Today, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate by a vote of 5 in favor and 4 dissenting. The Supreme Court held that CMS did have statutory authority to issue its Interim …
Tag: COVID-19 for Employers
UPDATE: In an order issued Jan. 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court stayed enforcement of federal OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS pending the disposition of the petitions for review in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. …
On January 7, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments over whether two sets of vaccine and testing mandates should go into effect: (1) the OSHA ETS, applying to private employers with 100 or more employees; and (2) the …
Originally published 11/08/21. Updated 12/01/21. As expected, the OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) faced immediate legal challenge, and on Saturday, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a stay blocking the law from going into effect. Below, we outline the …
Posted November 29, 2021 with Tags COVID-19 for Employers
Work-For-Hire Doctrine Under copyright law, artists generally own the rights to the work they create. However, an exception exists when an artist’s work qualifies as a “work made for hire” under Section 101 of the Copyright Act. A work made …
Summary of President Biden’s Two Executive Orders on Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccines and Safety Protocols
On September 9th, President Biden signed two Executive Orders; one requiring COVID vaccines for federal employees and another ensuring adequate COVID safety protocols for federal contractors. The administration also announced plans to develop rules impacting private employers with more than …
The CDC released new guidance on masking and other issues for fully-vaccinated individuals. As a result, we recommend employers update their return-to-work policies, including the Minnesota Preparedness Plan or equivalent safety plan, to address the new guidance.
California recently passed new legislation that will require employers to provide their California employees with up to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave for various COVID-19-related reasons. Sound familiar? There are some similarities between the new law and the 2020 COVID-19 supplemental paid sick law, but the differences are significant for many employers. We’ve put together key takeaways for you to consider before the law becomes effective on Monday, March 29, 2021.
Minneapolis employers in the hospitality industry will likely soon have to contend with a new set of worker protection laws. The Minneapolis City Council is currently considering a citywide Hospitality Worker Right to Recall Ordinance, which would require employers to rehire workers previously terminated due to the Coronavirus pandemic. If adopted, the Ordinance will go into effect on May 1, 2021. Meanwhile, the Minnesota Legislature is considering a similar right to recall law, which would apply statewide to a larger group of employers.
Many employers are seeking ways to encourage their employees to get vaccinated for COVID-19. For those wishing to stop short of making it mandatory, incentivizing voluntary vaccination is an option, but one that comes with its own set of potential legal pitfalls employers should be aware of.
With the presidential election looming, discussions about politics are happening in the workplace now more than ever. In the current political environment, these conversations may be disruptive and may not align with Equal Employment Opportunity and Harassment-Free Workplace Policies, diversity and inclusion goals, and organizational brands. This means that HR professionals and other supervisors walk a very fine line as they draw distinctions between what violates or contradicts employment policies versus free speech.
While the ordinance does not directly affect the increasingly complicated and ever-changing analysis of when an individual is properly utilized as an independent contractor (as opposed to being treated like an employee), Minneapolis businesses should be cautious when preparing the written agreement required under the ordinance.
The current administration has sought to expand the types of benefits that would give cause to believe that an individual is primarily dependent on the government for subsistence, and, thus, inadmissible under U.S. immigration law.
More than four months after Gov. Tim Walz declared a peacetime emergency in Minnesota, many employers are eager to return to normal (to the extent possible). But two recent developments in Minnesota that have further pushed back the timeline for returning to “business as usual.”
Business owners are facing decisions most never anticipated. Legal directives are not the only factor holding back the economy. Everyone is eager to see workplaces return to normal operations. At the same time, no business wants to put its workers and customers in danger.
This week, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz signed Emergency Executive Order 20-54 (“EO 20-54”), addressing the need for employers to protect all workers, regardless of immigration status, from unsafe work conditions during the COVID-19 pandemic.
After sheltering-in-place, remote working, and business closures, employers across the country have started planning to bring employees back to work. The first item of business is how to ensure the workplace is safe for employees and the general public. For this, many employers are turning to employee health checks.
Home-bound employees must use their home internet to perform work, but is it reimbursable?
The COVID-19 pandemic and related "stay-at-home" orders have required changes to employers' everyday practices, impacting nearly all aspects of operations. Employers have worked hard to meet the demand for rapid flexibility in the interest of continuing operations and keeping their workforce safe and intact. For good reason, many of these policies (such as temporary remote work policies) may have been implemented outside of the traditional planning processes that employers use when rolling out new policies.