May 26, 2022

Volume XII, Number 146


May 25, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 24, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 23, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Employment Considerations for Returning to Work

Employment law poses some of the most important compliance issues for businesses and their in-house counsel under the best of circumstances. During a pandemic, these issues become heightened.

On May 13, Womble Bond Dickinson attorneys Mark Henriques, Beth Tyner Jones and Richard Rainey held a webinar discussion on employment considerations as companies reopen for business. 

“We know companies around the country are struggling to reopen their businesses,” Henriques, the co-leader of Womble Bond Dickinson’s COVID-19 Task Force, said. “They are looking for ways to reopen that are safe and that comply with the law.”

Jones, the leader of the firm’s Employment Team and co-leader of the COVID-19 Task Force, said as employers bring back – or consider bringing back – workers from layoffs, furloughs and work-from-home arrangements, they need to consider the size and layout of their facilities, the level of interaction with the public, COVID-19 activity in the geographic area and other health and safety issues.

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer,” she said. But a good starting point is for companies to develop reentry protocols to guide all aspects of their operations during this period. Jones said such guidance should be shared with employees as soon as possible.

“This helps build employee confidence in what is an anxious time,” Jones said.

Employees Who Can’t (or Won’t) Come Back to Work

But despite a company’s best planning efforts, there may be a number of employees who do not or cannot return to the workplace for a variety of reasons, including underlying health conditions, family members with underlying health conditions, lack of child care, symptoms of COVID-19, a lack of a financial incentive (due to expanding unemployment benefits) or just a general fear of getting sick.

“The number one question we’re getting is about employees who are reluctant to return or who refuse to return to work,” Rainey, a veteran labor and employment attorney, said. He said these issues need to be handled on a case-by-case basis, as the employer’s obligations can vary greatly depending on the reason the employee doesn’t wish to return.

For example, for employees with underlying health issues, Rainey said they may need to be treated as an individual with a disability under the ADA. “You have to discuss accommodation options with them, he said—either leave options or alternative ways for them to do their jobs.”

Rainey said that employees who choose to stay out because they are collecting more money on unemployment are risking legal action. “Some states are being aggressive in requiring employers to report whether they have offered an employee a chance to come back to work,” he said.

For employees who are scared to return to work, Rainey said educating workers on how COVID-19 is transmitted, and the steps the employer is taking to keep workers safe, can be helpful. In general, he said employers are trying to work with employees, such as allowing unpaid leave, even if they don’t have a formal unpaid leave policy.

“If the person can do their job from home, many employers are letting employees stay home,” Rainey said. “But if they can’t do their job from home, employers can, at some point, require them to come back.”

Likewise, Jones said many employers are being flexible with employees who are experiencing childcare issues due to schools and daycare centers being closed. “It’s difficult to open the economy if schools and child care centers are closed,” she said. Companies with fewer than 500 employees may offer these workers expanded leave under the Family Medical and Leave Act (FLMA). 

If a group of employees expresses concern about returning to work, Rainey said this may invoke the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)—even in non-union shops. The NLRA prohibits retaliation or discrimination against “protected concerted activity”. 

“You can envision in this pandemic setting employees coming forward and expressing concerns,” Rainey said. “If so, employers need to take this seriously.”

Workplace Health Screenings and Dealing with Sick Employees

Employees with COVID-19 symptoms are an entirely different situation than employees who cannot or will not return to work. “A key containment strategy is to keep people with symptoms out of the workplace,” Jones said. Symptomatic employees can work from home, if able, but they can and should stay out of the workplace.

However, employers cannot preemptively remove members of specific groups from the workplace simply due to their classification as being at risk.  For example, while pregnant women and senior citizens are at a higher risk of serious complications from COVID-19, Jones said employers may not force them out of the workplace as a group for the employees’ own protection.

“Do an individualized assessment of each employee,” she said. “Focus on reducing the risks for others, rather than the employees themselves. Barring someone from the workforce as a threat to themselves is likely a last resort and not often indicated after the assessment.”

Henriques noted that many employers are considering on-site health screenings, such as temperature checks, as they reopen their businesses. But what is permissible?

Jones said employers have greater latitude to gather such medical information during the current pandemic. However, they must keep this information confidential and separate from the employee’s regular HR file. She also noted that temperature checks “are not a fail-safe test,” as many COVID-19 cases do not exhibit a fever. 

Henriques said, “Are we going to create a false sense of security because everyone got temperature tested?”

Likewise, Rainey said employers legally can require employees to take serology or antibody tests, but those tests may not be reliable enough to provide certainty that an employee is virus-free.

Health screenings also raise the question of who will perform such checks. Many employers are turning to contracted healthcare providers to perform these services. Employers should ensure that healthcare screeners have adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and contactless thermometers.

Masks are another important consideration, as they are recommended in many workplaces and employers may be able to require them. “You really need to look at your local orders on that,” Rainey said. Employers should provide masks to their workers, particularly if they require them on the job.

But what if employees refuse to wear a mask? Rainey said this should be treated as a safety violation, but first, the employer should explore whether the employee has a medical reason for not being able to wear a mask. “Don’t have a knee-jerk reaction to imposing discipline,” he said.

That advice applies broadly to an employer’s dealings with employees in the COVID-19 environment. Companies that consider issues on a case-by-case basis, maintain open lines of communication with employees, and try to work with employees’ needs will be better positioned to restart operations. Employers should be open to new ideas and approaches about how to get work done while maintaining a safe workplace for their team members.

“I think this gives us an opportunity to consider the nature of work and what is truly an essential function for each job,” Jones said.

Copyright © 2022 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume X, Number 135

About this Author

Mark P. Henriques, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Jury Trial Attorney, Non-Compete Agreements Lawyer

Mark has successfully litigated cases involving fraud, unfair trade practices, class actions, non-compete and non-disclosure agreements, and breach of contract. He has experience in state and federal court in both North and South Carolina. Mark has prevailed in numerous trials, arbitrations and mediations. Mark has served as first chair in more than eight jury trials, five of which lasted a week or more. He has successfully argued cases before the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the North Carolina Supreme Court.

Beth Tyner Jones Partner Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP

Beth is a leader of the firm’s Education and School Law Team, head of its Employment and Pensions Service Team and Managing Partner of the Research Triangle Park and Raleigh, NC offices. She builds upon her experience as an HR professional, in-house employment lawyer and a college faculty member to defend employers and serve as a trusted adviser to educational institutions.

As outside general counsel to colleges and universities, Beth advises on compliance, policy and liability matters affecting campuses including student unrest on campus,...

Richard Rainey, Womble Carlyle Law Firm, Litigation Attorney

Richard has extensive experience successfully litigating employment disputes on behalf of employers in the courtroom and before administrative agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the National Labor Relations Board and the U.S. and N.C. Department of Labor.  His litigation practice also includes actions involving covenants not to compete, theft of trade secrets, unfair competition, employee raiding, fair housing and equal credit. He advises clients on effective and practical methods to prevent exposure to employment law liability under Title VII...