Category Archives: Workplace

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.

‘Take-Home COVID-19’ Claims: Preparing for a Second Wave of Coronavirus Litigation

Posted on by

The Spanish Influenza epidemic came in three waves, with the first hitting in March 1918, the second in the fall and the third in the winter of 1919. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers the second wave to have been the most deadly. In the United States, well over half of the epidemic’s death toll of 675,000 occurred during the second wave. It is no surprise then that public health experts were already warning of the possibility of a second wave of the coronavirus pandemic when the world was just beginning to acknowledge that the first wave was upon it in February.

Personal injury mass litigation also comes in waves. Consider asbestos: In the first wave, individuals who worked directly with asbestos filed workers compensation claims. Workers exposed to asbestos in products filed products liability suits during the second wave. A third wave included “take-home asbestos” claims in which workers’ children and spouses sued for illnesses caused by exposure to asbestos fibers taken home from work. A fourth wave is now underway with the alleged asbestos contamination of consumer talc products.

The first wave of personal injury coronavirus litigation emerged in early March when a married couple sued Princess Cruise Lines for gross negligence for placing “…profits over the safety of its passengers, crew, and the general public in continuing to operate business as usual.” Many similar individual and class action lawsuits have followed. According to an analysis by the Miami Herald, some 3,600 cruise line passengers have contracted COVID-19 and more than 100 have died. 

The situation in nursing homes is far worse. Nursing home residents account for an estimated 40% of U.S. coronavirus deaths thus far. Predictably, wrongful death suits filed by the family members of nursing home residents are surging, even as some states move to shield nursing home operators from liability. Personal injury lawsuits have also been filed against hospitals, meatpackers, restaurants, grocery stores and warehousing operations.

However, as the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic subsides, personal injury litigation may subside along with it. But what if the pandemic has a second wave? Although there is a great deal of uncertainty, public health experts now believe that there is no inherent seasonality to COVID-19 itself, but they remain deeply concerned that a combination of complacency and greater indoor activity could lead to a second wave of infections in the coming months.

What would a second wave of coronavirus personal injury litigation look like? One possibility that modelers at Praedicat are considering is a wave of “take-home COVID-19” litigation arising from occupational infection, coupled with high rates of intra-family transmission. Praedicat modelers estimate that 7-9% of COVID-19 deaths in the first wave have been family members of workers in essential industries who acquired coronavirus at work. With widespread testing and improved contact tracing, take-home transmission could be relatively easy to demonstrate during a second wave. The first take-home COVID-19 lawsuits were filed in August against an electrical supply company and a meatpacking facility, and the precursors to these complaints are present in earlier lawsuits filed against Amazon and McDonald’s.

Many public health officials believe that it is entirely within our power to keep a second wave of the virus from forming while we wait for a vaccine to be developed and deployed. A unified and steadfast public health campaign is critical if we are to avoid a second wave, individual companies working to limit transmission among their workers and customers is as well. First and foremost, this means closely adhering to federal, state, and local guidelines and industry best practices regarding disinfection, screening and testing, social distancing, and the use of masks and other personal protective equipment. Employers might also work to raise awareness of take-home exposure and the risk to vulnerable older family members or those with pre-existing conditions like diabetes that have been shown to elevate the risk of life-threatening complications associated with COVID-19.  Depending on the circumstances, maintaining social distance at home may be just as critical as maintaining social distance at work.

While a second wave of the pandemic may be unlikely, some level of infection, illness, and litigation is sure to be with us until there is a vaccine. The best protection against liability is making the safety of workers and customers paramount. But risk managers need to prepare for the worst and should also be reviewing the availability of coverage for employment related coronavirus claims, including take-home exposure. The employers liability exclusion under a general liability policy, for example, might exclude claims made by the family members of workers.

Planning and Risk Assessment for Returning to Work From COVID-19 Closures

Posted on by

As businesses reopen and begin having their employees return to work, navigating the impacts of COVID-19 will undoubtedly be a challenge. Not only does keeping employees and customers safe take on new meaning, but sorting through rapidly changing guidelines can be overwhelming at best.

Adding to the complexity of returning to work after coronavirus-related closures, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and various jurisdictional health departments are all providing guidance. To best keep employees safe and make sure businesses are heading down the right path of compliance in this new era, employers should focus on planning and structure reopening into four phases: 1. identify organizational responsibilities, 2. assess risk, 3. identify the controls needed to return safely, and 4. implement.

1. Identify Organizational Responsibilities

OSHA’s Infection Disease Preparedness and Response Plan (IDPRP) has presented a helpful approach for a range of organizations across the country. The plan helps emphasize and communicate basic infection prevention measures and establishes policies and practices to reduce the risk of disease transmission in the workplace. It also helps employers develop procedures for prompt identification and isolation of potentially infectious individuals, along with implementing safe work practices and workplace controls, such as engineering and administrative controls.

To start, identify the people within the organization who will lead the return-to-work effort. This team will provide daily updates on plan implementation, review company sick leave policies and procure and distribute Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

During this phase, review your organization’s policies and procedures to ensure they are not creating obstacles for social distancing or staying at home when sick. Sick leave, quarantine policies and pay continuation should all be modified as necessary.

2. Assess Employee Risk Exposure to COVID-19

With a team in place, it’s time to dig deep into individual roles within the organization to understand the risks associated with various work sites and job tasks. The IDPRP helps organizations identify and quantify risks associated with infectious disease and helps to evaluate an employee’s exposure to COVID-19.

When evaluating the individual roles, identify the position, task and potential exposure based on criteria laid out in four exposure levels:

  • Low risk: Jobs that do not require contact with people known to be or suspected of being infected with COVID 19. Workers in this category have minimal occupational contact with the public and other coworkers. Office workers and telecommuters are examples of low-risk roles.
  • Medium risk: Jobs that require frequent or close contact with people who may be infected, but who are not known to have or suspected of having COVID-19. Higher-volume retail workers, restaurant servers and teachers are examples of medium-risk roles.
  • High risk: Jobs with a high potential for exposure to people known or suspected to be infected with COVID-19. Healthcare support personnel, janitorial personnel in healthcare and medical transport personnel are examples of high-risk roles.
  • Very high risk: Jobs with a very high potential for exposure to people or samples with known or suspected COVID-19 infection during specific medical, postmortem or laboratory procedures. Laboratory workers testing for COVID-19, pulmonary therapists and morticians performing autopsies are examples of very high-risk roles.
    buy clomid online www.soundviewmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/clomid.html no prescription pharmacy

3. Identify the Controls Needed to Return Safely

After completing a risk assessment for each role, identify specific PPE and administrative and engineering controls to reduce employee exposures. Clerical work, for example, is considered low risk and controls include social distancing and awareness training. A task such as stocking shelves where an employee has moderate exposure to others is considered a medium risk and nitrile gloves, cotton masks and other PPE are recommended. For tasks with high or very high exposure such as healthcare delivery staff, controls include nitrile gloves, facemasks, N-95 or better respirator, protective gown, booties, and head cover.

4. Put the Plan in Action

There are many organizational actions that can be implemented to further prepare to support and enforce the mitigation controls in place. Engineering controls to consider include installing high-efficiency air filters in HVAC systems, increasing a facilities dilution ventilation rate or installing physical barriers to control exposure. Post signs detailing cleaning and disinfecting procedures and social distancing requirements.

buy tenormin online www.soundviewmed.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/jpg/tenormin.html no prescription pharmacy

Activate temperature stations and enforce an elevator policy.

For a successful return to work, it is essential to communicate and train employees regarding protections in the workplace. A communication plan should be identified during the organizational return-to-work planning phase, along with employee, supervisor and manager training. The workforce must be well-versed in recognizing symptoms, and everyone should know how to report possible exposure and what mitigation controls specific roles should be using. Your workers compensation carrier should be able to walk you through this process and help get you back to work. Tools and resources are also available on the OSHA and CDC websites.

Organizations that had clear pandemic response plans in place ahead of COVID-19 have had better access to PPE, quicker response times to daily changes in recommended controls, and more consistent ability to address employee concerns. If an employer does not currently have a response plan in place, however, it is never too late to get started. Preparing to return to work is a perfect time to establish the framework to make sure a business is not only ready to work during COVID-19, but also ready for unforeseen disasters in the future.

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.