employer’s determination of work-relatedness was reasonable:

  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation into work-relatedness;
  • The evidence available to the employer; and
  • The evidence that a COVID-19 illness was contracted at work.

Regarding the first, OSHA stated that it is sufficient in most circumstances for an employer, when it learns of an employee’s COVID-19 illness, to (1) ask the employee how he or she believes they contracted COVID-19; (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee his or her work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness, and (3) review the employee’s work environment for potential COVID-19 exposure.

Employee privacy rights are a potential trap for unwary employers when inquiring about exposure outside of the workplace. Such discussions could implicate a variety of employment laws, including state-specific laws.

Regarding the second factor, OSHA directed employers to consider the evidence “reasonably available” at the time they makes their work-relatedness determination. If employers later learn more information related to an employee’s COVID-19 illness, then employers shall also consider that information.

OSHA elaborated on the third factor by listing certain types of evidence that weigh in favor of or against work-relatedness. For example, OSHA stated that COVID-19 illnesses are likely work-related when several cases develop among employees who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation. OSHA also stated that an employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if it was contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation.

OSHA justified its revised position on work-relatedness by stating that the nature of COVID-19 and the ubiquity of community spread frequently make it difficult to accurately determine whether a COVID-19 illness is work-related, especially when employees have experienced potential exposure both in and out of the workplace. OSHA might also have been motivated by some organizations calling for it to take a more aggressive response to COVID-19.

Complaints, Referrals and Illness Reports

The second memo, also issued on May 19, 2020, was related to complaints, referrals, and severe illness reports. Specifically, in geographic areas where community spread of COVID-19 has significantly decreased, OSHA will return to its normal pre-COVID-19 methods for prioritizing reported events for inspections. 

OSHA will continue to prioritize cases of COVID-19 to some degree, but will increasingly conduct these efforts by phone or other remote methods. In geographic areas experiencing either sustained elevated community transmission or a resurgence in community transmission, OSHA will continue to heavily prioritize COVID-19, including conducting on-site inspections, especially in high-risk workplaces.

Action Items and Final Takeaways

OSHA’s enforcement approaches regarding the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve. The agency will likely continue to closely monitor employers’ compliance with COVID-19-related requirements even after states and localities lift stay-at-home orders.

Professionals with questions on how OSHA’s recent enforcement policies affect a business or organization should consider consulting with legal counsel. Also, OSHA distributes by email an informative twice-monthly newsletter called “QuickTakes,” open for subscription. OSHA’s regulations on injury and illness recordkeeping and reporting, found at 29 C.F.R. Part 1904, also include helpful questions and answers about these topics.

Finally, employers should bear in mind that the negative consequences of choosing not to comply with OSHA’s record-keeping and reporting requirements often outweigh the potential negative consequences of bringing injuries and illnesses to OSHA’s attention.

Supreme Court Affirms LGBTQ+ Workplace Rights

Posted on by

In a 6-3 decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that federal anti-discrimination laws cover LGBTQ+ people and that they cannot be legally fired for their sexual orientation and gender identity, ensuring protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the majority opinion that, “An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids.”

The decision was based on two separate cases brought before the Court. In 2013, Aimee Stephens was fired from her job as a funeral home director when she revealed her gender identity to her colleagues. Her former boss testified that he had fired Stephens based on the fact that she was “no longer going to represent himself as a man.” The case was the first before the Supreme Court regarding transgender rights. The second case was that of Gerald Bostock and Donald Zarda, who claimed that they were fired from their jobs as a child welfare services coordinator and a skydiving instructor, respectively, for being gay. Both Stephens and Zarda passed away before seeing their cases decided by the Supreme Court.

According to an April 2020 report from UCLA School of Law’s Williams Institute, 8.1 million LGBT workers age 16 and older live in the United States, and before the Court’s ruling, 3.9 million lived in the 28 states where it was legal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation or gender identity. In 2019, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) brought more than 1,800 charges of LGBT-based workplace sex discrimination. Additionally, a 2017 survey showed that 20% of LGBTQ Americans reported facing discrimination when applying for a job, and 22% were not paid equally or promoted at the same rate as their colleagues who were heterosexual and cisgender. Advocacy organization Out Leadership also reported that, in 2020, “less than 0.3% of Fortune 500 board directors” were openly LGBTQ+.

These factors contribute to workplaces where LGBTQ+ workers do not feel comfortable being themselves, and are more likely to leave, according to Human Rights Campaign (HRC). A 2019 HRC report noted that 46% of LGBTQ+ workers had hidden their sexual preference and/or gender identity at work, and 10% had left jobs because their workplace did not accept LGBTQ+ people.

In the article “The Benefits of Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives,” Risk Management reported that encouraging diversity and inclusion helps all workers and their organizations. Allowing employees to bring their whole selves to the task can be beneficial. As the articled noted, “Often, the outsider believes he or she must bend to the norms of this dominant culture. When this occurs, it mutes creative friction—or creative abrasion, as it is also called—wherein ideas can be challenged productively.” D&I initiatives can encourage employees to more freely innovate and collaborate, can help boost worker retention, and may help minimize the risk of discrimination lawsuits.

But these programs may not be enough to create a working environment that is free of bias and discrimination. Even when companies “fostered an inclusive workplace,” 64% of employees in a 2019 Deloitte survey said that they had experienced or witnessed workplace bias in the past year, and over 50% of LGBT respondents experienced bias at least once a month. Employers can work to address the specific concerns of their LGBT+ workers, including allowing transgender employees to use bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity, regularly updating and reassessing company policies and requiring all employees to review them, and making clear that any form of workplace discrimination is unacceptable and will incur consequences.

Some legal experts worry that workplace discrimination will still take place under the guise of other factors like performance, noting that discrimination based on sexual preference and gender identity is very difficult to prove. The Supreme Court’s decision also left open the possibility that employers could still use a religious exemption to discriminate against LGBTQ+ workers. However, the decision is a critical step forward for LGBTQ+ civil rights and an important moment for workplace diversity and inclusion.

Black Lives Matter: Taking Action on Diversity and Inclusion

Posted on by

As protesters across the United States call out systemic racism and police violence against Black people, and Pride Month honoring the LGBTQ+ community begins, diversity and inclusion issues are—and should be—drawing headlines and dominating conversations around the world.

RIMS CEO Mary Roth and 2020 President Laura Langone released a statement Friday saying:

“To the Black members of our community, we cannot fully appreciate how pained you must be by not only this most recent act—but by all acts that reflect bigotry and hatred in our nations’ communities. What we can do is accept the responsibility to ensure that RIMS community reflects something different. Let us be clear: RIMS does not tolerate any form of racism or discrimination in our global community. And we will always look for ways to improve.”

The editors of Risk Management and the Risk Management Monitor echo this message and stand with our Black colleagues, RIMS members and the Black community at large.

As we all look to support, advocate, learn and do better, we have compiled a list of resources to help, including industry advocacy groups for Black risk and insurance professionals, as well as resources for strengthening your organization’s policies, procedures and diversity and inclusion programs. You can also review selections from our previous coverage of diversity and inclusion below:

Industry Advocacy Groups and Research

National African American Insurance Association (NAAIA)

International Association of Black Actuaries

REPORT: The Journey of African American Insurance Professionals, from Marsh and NAAIA

For public sector risk professionals:

The Government Alliance on Race and Equity (GARE)

National Forum for Black Public Administrators

From ICMA, the association for professional city and county managers: WEBINAR: Sharpening the Focus on Social Equity to Make Strategic Budget Decisions

ARTICLE: Silence Is Complicity: Can White America Demonstrate that Black Lives Matter?

Diversity and Inclusion Resources

Global Diversity and Inclusion Benchmarks, Standards for Organizations Around the World, from the Centre for Global Inclusion

The Diversity & Inclusion Revolution, Eight Powerful Truths, from Deloitte

Corporate Equality Index, from the Human Rights Campaign

Previous Risk Management Coverage on Bias, Diversity and Inclusion

Beyond Pride: Building Strong Diversity and Inclusion Programs

Pale, Stale & Male: Does Board Diversity Matter?

The Benefits of Diversity & Inclusion Initiatives

Getting Serious About ESG Risks

Why Cultivating and Maintaining a Diverse Workforce Is Important

Activists Against Insurers

Managing Coronavirus Business Interruptions

Posted on by

The novel coronavirus 2019-nCoV, now called COVID-19, has continued to spread through China and beyond, with more than 1,800 deaths reported as of this writing. The virus’s spread has also had major impacts on business operations around the world, slowing or shuttering international companies’ operations in China and prompting travel restrictions and evacuations.

Businesses around the world are taking travel precautions and creating or updating existing response plans to address these risks. Dr. Adrian Hyzler, chief medical officer of healthcare, assistance and risk management company Healix, told the RIMScast podcast that “Companies have to think on their feet and have crisis meetings, twice, sometimes three times a week just to try and keep up with the changes in government regulations and what they have to do to try and manage the situation.”

But companies may not be able to manage all of the issues resulting from COVID-19-related business interruptions, and some may even fail to fulfill their contractual obligations because of supply chain complications, risking severe penalties. If this occurs, companies throughout the supply chain have options for protecting themselves or recovering from lost business.

If contracts allow, companies may attempt to invoke force majeur clauses, which, according to international law firm Reed Smith, “excuse a party’s performance of a contract if an unforeseen event beyond its control prevents performance.” To prepare for these complications, Reed Smith recommends that companies:

  • review their contracts to determine what, if any, rights and remedies they have as a result of the delayed performance of contracts due to force majeure; 
  • provide timely notice of a force majeure event; 
  • prepare for potential litigation concerning failure-to-supply issues and the application of force majeure clauses, including by taking (and documenting) reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the novel coronavirus; 
  • update form force majeure clauses to take into account, to the extent possible, modern risks to contractual performance, including diseases, epidemics or quarantines.

Reed Smith also noted that if a company intends use a force majeur clause to avoid financial penalties for business interruptions as a result of COVID-19, they should “take (and document) reasonable steps to mitigate the impact of the novel coronavirus. While these steps may prove futile, they are essential predicates to mounting a valid force majeure defense.”

There may also be insurance options for covering COVID-19-related losses. When speaking with the RIMScast podcast, Reed Smith’s Richard P. Lewis said that depending on a company’s exposures, some options for covering losses include contingent business interruption coverage, event cancellation policy, supply chain insurance or travel insurance. But, Lewis said, “The first big category would be first party insurance. That would be property insurance and more specifically a first party or property insurance policies providing ‘time element coverage’ that is impacted by time, usually known as business income or business interruption insurance.”

Lewis also said while property (like a factory that is shut down after the outbreak) may not have suffered actual physical damage, there could be legal precedent for claiming physical loss or damage “if the building can’t be used for its intended purpose.” Anderson Kill P.C.’s Finley T. Harckham also noted that in case law, people becoming sick on a property will not count as property damage, but contaminants at a property (including pathogens like COVID-19) could qualify.

U.S. companies, Lewis said, will be dealing with “contingent exposures, meaning the property affected is their customers’ or suppliers’ and not their own property.” However, if those companies have their own property, coverage is likely dependent on whether it was “closed by the order of a civil authority because of the actual presence of a virus and not the suspected presence of a virus.” Harckham noted that these restrictions would likely trigger civil authority coverage, which many insurance policies contain.

However companies attempt to cover their losses, Lewis recommended “Just make sure that if if this thing goes to court that you’re able to prove your losses. And that means to document them and to have witnesses who are able to explain what it is you lost and be able to testify at trial with that if it comes to that.”

To hear the full conversations with Hyzler and Lewis, listen to the RIMScast episode “What Risk Professionals Should Know About the Coronoavirus” here.