As COVID-19 continues its upheaval of nearly all aspects of life, retirement plan administration included (see some of our prior discussions here, here, here and here), the Internal Revenue Service recently issued guidance providing additional relief for the sponsors of certain plans.  IRS Notice 2020-52 clarifies requirements for mid-year changes to a safe harbor 401(k) plan that only reduces contributions made on behalf of highly compensated employees (HCEs), and provides temporary relief from certain requirements that would otherwise apply when a plan sponsor chooses to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions during a plan year.

Contributions and benefits provided under a qualified retirement plan must not discriminate in favor of HCEs.  Certain tests must be run on a plan annually —the Actual Deferral Percentage (ADP) and Actual Contribution Percentage (ACP) tests—to confirm that a plan is non-discriminatory.  Sponsors may instead choose to design their plan as a “safe harbor” plan by providing matching or nonelective contributions to non-HCEs under certain formulas specified under the safe harbor rules.  By doing so, a plan is generally deemed to pass the ADP and ACP tests.  In most cases, the safe harbor provisions of a plan must be adopted before the first day of a plan year and must remain in place for the entire 12-month period that follows.  If a sponsor does wish to make changes during a plan year—in particular, amending the plan to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contributions—they must either be operating at an economic loss or have included language in their annual safe harbor notice that a reduction or suspension may occur mid-year with 30 days’ advance notice.

The IRS recognizes, however, that many plan sponsors are facing unexpected and unprecedented financial hardship this year in light of COVID-19.  Sponsors may not know yet whether they are operating at an economic loss for the year and/or may not have included the requisite language regarding potential changes in their most recent safe harbor notices.  Sponsors may also have difficulty satisfying the timing requirements for suspending safe harbor contributions when doing so immediately is necessary to ensure they can meet their payroll and other financial obligations.

Because of these considerations, Notice 2020-52 clarifies that a mid-year amendment only reducing contributions to HCEs is not a safe harbor contribution change (as safe harbor contributions by definition are only made to non-HCEs), though an updated safe harbor notice is still required.  In addition, a plan may be amended to reduce or suspend safe harbor contributions between March 13, 2020, and August 31, 2020, without requiring economic loss or language in the annual safe harbor notice allowing such a mid-year change.  Such an amendment, regarding nonelective contributions only, may also be made without 30 days’ advance notice, as long as the amendment is effective on a prospective basis and an updated safe harbor notice is provided no later than August 31, 2020.  (Thirty days’ advance notice is still required for changes to safe harbor matching contributions as those contributions may directly affect the amount a participant chooses to defer.)

The relief under Notice 2020-52 also applies to safe harbor 403(b) plans.

If you have questions regarding Notice 2020-52, or any other COVID-19 relief afforded to qualified retirement or other benefit plans, please contact a member of our Employee Benefits practice group.

Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal and New Jersey Senator Cory Booker plan to formally introduce legislation, the “College Athlete Pandemic Safety Act,” to eliminate the ability of colleges and universities to use liability waivers as a basis for student-athletes to return to campus and resume training activities.

Reacting to the growing number of schools, including Ohio State, SMU, Indiana, and Iowa, requiring student-athletes to sign liability waivers or “pledges,” the Senators have expressed concern that student-athletes are being asked to waive their legal rights in order to avoid being barred from practice and training facilities without the benefit of legal counsel. Senator Blumenthal summed up the proposed legislation, stating that

student-athlete’s health and safety is a “non-negotiable priority”

and that “forcing college athletes to sign away their rights … in the middle of a pandemic is just the latest in a litany of unacceptable actions schools have taken to exploit these young people.”

A proposed draft of the legislation includes the following stipulations:

  • A college or university cannot allow an individual to agree to a waiver of liability regarding COVID-19.
  • A college or university may not cancel a scholarship or financial aid for a student-athlete who refuses to participate because of concerns regarding COVID-19.
  • A college or university must inform all student-athletes at the school when an athlete or staff member tests positive for COVID-19. The person who tests positive will not be identified.
  • The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will  be asked to develop specific health and safety guidelines related to COVID-19 for student-athletes.
  • The college or university will make sure the athletic department adheres to all COVID-19 health and safety guidelines.

Reaction and criticism of the NCAA regarding its lack of a uniform health and safety policy has been swift. Nevada Senator Jacky Rosen criticized the NCAA for publishing guidelines relating to the restarting of college sports but leaving “it up to individual schools to decide how to implement health and safety policies.” Senator Rosen also commented during Senate committee hearings that the lack of a uniformed NCAA response could result in 1,100 NCAA member schools reacting differently, which could result in wide-ranging and inconsistent protocols for testing, social distancing, and the quarantining of athletes.

NCAA Board of Governors Chairman Michael Drake responded to the criticism of the NCAA by asserting that he supports universal coronavirus guidelines and that “this is under discussion actively on a daily basis.”

Jackson Lewis’ Collegiate and Professional Sports Practice Group will continue to monitor the development and implementation of this proposed federal legislation and the student athlete waiver issue. Please feel free to reach out to any member of the Collegiate and Professional Sports Practice Group with questions.

Its July. A time when in normal years, schools are closed and families are planning vacations. But in 2020, paid vacation is being replaced with paid leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), leaving employers asking, can they still do that?!

For public employers and employers with less than 500 employees, the FFCRA provides two weeks of paid sick leave and up to 12 weeks of Emergency FMLA. The most popular reason for taking both leaves is that the employee is unable to work or telework due to a need to care for the employee’s child(ren) due to a school or childcare closure caused by COVID-19. Many employers hoped that the need for this leave would cease as summer arrived, after all, schools are normally closed in the summer — so the closure would no longer be caused by COVID-19. Not so fast.

Although the need for FFCRA leave due to school closures should have subsided, employees may still seek this leave if their childcare is closed due to COVID-19.

Last week the Department of Labor issued a Field Assistance Bulletin providing guidance to its investigators as to whether the closure of a summer camp, summer enrichment program, or other summer program for COVID-19 related reasons could support an employee’s request for FFCRA leave. And the answer is, not surprisingly, yes. Summer camps and programs may qualify as places of care of employees’ children for the purposes of FFCRA leave. The question is whether a specific summer camp or program would have been the place of care of an employee’s child had it not closed for COVID-19 related reasons. In many cases, employees had not yet enrolled their children in these programs in March when everything starting shutting down.

According to the Bulletin, employees may be entitled to FFCRA leave for the closure of a summer camp or program if:

• The child was enrolled in the camp or program before the closure was announced;
• The family submitted an application to participate in the camp or program before the closure;
• The family submitted a deposit for the camp or program;
• The child recently attended the camp or program (in 2019 or 2018) and is currently eligible to attend again;
• The child is on a waitlist;
• Or other affirmative evidence of a plan or intent for the child to attend the camp or program.

The DOL recognized that it is not a one-size fits all inquiry, but a parent’s mere interest in a camp or program is generally not enough. The Bulletin, which is written to guide the department’s investigators tells its investigators that when evaluating whether an employer improperly denied FFCRA leave to an employee based on the closure of a summer camp or program they should consider whether there is evidence of a plan for the child to attend the camp or program or, short of a “plan,” whether it is still more likely than not that the child would have attended the camp or program had it not closed due to COVID-19.

How does this help an employer? Employers are still limited in what information they can require before providing leave. Generally, an employee who requests FFCRA leave must provide the employer information in support of the need for leave either orally or in writing, including an explanation of the reason for leave and a statement that the employee is unable to work because of that reason.

Additionally, in the case of leave to care for the employee’s child whose school or place of care is closed, the employee must provide the name of the child, the name of the school, place of care, camp or summer program that is closed and a statement that no other suitable person is available to care for the child. In other words, although the employee may need to prove to the DOL investigator that it was more likely than not that the child would have attended the camp, the employee doesn’t necessarily need to prove it to the employer, making it difficult for employers to determine whether the employee is legitimately entitled to the leave.

The White House has issued an amendment to the June 22, 2020, Presidential “Proclamation Suspending Entry of Aliens Who Present a Risk to the U.S. Labor Market Following the Coronavirus Outbreak” to clarify an issue regarding those who are outside the scope of the Proclamation.

According to the amendment, not all those holding nonimmigrant visas on June 24, 2020, are exempted from the Proclamation – only those holding valid H, L, or J visas. This means that individuals with, for instance, valid B-1/B-2 visitor visas on June 24, 2020, will not necessarily be eligible to apply for H, L, or J visas.

The amendment affects Section 3 of the original Proclamation setting out the scope of the suspension.

The Proclamation (the amendment in italics) will affect those who are:

  • Outside of the U.S. on the effective date – June 24, 2020, at 12:01 a.m. (EDT);
  • Do not have a nonimmigrant visa, of any of the classifications specified in Section 2 (H, L, or J) and pursuant to which the alien is seeking entry that is valid on the effective date of the Proclamation or issued thereafter; and
  • Do not have another travel document (such as a transportation letter, boarding foil, or advance parole document) valid on the effective date or issued thereafter.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are committed to helping employers make the best business decisions and will continue to provide updates and clarifications as they become available. Please contact your Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about how these new restrictions and forthcoming regulations will affect your employees and prospective employees.

 

Since May, USCIS has been threatening furloughs of three-quarters of its workforce in August if it does not receive a $1.2 billion loan and an average 21% increase in fees to take care of its budget shortfall. Reportedly, more than 13,000 of the 20,000 USCIS employees who work on citizenship and visa processes will receive furlough notices if emergency funding is not forthcoming. Further, some notices may have already been received for a late-July furlough.

Apparently, USCIS sent formal notification to the union representing USCIS employees that up to 70 percent of the agency’s employees could be furloughed as of August 3, 2020. Furloughs that are expected to last more than 30 days require this sort of formal notice. Therefore, the projected furloughs will not be short term. The president of the union that represents 2,500 USCIS employees in Washington, D.C. stated the obvious:

It is not in the best interest of the American people to allow such a failure – which would have a substantial impact on millions of legal immigrants, permanent residents and US citizens and would be detrimental to American businesses, educational institutions, the economy and our law enforcement and health care systems ….

USCIS has been told that any additional funds should not burden U.S. taxpayers. The agency recognizes that any loan would have to be repaid. In other words, to make up the shortfall, the funding will have to come from increased fees, pushing the entire burden onto immigrants, employers, and those seeking naturalization. If the increased fees do not discourage immigration, the even longer delays that will result from the furloughs certainly will. An estimated 860,000 individuals were scheduled to naturalize this year – but, through the combined impact of the pandemic and the proposed furloughs, those individuals may not become citizens before the November election.

The funding problem at USCIS is not simply due to COVID-19. Although the decrease in filings associated with the pandemic may have been the final straw. Budget problems at USCIS have persisted for several years. Unfortunately, the needed funding appears to have become yet another political battleground. Adding another 13,000 employees to the ranks of the unemployed is not likely to help the U.S. economy.

Jackson Lewis attorneys will continue to monitor this situation and provide updates as they become available.

On June 23, 2020, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed an emergency ordinance temporarily creating a right to reemployment for certain employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ordinance, titled “Back to Work” emergency ordinance, requires that as certain employers reopen,  they must first seek to rehire the employee who previously held the position or a similar position before offering the position to another individual. This ordinance takes effect upon signature of the Mayor and will remain in effect for 60 days unless the Board of Supervisors votes to extend its application.

This new emergency ordinance applies to for-profit and non-profit employers that directly or indirectly own or operate a business in the City or County of San Francisco and employ, or have employed, 100 or more employees on or after February 25, 2020. The only employers exempted from the new ordinance are government entities and certain healthcare operations as defined under the Health Officer’s Order.

Employees are covered by the ordinance if they were employed for at least 90 days of the calendar year preceding a covered layoff. Covered layoffs are limited to any layoff of 10 or more employees in any 30 day period starting on February 25, 2020, until the expiration of the ordinance, and was caused by the employer’s lack of funds or lack of work due to the COVID-19 public health emergency declared by both the mayor of San Francisco and the governor of California.

Employers covered by the “Back to Work” emergency ordinance have the following obligations:

  • Employers must provide eligible employees with written notice of a covered layoff and the right to reemployment, at or before the time the layoff becomes effective. If a covered layoff has already occurred, the employer has 30 days from the effective date of the ordinance to provide written notice to eligible employees.
  • As employers reopen, they must first seek to rehire the employee who previously held the position, or a substantially similar position, before offering the position to another individual. Such offers of reemployment must be made in order of seniority if more than one eligible worker could be rehired for the same position. An employer is permitted to withhold an offer of rehire if after layoff it was discovered the employee engaged in any act of dishonesty, violation of the law, violation of policy, or rule of the employer. An employer may also withhold an offer of rehire if the employee executed a severance agreement at the time of layoff.
  • Employers must also notify the Office of Economic Workforce Development in writing of all covered layoffs and offers of reemployment made under the ordinance, as well as all acceptances and rejections of rehire offers by eligible employees.
  • Employers that implement covered layoffs must retain the following records for at least two years: eligible employee’s full legal name, job classification at the time of separation, date of hire, last known address, last known email address, last known telephone number and a copy of the lay off notice provided.
  • The ordinance prohibits employers from discriminating against an eligible employee who is experiencing a “Family Care Hardship”, which includes needing to care for a child due to school closures or lack of available childcare, or any grounds for which a person may use paid sick leave to care for another.  Eligible employees are entitled to reasonable accommodation of job duty or job requirements if a Family Care Hardship impacts their ability to perform a job duty or to satisfy a job requirement.  Employers must make a good faith effort to reasonably accommodate an eligible employee.  This duty to accommodate expires with the expiration of the ordinance.

Jackson Lewis continues to track state and local regulations pertaining to COVID19. If you have questions about compliance with this ordinance or other COVID19 issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

Earlier this month, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers on COVID-19 issues to state that employers cannot require antibody testing of its employees before they return to work.  The EEOC’s guidance came in response to the CDC’s earlier statement regarding antibody testing.  In adding Question A.7, the EEOC stated: “An antibody test constitutes a medical examination under the ADA. In light of CDC’s Interim Guidelines that antibody test results ‘should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace,’ an antibody test at this time does not meet the ADA’s ‘job related and consistent with business necessity’ standard for medical examinations or inquiries for current employees. Therefore, requiring antibody testing before allowing employees to re-enter the workplace is not allowed under the ADA. ”  The full set of EEOC Technical Assistance Questions and Answers can be found here.

Employers should continue to check for updates from the EEOC, the U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, and your State’s Department of Health.

As many have learned over the last several years, ransomware is a type of malware that denies affected users access to critical data by encrypting it. Attackers profit handsomely by requiring victims to pay substantial sums, typically tendered in a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin. A look at some of the numbers over the past two years is troubling. And, perhaps even more troubling, as in all “industries,” products evolve and there are new entrants to the marketplace.

MAZE and Sodinokibi

A comprehensive report by Coveware analyzing ransomware developments during the first quarter of 2020 highlights several interesting trends. In addition to calling attention to the uptick following the coronavirus COVID-19 outbreak, the report explains the rise in average ransom payments and the most common attack types and vectors. It also points to a disturbing new trend – data exfiltration.

For some time, the general view of ransomware has been that attackers encrypt their victims’ systems and files believing that many will be without good backups, increasing pressure to pay the ransom in order to recover critical business information, despite the risks that come with such transactions. That view is shifting. According to the Coveware report, and what we are seeing in our own experience:

Data exfiltration, where data is downloaded from victim computers and is threatened to be released publicly, became a prevalent tactic during ransomware attacks in [the first quarter of 2020]. This was a big change from the previous quarter where it was virtually non-existent.

Two popular variants driving this new trend in ransomware attacks are MAZE and Sodinokibi. Tactics include auctioning off stolen data and/or publicly shaming victims into paying the ransom. (This Krebsonsecurity post includes a snapshot showing such an auction on the dark web by the REvil ransomware group). The expectation is that these kinds of attacks will continue.

“WASTED”

As part of managing the data breach response services we provide to our clients around the country, we maintain relationships with forensic experts, such as Arete Advisors, LLC. These experts work with us to support our clients’ incident response needs, while tracking emerging threats. Arete recently reported on a new variant, “WASTED,” that appears to have certain features to be aware of:

  • Ransom demands have been nonnegotiable, and have been in the range of 40 BTC to 1,000 BTC. As of this writing, that means between approximately $360,000 to over $900,000, and the attackers threaten to increase the ransom every 24 hours.
  • The attackers sometimes enter through VPN with compromised credentials. As Arete suggests, using multifactor authentication on VPN connections can help prevent these and other attacks.
  • Ransomware payloads are customized to the victim’s environment. The file extension will have 3 characters that represent the victim’s company name along with a reference to the variant, e.g., “abcwasted.”
  • The attackers can be slow to respond, 12+ hours in some cases.

Organizations may not be able to prevent all attacks, but it is important to remain vigilant and be aware of emerging trends. There also are several steps organizations can take to minimize the chance and impact of a successful attack.

Despite the ongoing changes to the workplace in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, one thing remains unchanged: federal EEO laws and their role in the workplace.

As colleges and universities and professional sports organizations make plans for the resumption of play in the next couple of months, university presidents and league officials must address their athletes’ ongoing safety concerns as they return to training environments in anticipation of resuming play. The need to protect the health and safety of current coaching and administrative staff members who may be older is another challenge. They may be at an even higher risk for a severe case of COVID-19 because of their age or underlying health conditions.

The perceived need to protect this group of potentially vulnerable employees has raised many questions. One question is how to balance protecting high-risk individuals – especially older workers – while respecting their individual rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).

Attempts to protect older employees may actually expose employers to charges of discrimination and lawsuits.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has explained that individuals age 65 and over are at higher risk for a severe case of COVID-19 if they contract the virus. Therefore, the CDC has encouraged employers to offer maximum flexibilities to this group. These employees retain their protections under the federal employment discrimination laws even during the COVID-19 pandemic. For academic institutions and their athletic departments and professional franchises, this means an extra step when considering policies specifically designed to protect older employees, including coaches and support staff.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has asserted that employers should not enact policies or procedures that disfavor older employees, even one intended to protect older employees from COVID-19.

In its Frequently Asked Questions series, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws, the EEOC warned that, under the ADEA, a covered employer cannot exclude an individual from the workplace based on being 65 or older, even if the employer acted for benevolent reasons, such as protecting the employee due to higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19. Forcing employees age 65 and older to stay home while allowing other, younger employees to return to work violates the ADEA. Instead, the EEOC suggests that employers apply restrictive precautionary measures uniformly to all employees. Employers should not single out older employees to work from home, work in a separate area of the office or facility, take breaks at different times, undergo extra screening or testing, or any other COVID-19-related precautions not required of all employees.

However, employers may provide additional flexibility to workers age 65 and older. The ADEA does not prohibit treating higher-risk individuals more favorably, even if it results in younger workers (including workers ages 40-64 otherwise protected by the ADEA) being treated less favorably based on age in comparison. For example, providing employees age 65 and older the choice to work remotely would not violate the ADEA, even if the same choice is not offered to younger employees.

Professional sports leagues are already attempting to deal with this challenge. For example, NBA Commissioner Adam Silver suggested that older coaches would not be forced to stay home but may not be able to sit with their teams on the sidelines during games. Such a policy likely would violate EEOC guidance and prevent some high-profile coaches (including the San Antonio Spurs’ Gregg Popovich, 71, and the Houston Rockets’ Mike D’Antoni, 69) from coaching their players up close.

However, several NBA coaches (including New Orleans Pelicans coach Alvin Gentry, 65, and Dallas Mavericks coach and president of the NBA Coaches Association Rick Carlisle, 60) were critical of Silver’s suggestion. Gentry, for example, told ESPN he does not think older coaches should be “singled out,” and Carlisle noted it is possible for an older NBA coach to be healthier than a younger coach, and “the conversation should never be solely about a person’s age.” Their reactions, and the EEOC’s new guidance, illustrate how complicated these policy decisions can be for employers, especially when dealing with athletes and competitors at any age.

While the push to resume sporting events during an ongoing pandemic is understandable (including the significant financial considerations and returning to some normalcy for athletes, coaches, and fans), employers should avoid using age or other protected characteristics as considerations when returning coaches, staff, and other employees to work, as even the intent to protect older employees can inadvertently result in violations of the ADEA.

Jackson Lewis’ Collegiate and Professional Sports Practice Group is available to provide guidance with regard to these challenging legal issues. Please feel free to reach out to any member of the Collegiate and Professional Sports Practice Group with questions.

As businesses reopen, employers will almost certainly be faced with the potential of a COVID-19 outbreak in the workplace. In addition to the industry-specific guidance for reopening that the State of California has issued, the California Department of Public Health (the Department) recently issued guidance for employers responding to a COVID-19 outbreak in the workplace.

The guidance is intended to apply to all workplaces experiencing a workplace COVID-19 outbreak, exclusive of healthcare, congregate living, and other workplaces where the Cal/OSHA Aerosol Transmissible Disease (ATD) standard applies to control possible exposures to COVID-19. Employers should note that an “outbreak” can be defined differently by local public health orders. Therefore, employers should familiarize themselves with how the term is defined in their workplace jurisdiction, as well as jurisdictions in which employees reside.

To prepare for the possibility of an outbreak, employers also are encouraged to designate an infection prevention coordinator who will implement infection prevention procedures, develop mechanisms for tracking suspected and confirmed cases among employees, and ensure sick leave policies are generous and flexible enough to accommodate employees who must stay home sick.

The Department also advises employers should be prepared to share information with the local health department (LHD) should a known or suspected outbreak occur in the workplace. This can include notifying the LHD in the county where the positive employee resides—even if an employee resides in a jurisdiction outside of where the workplace is located. Employers may be asked to provide the LHD a roster of all employees in the jurisdiction where the workplace outbreak is occurring. The Department further recommends that employers communicate with the LHD on how frequently the LHD expects updates from the employer on newly identified cases and symptomatic employees in the workplace and during the outbreak.

The Department states that, in the event of a workplace outbreak, testing all employees in the workplace should be the first strategy considered for the identification of additional cases when needed to control workplace spread of COVID-19. Testing should be done with the assistance of the LHD. When testing is not available or recommended by the LHD, employers should consider alternative methods for controlling the outbreak, including contact tracing and advising close contacts of positive employees about home quarantine and isolation. The guidance emphasizes that employers must maintain the confidentiality of employees with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection when communicating with other employees. In addition, employers are directed to familiarize themselves with the requirements of reporting employee cases to Cal/OSHA, including reporting COVID-19 inpatient hospitalizations and deaths among employees.

The guidance also indicates that as part of the outbreak management, the LHD may recommend a strategy to the employer for allowing employees to return to work following a confirmed COVID-19 exposure. While the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) most recent guidance on return to work should be considered, a strategy that may be recommended by the LHD consists of the following:

Symptomatic Positive

Employees with symptoms who are laboratory confirmed to have COVID-19

At least 3 days (72 hours) have passed since recovery, defined as resolution of fever without the use of fever-reducing medications and improvement in respiratory symptoms (e.g., cough, shortness of breath); and, at least 10 days have passed since symptoms first appeared.

Asymptomatic Positive

Employees who never had symptoms and are laboratory confirmed to have COVID-19

 

A minimum of 10 days has passed since the date of their first positive COVID-19 test. If they develop symptoms, then the criteria for laboratory-confirmed cases with symptoms apply.

Symptomatic Negative

Employees who had symptoms of COVID-19, but test result returned negative

Use the same criteria for return to work as laboratory-confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic Negative

Employees who never had symptoms, but were tested due to close contact with a laboratory-confirmed case-patient and were negative

Employees should quarantine at home for 14 days after the last known close contact with the case-patient. Symptoms can develop even after testing negative within 14 days after exposure.

Symptomatic Untested

Employees who had symptoms of COVID-19 but were not tested

Testing is highly recommended. If the employee cannot be tested, use the same criteria for return to work as laboratory-confirmed cases.

Asymptomatic Untested

Employees who had close contact with a laboratory-confirmed case patient at work, home, or in the community and do not have symptoms.

OR

Employees who refuse or are unable to be tested after close contact with a laboratory-confirmed case, despite a recommendation for testing from LHD or healthcare provider, and do not have symptoms.

Employees should be quarantined at home for 14 days after the last known close contact with the case patient

Employees who develop symptoms of COVID-19 while in quarantine should contact their healthcare provider. Even if they are not tested, the same criteria for return to work should be used as laboratory-confirmed cases.

Jackson Lewis is tracking state and local guidance pertaining to COVID-19. If you need assistance in developing reopening or response plans for COVID19, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.