December 3, 2021

Volume XI, Number 337

Advertisement
Advertisement

December 03, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 02, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

December 01, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Federal OSHA Threatening to Pull the Plug on State Plans Refusing to Enforce Healthcare ETS

Many states have Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)-approved workplace safety and health programs (OSHA State Plans) and enjoy enforcement autonomy over workplace safety and health in those states, particularly with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic. OSHA State Plans that have not adopted OSHA’s Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) related to COVID-19 — the healthcare ETS issued for healthcare employers on June 17, 2021 (Healthcare ETS) and the forthcoming vaccine ETS — may soon be feeling the wrath of the federal government and risking revocation of their OSHA State Plan status.

In written notice to the Industrial Commission of Arizona on October 19, 2021, OSHA said it is “reconsidering” its approval of Arizona’s OSHA State Plan. OSHA’s warning was prompted by Arizona’s failure to fully adopt the Healthcare ETS OSHA issued for healthcare employers or an “at least as effective as” alternative.

The Healthcare ETS took effect on June 21, 2021, although employers had additional time to implement certain portions of the standard. The Healthcare ETS imposes extensive requirements on covered healthcare employers, including implementing numerous safety controls, requiring paid leave to obtain vaccinations and job-protected leave for employees with symptoms or close contact with someone with COVID-19 who must be excluded from the work environment (with pay in some circumstances), and developing a detailed COVID-19 plan, among other requirements.

OSHA State Plans must maintain standards that are at least as effective as OSHA standards. When OSHA establishes a new standard, State Plans typically have six months to adopt the new standard. However, State Plans have only 30 days to adopt an ETS.

Despite these obligations, Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah have yet to adopt the Healthcare ETS or what OSHA is considering to be an equally effective alternative.

OSHA indicated that the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH) was untimely in providing notice to OSHA of its intent to adopt only portions of the Healthcare ETS and otherwise relying on existing state law. According to OSHA, the state agencies and OSHA “came to a mutual understanding” that ADOSH’s proposal would not be “at least as effective” as the Healthcare ETS and ADOSH never adopted any provisions of the Healthcare ETS.

OSHA also has announced plans to revoke approval of the State Plans in Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah for their failure to adopt the Healthcare ETS, which could mean that they lose federal funding for safety and health and that OSHA would then take over those OSHA State Plans.

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster has indicated that South Carolina intends to fight back. He wrote on a social media site, “This is clearly a preemptive strike by the federal government. With no state regulators in the way, the federal Labor Department will be free to penalize employers who do not comply with President Biden’s unconstitutional vaccine mandate.” Governor McMaster also wrote, “To protect South Carolina employers, I have instructed LLR [Labor, Licensing and Regulation] Director Emily Farr to begin immediate preparations for a vigorous and lengthy legal fight.”

These developments come just weeks after the Biden Administration announced that OSHA will implement another ETS requiring employers with at least 100 employees to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated or require weekly COVID-19 testing of unvaccinated workers. The anticipated, forthcoming ETS has been met with criticism in many conservative states (including Arizona, South Carolina, and Utah). Observers have speculated about the fate of the new ETS, including how State Plans might resist it. However, OSHA’s actions signal the likely consequences for State Plans that attempt to bypass the requirements of the new ETS once it is issued. Such consequences could affect employers in the form of greater enforcement in those affected states than previously.

Jackson Lewis P.C. © 2021National Law Review, Volume XI, Number 293
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Catherine A. Cano, Jackson Lewis, Federal Disability Lawyer, Retaliation Matters Attorney
Associate

Catherine A. Cano is an Associate in the Omaha, Nebraska, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She represents management in all areas of labor and employment law. 

Ms. Cano helps clients navigate state, federal, and local leave and disability laws. Ms. Cano has experience in litigation and arbitration in several areas, including employment discrimination, retaliation and whistleblower claims, and non-competes and unfair competition. Ms. Cano’s practice also includes assisting clients involved in union organization campaigns, collective bargaining,...

402-391-1991
Melanie L. Paul Trial Attorney Jackson Lewis Atlanta, GA
Of Counsel

Melanie L. Paul is Of Counsel in the Atlanta, Georgia office of Jackson Lewis P.C.  Her practice focuses on occupational safety and health and wage and hour issues.  Ms. Paul’s clients benefit from her unique inside experience as a trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) for more than a decade. 

During Ms. Paul’s time with the DOL, she regularly appeared at hearings and trials before federal administrative tribunals and federal district courts throughout the southeastern United States in matters of Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) law, Mine...

404-586-1869
Sierra Vierra, Jackson Lewis Law Firm, Sacramento, Labor and Employment Litigation Attorney
Associate

Sierra Vierra is an Associate in the Sacramento, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She represents management in civil litigation and administrative proceedings involving employment law matters, including discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, benefits, and a wide range of wage and hour issues. She litigates in federal and state courts, including class and representative actions, and represents employers in administrative proceedings. She also provides preventive advice and counsel on best practices.

...
916-288-3008
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement