Category: Legal

Posted on

PLEASE don’t tell your employees which candidate to vote for

employee activism

This post at the Evil HR Lady Facebook group caught my attention yesterday:

Florida company’s president warns employees their jobs could be in danger if Trump loses election

Here are the detail:

Some employees at a Florida manufacturing company feel they were threatened with being laid off if they did not support President Donald Trump.…

Their paystubs included a letter from [the employer] warning them that their jobs could be in danger.

“If Trump and the Republicans win the election, DMC will hopefully be able to continue operating, more or less as it has been operating lately,” the letter read. “However, if Biden and the Democrats win, DMC could be forced to begin permanent layoffs in late 2020 and/or early 2021.”

While it’s not illegal for employers to talk to their employees about the upcoming election and suggest how to vote, there are laws regulating this type of conduct if it goes too far.

The federal government criminalizesintimidation, threats, or coercion for the purpose of interfering with one’s right to vote one’s choice in a federal election. A few states (Michigan, for example) expressly prohibit employers from discharging or otherwise coercing employees to influence their votes in political elections. Ohio is not one of those states.

Legal or illegal, however, you need to ask yourself whether holding meetings to discuss political issues, threatening employees’ jobs, mandating their attendance at political events, or otherwise telling them how they should vote is a valid business practice. How you answer the question of whether you think it’s okay to try to shape or influence your employees’ votes helps define the kind of employer you are. Voting is an intensely personal choice. I don’t think it’s my business how my family or friends cast their votes. I certainly don’t think it’s an employer’s business how its employees cast their votes. Voting booths have privacy curtains for a reason. Exercise some discretion by not invading the privacy of your workers regarding their choice of candidates or political parties.

Posted on

The 10th nominee for the “Worst Employer of 2020” is … the Callous Car Dealer

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

I continue to shake my head at the callousness of employers during this pandemic. Consider this example from The Oregonian, which earns its spot as the 10th nominee for the Worst Employer of 2020.

A finance manager at a used car dealership in Portland was fired by his boss during a staff meeting for questioning the company’s alleged cover-up of a coronavirus cluster, a lawsuit claims.

McCrary contends his boss directed employees to conceal a COVID-19 outbreak to maintain business profits and customer visits to the showroom….

At least two workers tested positive and a general manager exhibited symptoms but refused to be tested, the lawsuit says. Two “significant others” of employees also tested positive, the suit says.…

His suit claims that Lapin didn’t require social distancing or take other safety measures at work in light of the coronavirus pandemic and had fired another sales representative who was worried in spring about coming into work.

Worst Employer of 2020 The lawsuit further alleges that the owner fired McCrary in an “alcohol and drug-induced rage” during an all-staff meeting after McCrary had raised health and safety concerns following the outbreak, screaming, “Everyone, everyone Shawn is fired – get the (expletive) out of my company!”
McCrary’s lawsuit also quotes this text message the owner sent after the staff became aware of the positive cases: “Keep this down please. Don’t share this information with anyone since we do not want to scare away business.”
A worthy nominee, indeed.
Posted on

Work schedule laws and enforcement to expect in 2021

timeclock, wage and hour, schedule, timesheet rounding

Predictive schedule laws began in San Francisco in 2013, and from there different cities and states have enacted legal protections as well. These work schedule laws have been gaining momentum ever since.

However, come COVID-19 and challenges it’s brought to organizations nationwide, the momentum has shifted. Both employers and employees are struggling in their own ways, and employers must manage this new normal while maintaining compliance with workplace laws. 

Even in this state of uncertainty for employers, the reality is that fair workweek laws help bring stability to employees’ lives. Advocacy organizations stress the importance of this legislation that makes planning child care easier, makes it possible to take on a second or third job and often bans shifts so close to each other that employees lack a proper rest period, said Marta Moakley, legal editor at XpertHR. The idea here is that employers should learn boundaries and respect employees’ time outside work. 

Also read: Shift scheduling strategies can be improved through technology

Moakley does not expect a huge push for new fair workweek laws in 2021, given how stressed so many industries and organizations are. That being said, there are still laws already in effect and opportunities to include flexible workweek provisions in other regulations. 

Predictable schedule laws and COVID-19

During the COVID-19 pandemic, certain work schedule laws have been especially difficult for employers to meet, Moakley said. For example, some predictable scheduling laws require a pay premium called predictability pay in which if an employee does not get advanced notice on their schedule, they get additional money. Depending on the location, employers may need to provide a schedule for employees up to 14 days in advance. 

“There’s that additional payment and additional penalty on an employer. As you can imagine in the current pandemic condition, these kinds of onerous requirements for employers may be extremely difficult to meet, so a number of jurisdictions and local governments have been looking to provide employers some relief,” she said. 

For example, Philadelphia passed a predictable scheduling ordinance that was originally supposed to go into effect Jan. 1, 2020 on an “extremely aggressive timeline,” Moakley said. The city ended up delaying the requirements until April 1, 2020 due to the pandemic, and while companies may need to comply with other portions of the law, certain provisions like the predictability pay premiums are still not being enforced because of pandemic conditions. 

Which employers get relief may depend on what industry they’re in, she added. COVID-19 has affected the hospitality, retail and restaurant industries in different ways. A retail employer may have had to shut down operations for weeks or even months while restaurants, on the other hand, may have remained open in limited capacity as an essential provider of food.

“Looking forward to 2021, we really have to think about, what will be the market tolerance for enforcing these kinds of provisions, and [are they fair?] with respect to certain industries that may be greatly affected by the pandemic?” Moakley said. “If we’re still in a recession then, I think employers will have a really good argument that their focus should remain on safety and security at this time.”  

On the other side, the pandemic has also illuminated the plight of the employee and some of the inequities between workers at the top and bottom of the ladder, she added. 

There are advocacy organizations advocating for hourly employees and communicating to employers that “we know you’re having a tough time. We understand your argument, however, employees also have to deal with the effects of COVID-19, including unpredictability with respect to school and with respect to health,” she said.

timeclock, schedule

She added that while there have been pending fair workweek bills in Illinois, New Jersey and Massachusetts in 2020, there has been no traction with new predictable schedule bills this year. “I think most of it has to do with the pandemic,” she said. 

Still, employee-friendly scheduling provisions wouldn’t necessarily need to be packaged in a fair workweek law and could be included in other types of regulations, she said. For example, Tennessee has a pregnancy accommodations law that went into effect Oct. 1, 2020, and it includes modified work schedules and flexible scheduling for prenatal visits as an employee-friendly scheduling provision. 

Rethinking common workplace assumptions 

The genesis of these work schedule laws is lawmakers trying to correct the power imbalance between employers and employees when it comes to scheduling. Moakley said she is seeing more dialogue between employers and employees now with the consequences of the pandemic. The more forward-thinking employers are doing what they can to expand leave and allow more intermittent or flexible leave for employees. 

The pandemic has led to greater acceptance of the reality of racial and economic inequalities, and these external drivers are leading to better workplace cooperation and communication, she added. Employers are appreciating employees more for being dependable and dedicated and coming to work even under hazardous pandemic conditions, and employees are appreciating that they have a job, can continue working and don’t need to rely on unemployment benefits. 

Also read: Employee scheduling after COVID-19

“There is this greater acceptance of the reality of inequities within the workplace and a renewed sense of working toward a better tomorrow,” she said. “Intelligent minds will differ on their choice of policy — whether more broad regulation would solve it or whether more targeted regulation would get better results —  but I think the fact that we haven’t really seen anything being adopted this year means that there is more cooperation along these lines.” 

Rely on communication and best practices

Not just regarding predictable scheduling practices but with employment law overall, employers need to be looking at best practices now and really trying to retain their best employees, Moakley said. If they have a scheduling request — especially under the circumstances 2020 has introduced —consider what can be done for them. There may be an issue with child care or a health concern that isn’t covered by the company’s leave policy. This type of uncertainty is not uncommon now. 

“Having an open avenue of communication with employees, relating to them and trying to work together works wonders for everybody’s benefit,” Moakley said. 

Also read: Leave management should be as simple as submit, approve and hit the beach

She also suggested that organizations document what they are doing to support employees and offer flexibility to them, even if it is not required by law. Some employers may be genuinely trying to give employees flexible schedules whenever possible or to offer them shifts they wouldn’t otherwise have access to if they need extra hours, rather than seeking out outside workers. In any case, it’s still possible that an employee may file a lawsuit against this employer. 

“Do yourself a favor and document, even if you’re not required to. Show that you are following the rules, that you’re a good employer, [and] that you’re doing right by your employees. And then in the event that somebody comes to check on you, you have the records to back you up,” Moakley said.

Posted on

What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate

employee communications

An employee suffers an injury that prevents her from operating a motor vehicle. With no means of transportation to travel to and from her workplace, the employee calls off work, believing that her absences were excused. They weren’t, and the employer fires her for excessive absences.

She sues, claiming disability discrimination, in part because of the company’s failure to accommodate her inability to drive.

n Hazelett v. Wal-Mart Stores, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that the employee’s ADA claim should have survived summary judgment.

[I]t appears that Wal-Mart failed to participate in the interactive process required under the ADA.… Wal-Mart failed to provide Hazelett two requested accommodations: that she be given leave until July 17, 2015, in her FMLA Medical Certification when she would be released to drive, and two, an assignment to an alternative job to which she could commute.

What we’ve got here is a failure to communicate. Once an employer becomes aware of the need for a reasonable accommodation, the ADA obligates it to engage in an interactive process with the employee to identify and implement appropriate reasonable accommodations. That process requires communication and good-faith exploration of possible accommodations. An employer cannot dismiss, without discussion, accommodations. An employer cannot even rely on state workers’ comp laws or standards. The interactive process is mandatory, period.

Communication between an employer and a disabled employee is the key to avoiding problems under the ADA. Do not commit the cardinal ADA sin of failing to communicate. Talk with your employees. You’d be surprised how many problems you can head off with a simple conversation.

Posted on

Coronavirus Update: Reporting an employee who tests positive

COVID-19, workforce management WFM 2.0, ethics

When an employee tests positive, an employer has certain reporting obligations. These obligations fall into two categories—reporting to OSHA and reporting to your state or local health agency under state law.

OSHA

While OSHA has remained largely silent on mandates for businesses related to COVID-19, it has published specific guidance on when an employer must record and report COVID cases at work.

Under OSHA’s recordkeeping requirements, COVID-19 is a recordable illness, and employers must record cases of COVID-19 in their OSHA logs, if:

  1. The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19;
  2. The case is work-related; and
  3. The case involves death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness, or a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health-care professional.
You should assume numbers 1 and 3 are met when an employee reports a positive test. Criteria number 2—work-relatedness—will almost always be the tripping point for recording vs. non-recording.
According to OSHA, an employer must make a “reasonable determination” of work-relatedness in determining whether to record an employee’s positive test. In making this determination, OSHA relies on three factors:
  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation. OSHA does not expect employers to undertake extensive medical inquiries. Instead, OSHA usually considers it sufficient for an employer (1) to ask the employee how s/he believes s/he contracted the COVID-19 illness; (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee 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.
  • The evidence available to the employer at the time it made its work-relatedness determination.
  • The evidence that a COVID-19 illness was contracted at work. OSHA states that the following information is relevant to this determination—
    • COVID-19 illnesses are likely work-related when several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if it is 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.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely work-related if his job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if she is the only worker to contract COVID-19 in her vicinity and her job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread.
    • An employee’s COVID-19 illness is likely not work-related if he, outside the workplace, closely and frequently associates with someone (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who (1) has COVID-19; (2) is not a coworker, and (3) exposes the employee during the period in which the individual is likely infectious.
    • CSHOs should give due weight to any evidence of causation, pertaining to the employee illness, at issue provided by medical providers, public health authorities, or the employee herself.

Per OSHA, “If, after the reasonable and good faith inquiry described above, the employer cannot determine whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to a particular case of COVID-19, the employer does not need to record that COVID-19 illness.”

OSHA’s reporting rules also apply to confirmed workplace cases of COVID-19. That is, for confirmed work-related cases of COVID-19—
  • an employer must report to OSHA in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of knowing both that an employee has been in-patient hospitalized and that the reason for the hospitalization was a work-related case of COVID-19; and
  • an employer must report employee fatalities the occur within 30 days of the workplace incident (in this case, the exposure to COVID-19) and within 8 hours of the actual fatality.
Violations of these recording or reporting requirements are subject to OSHA’s traditional enforcement and penalties.
State Law
 
States have their own COVID-19 reporting requirements. For example, Ohio mandates that businesses “contact their local health district about suspected cases or exposures” of COVID-19. This reporting is critical so that the local health department can undertake the contact tracing necessary to identify close contacts and limit pre-symptomatic and asymptomatic spread.
Employers should check with their legal counsel on their state-specific reporting requirements.
Posted on

Coronavirus update 10-12-2020: Schadenfreude

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

If you and I are connected on LinkedIn or Twitter, you may have noticed that my headline describes me as a (the?) “Master of Workplace Schadenfreude.”

I’m often asked, “Jon, what the heck does that mean?” Today, I have the answer.

Schadenfreude is a German word that most commonly translates to “enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others.” Yet, after listening to a recent episode of Vox Media’s Today, Explained podcast, I’ve decided that definition is way too cold and narrow.

 

The episode discusses the moral conundrum some felt with upon learning of President Trump’s recent COVID-19 diagnosis. In doing so, it takes a 2:45 deep-dive into the moral philosophy behind Schadenfreude. Being a college philosophy major who, 26 years ago, dabbled with the idea of continuing those studies in grad school instead of going to law school, the discussion made me giddy.

Vox reporter Sigal Samuel discussed four different possible meanings of Schadenfreude as seen through the eyes of four different philosophers—

    1. Arthur Schopenhauer, who defined Schadenfreude as a moral failing or diabolical cruelty, calling it “an infallible sign of a thoroughly bad heart and profound moral worthlessness.”
    2. Charles Baudelaire, who thought of Schadenfreude as a sense of superiority, taking delight in the fact that you’re smarter and better than the person whose suffering you’re enjoying. He used the example of watching someone slip on the ice: “I don’t fall, I don’t; I walk straight, I do; my footstep is steady and assured, mine is.” It’s not cruelty for the sake of being cruel, but instead, an unconscious boosting of your self-esteem, albeit through the failings of others.
    3. Michel de Montaigne, who likened Schadenfreude to one’s own vulnerability. You’re not celebrating someone else’s calamity, you’re celebrating the fact that by comparison, you’re safe.
    4. René Descartes, who believed that Schadenfreude is an act of justice, arising when something bad happens to someone who you feel has earned it. It’s joy in seeing someone deserving get their comeuppance, elation in the fairness of the situation, and delight in karma getting its due.
If I had to choose where I fall on this moral spectrum, it’s somewhere between numbers 3 and 4. I take joy in seeing someone getting what they deserve because of who they are or what they’ve done, combined with the celebration that I’m not in their shoes. I’m definitely not diabolically rejoicing over someone else’s failings or failures.
There you have it. Wonder no more about why I call myself the Master of Workplace Schadenfreude.
Tomorrow, back to your regularly scheduled COVID-19 workplace updates.
Posted on

Crying ‘discrimination’ because you refuse to wear a mask isn’t just silly, it’s offensive

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

Please watch this short video and then let’s talk.

This woman claims discrimination because she refuses to wear a mask in public.

“Stand back,” and “You don’t care about other people,” are just a couple of the attacks this woman has received because she refuses to cover her mouth and nose.

Technically, this is discrimination in that she is being treated differently than mask-compliant folks. But this isn’t Discrimination.

The type of discrimination we worry about is the invidious discrimination individual suffer because of some innate trait over which they have no control and/or a fundamental individual liberty—race, sex/gender, LGBTQ status, religion, national origin, disability, age, etc.

The type of this discrimination about which this woman is complaining is discrimination of her own choice—her selfish choice to purposely avoid and ignore the most basic of safety and health measures everyone (or at least everyone with common sense and a rational belief in science) agrees is necessary to protect us during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Discrimination against marginalized groups is a major problem in our country. Let’s not trivialize it by elevating these complaints to its level.

Posted on

Could White House employees file an OSHA complaint?

coronavirus

Monday night saw President Donald Trump dramatically return to the White House after his three-day stay at Walter Reed Medical Center for COVID-19.

We saw Marine One land on the White House lawn, President Trump emerge and walk up the stairs to the White House, remove his mask for a photo op, enter his home with his mask still in his pocket, reemerge for a reshoot, and again enter the White House maskless.

It’s that last part I want to talk about. HuffPost asks if White House employees could lodge an OSHA complaint about the President’s COVID recklessness? I’d answer that question with a solid and resolute “thumb’s up.” The bigger question, however, is whether OSHA would do anything about it.

OSHA, the federal agency responsible for employee health and safety, presumably also regulates the health and safety of White House employees. I know of no OSHA standard that exempts them.

That said, OSHA also does not have a specific standard addressing viral pandemics. Instead, it regulates this outbreak via its general duty clause: “Each employer shall furnish to each of [its] employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees.”

It’s that “general duty clause” that could cause the White House fits if its employees take their COVID complaints to OSHA.

According to the Associated Press, Secret Service agents and White House staff are seriously pissed.

Several [Secret Service agents] who spoke with The Associated Press expressed concern over the cavalier attitude the White House has taken when it comes to masks and distancing. Colleagues, they said, are angry, but feel there’s little they can do.…

[T]hree former employees … expressed concern about the health of current workers, but were too afraid to speak publicly. Many are Black or Latino, among the demographic groups that have been more vulnerable to the virus.

Disgruntled employees are the employees most like to file a complaint with a federal agency such as OSHA. And at this moment in history, it seems like there are a large number of disgruntled employees working inside the White House.

Of course, as the HuffPost aptly points out, “Given the retributive nature of the Trump administration, any worker who wants to call in OSHA should be concerned about retaliation. Workers can file complaints anonymously to protect themselves, but those are less likely to receive a thorough investigation than ones with a name attached.” Perhaps this will be this administration’s saving grace on this issue — the fear of anyone to do anything about it. That and the fact that OSHA is not all that likely to investigate or fine its boss.

Additionally, OSHA doesn’t have the best record investigating COVID-related issues. According to former OSHA head David Michaels, “This is far and away the most significant worker safety crisis in OSHA’s history, and OSHA has failed to step up to the plate. OSHA has failed to use really any of its powers to address it . …  It’s hard to take OSHA seriously.”

What hasn’t OSHA done?

  • It hasn’t issued any temporary standards to address issues specific to the COVID pandemic.
  • It hasn’t done anything more than issue voluntary guidance with little to no legal risk or ramifications for noncompliance.
  • It hasn’t launched many investigations over COVID-related complaints—OSHA has only opened 184 investigations stemming from the 8,856 complaints it’s received related to COVID-19 (an inspection rate of less than 3 percent).
  • It hasn’t levied any significant fines or penalties, unless you consider the $13,494 fine levied against Smithfield Foods stemming from one the countries worst workplace coronavirus outbreaks.
Our nation has failed its COVID-19 test in many glaring ways. OSHA is just one example. The White House’s current messaging on the ongoing pandemic is emblematic of the safety issues that many employers are handling (and handling better than the White House) on a daily basis.
Don’t act like the White House. Require masks at all times. Promote good hand-washing hygiene.
Enforce a minimum of six feet of physical distancing. Mandate isolation for COVID+ employees and quarantine for those in close contact with anyone COVID+.
Your employees are trusting you to keep them safe. Do not fail this test.
Posted on

Fired for COVID-19 or fired for irresponsibility?

COVID-19, coronavirus, public health crisis

Prada v. Trifecta Productions, filed a few weeks ago in federal court in Ann Arbor, Michigan, asks whether an employer can legally fire an employee with COVID-19 based on the perception that the employee’s out-of-work activities placed the business at risk.

The facts are fairly simple. Nicolas Prada worked as a waiter and assistant manager at Tomukun Noodle Bar. On  June 24 he began experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and stayed home from work. He tested positive three days later. After 14 days of isolation, Prada texted his employer about being medically cleared to return to work.

During a follow-up phone call, Prada claims the restaurant’s owner interrogated him about his activities before falling ill. According to the complaint, “Mr. Yon asked Plaintiff how he contracted the virus,” interrogated him about whether he had “been out partying and acting irresponsible,” told him “there was evidence on social media of Plaintiff being in a crowd,” and that he should “begin looking for work” because for “PR reasons” it was best for him “not to come back to work.”

Prada quit the next day, and later sued for interference and retaliation under the FFCRA.

In a vacuum, Prada had a right to job restoration under the FFCRA. However, there is at least one key fact missing from his complaint — was he “out partying and acting irresponsibly” before contracting the virus. If so (and it’s a big if), his employer had a legitimate non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reason for terminating his employment.

I’m not sure I’d terminate in these circumstances, but I can understand why an employer might. Here’s what I wrote two months ago discussing the Cleveland Indians’ suspension of two pitchers for violating team rules during a road trip by leaving the hotel to party:

Your business may not be able to dictate how your employees spend their free time, but you can hold them to consequences if they choose to act irresponsibly when “off the clock.” We are living through a pandemic. Every employee has a responsibility to their employer, their co-workers, and the business to make sure that they do what they can to avoid bringing COVID-19 into the workplace, and every employer has the same responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent an at-risk employee from entering the workplace when it’s discovered.

These are strange times for sure, and I will not fault any employer that errs on the side of caution in how it manages its employee respective to mitigating workplace coronavirus exposures. I’m not advocating for, or in favor of, employer monitoring of employee off-duty conduct. If, however, irresponsible, reckless or dangerous behavior comes to an employer’s attention, it shouldn’t ignore it in the name of privacy either.

In this case Prada had served his isolation, and according to his complaint was medically cleared to return to work. The risk this employer was mitigating was not the risk of an employee bringing an active virus into the workplace, but according to the complaint, the public relations risk of an employee being seen partying on social media. For a public-facing employer, I’m not going to backseat-drive its decision.

This will be a fascinating case to watch, which I’ll be updating everyone as it winds its way through the courts.

Posted on

Your employees should never learn about positive COVID-19 test from anyone but you

antibody testing

Ninety percent of the [White House] complex most certainly learned about it in the news, as has been the case ever since. There are reports that COVID is spreading like wildfire through the White House. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who work on-complex, some who have families with high-risk family members. Since this whole thing started, not one email has gone out to tell employees what to do or what’s going on.

If your employees are learning about a positive COVID-19 diagnosis from anyone other than from an official communication from you as their employer, you have failed in your duty as their employer.

They should not learn from other employees. They should not learn from social media. They should not learn from the professional media. Period. The should only learn from you.

What should this communication look like? Let me suggest the following.

Dear Employees:

It saddens us to inform you that one of your co-workers has tested positive for COVID-19. The law prevents us from telling you the identity of that co-worker, but we want to assure you that we will continue to support this employee as your co-worker heals from this virus, and we will welcome them back to join you at work once it is safe to do so.

We are doing everything within our ability and resources to keep you as safe and healthy as possible at work. Still, with many cases of COVID-19 transmitted before anyone knows they have been exposed, and with you only being at work for a fraction of you day, we cannot 100 percent guarantee the virus won’t enter our workplace.

We continue to require that you self-assess daily for your own potential COVID-19 symptoms (fever or chills, cough, shortness of breath or difficulty breathing, fatigue, muscle or body aches, headache, new loss of taste or smell, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, or diarrhea). If you have any of these symptoms, please let us know, and do not return to work until you are fever-free for at least 24 hours, your other symptoms have improved for at least 24 hours, and at least 10 days have passed since your first symptoms.

Anyone who has been in “close contact” with our ill employee has been separately and privately notified, and will be required to quarantine for at least 14 days from their last close contact.

We are also continuing to take the following steps to help ensure, as best as possible, your health and safety here at work:

  • Employees are required to wear masks or other facial coverings at all times while at work, unless you granted a specific exception (such as for safety, a medical reason, or because you are working alone in a closed office).
  • Employees are required to maintain six feet of physical distance from others at all times.
  • Employees must diligently wash their hands and otherwise use hand sanitizer (which we are providing in intervals around the workplace).
  • Employees must self-assess their own health before reporting to work, and no employee is permitted to come to work if they have any of the known symptoms of COVID-19.
  • Lunch room and other common areas are closed until further notice.
  • Each employee is responsible for cleaning their own work station at the end of each shift.
  • We are deep cleaning the entire workplace on a weekly basis.

Additionally, because of the unfortunate positive test, we had the facility deep cleaned and sanitized prior to anyone being allowed to reenter after we learned of the positive test.

Our commitment to your health and safety is our top priority. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact ______________. Our door is always open.