The last few weeks have been quite tense for California employers as they watched the drama unfold with the state’s Department of Industrial Relations’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) over amendments to the standing COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standards (“ETS”)

In case you missed it: a few weeks ago, Cal/OSHA delayed a vote on amendments to the ETS to have more time to consider new guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and the state’s health department. Then, Cal/OSHA considered new proposed amendments, which passed following two votes during an emergency meeting. These changes would have amended the ETS if approved by the Office of Administrative Law. However, the Standards Board withdrew the amendments and scheduled another emergency meeting. After proposing more revisions to the ETS to be considered on June 17th, Cal/OSHA also issued guidance in the form of a Frequently Asked Questions Page to explain proposed amendments.

Finally, on June 17th, the Standards Board passed an amended ETS and Governor Newsom issued an Executive Order to make the amended ETS effective as soon as filed with the Secretary of State.

The changes mainly attempt to bring the ETS in alignment with recent changes to California Department of Public Health (“CDPH”) Orders.

The following are the highlights of the changes to the ETS.

Face Coverings

All employees regardless of vaccination status do not have to wear masks outdoors. However, unvaccinated employees must be trained that face coverings are recommended outdoors for people who are not fully vaccinated when six feet of physical distance between people cannot be maintained.

Fully vaccinated employees do not have to wear a face-covering indoors unless (1) the employees’ work is subject to respiratory protection requirements under other health and safety standards, (2) there is an outbreak in the workplace, defined as three or more employees testing positive within a 14 day period or (3) the vaccinated employee is conducting COVID-19 screenings. Fully vaccinated employees also do not have to wear face coverings outdoors.

Employers must provide face coverings and ensure they are worn by unvaccinated employees when working indoors or in a vehicle with others.

Exceptions to Face Coverings for Unvaccinated Employees

  • When employees are outside.
  • When an employee is alone in a room or vehicle.
  • While eating or drinking, but only if employees are at least six feet apart and outside air has been maximized to the extent feasible. (Note that this is one area where physical distancing is still required. However, employers are still directed to evaluate the need for physical distancing and potential placement of barriers.)
  • Employees wearing a respirator under an employer’s Respiratory Protection Program

Employers are also required to provide face coverings to comply with applicable orders and the ETS, as well as to employees upon request, regardless of an employee’s vaccination status.

Physical Distancing

The amended ETS mostly eliminates physical distancing and barrier requirements, without consideration of employees’ vaccination status.

One clear exception is for locations where unvaccinated employees are eating and drinking, as noted above. Physical distancing is also still required in some cases, including:

  • If an employer assesses a workplace hazard and determines that physical distancing is necessary for the workplace.
  • If there is an outbreak, employers must evaluate whether physical distancing or barriers are needed to control transmission.
  • Physical distancing and barriers are mandated in the event of a major outbreak, defined as 20 or more employees testing positive.


Employers must continue to offer testing at no cost to employees under the following circumstances:

  • The employee is symptomatic and unvaccinated, regardless of whether there is a known exposure.
  • The employee is unvaccinated and has had a workplace exposure to COVID-19 (i.e. close contact with known or suspected COVID-19 infected person).
  • The employee is vaccinated, but has had a known workplace exposure, and has developed symptoms.
  • Employees who are unvaccinated in an outbreak (i.e., 3 or more employee positives within a 14-day period).
  • All employees in an exposed group during a major outbreak (i.e., 20 or more employee positives within a 30-day period).


Fully vaccinated employees and certain employees who have tested positive for COVID-19 previously, do not need to be excluded from the workplace following an exposure to COVID-19 unless they become symptomatic.

Documentation for Vaccine Status

To take advantage of the relaxed preventive measures, Cal/OSHA’s amendments require that the employer document employees’ vaccination status, especially for those not wearing a face covering.

Though the ETS does not specify a particular method for documenting status, the standard is performance-based and requires the documentation method to be effective. The FAQs for the amended ETS state acceptable options for documentation include:

  • Employees provide proof of vaccination, including a vaccine card or health care document showing vaccination status, and the employer maintains a copy.
  • Employees provide proof of vaccination and the employer maintains a record of the employees who presented proof but not the vaccine record itself.
  • Employees self-attest to vaccination status and the employer maintains a record of who self-attests.

Note that some of the options for documentation can have additional compliance obligations under Cal/OSHA’s Access to Medical Records Standard and related regulations. The alternative to collecting this information per Cal/OSHA is to require all employees to wear a face-covering instead of having a documentation process.

If an employee declines to state their vaccination status, the employer is required under the amended ETS to treat the employee as unvaccinated.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor changes in COVID-19 guidance and regulations in the workplace. If you have questions about the Cal/OSHA emergency temporary standards or related workplace safety issues, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Sean Paisan Sean Paisan

Sean Paisan is of counsel in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is the leader of the firm’s Cal/OSHA practice subgroup and co-leader of the firm’s Construction industry group. His practice focuses on assisting employers with Cal/OSHA compliance, investigations…

Sean Paisan is of counsel in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is the leader of the firm’s Cal/OSHA practice subgroup and co-leader of the firm’s Construction industry group. His practice focuses on assisting employers with Cal/OSHA compliance, investigations, and fighting citations. Additionally, Sean also assists employers in data privacy and traditional employment matters, including litigation and counseling.

Sean’s first exposure to OSHA regulations occurred during his undergraduate studies while working for a construction company that helped build Disney’s California Adventure. After attending law school and working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office, Sean moved into private practice, where he focused on general liability matters, including serious injuries and fatalities. Through this experience, Sean became very knowledgeable on the myriad of Cal/OSHA regulations imposed on businesses, especially in the construction, manufacturing, and healthcare industries, and the consequences for violations of those regulations. From there, Sean became OSHA 30 certified and began assisting employers with all workplace safety matters, from compliance, to investigations and inspections, to the appeals of citations in California, Arizona, Washington, and Hawaii.

Throughout his career, Sean has been called upon to try cases that cannot be settled. He has handled trials in the United States District Court, California Superior Court, Cal/OSHA Appeals Board, Workers Compensation Appeals Board, and the US Department of Labor OALJ, as well as binding arbitrations. Sean has tried cases involving the following subjects: general employment, wrongful death, premises liability, unfair competition (B&P § 17200), false advertising (Lanham Act), misappropriation of trade secret, restrictive covenants, and whistleblower (AIR21).

In addition to his trial experience, he is routinely called on to assist his clients with workplace crises such as catastrophic injuries, fatalities, data breaches, and ransomware incidents. Drawing on his years of in both civil and criminal law, Sean’s unique background allows him to anticipate and proactively manage issues, rather than simply reacting to requests and inquiries by investigating agencies such as law enforcement, OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Bureau of Investigations (BOI), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as well as opposing counsel in litigation matters.

In addition to his litigation experience, Sean has earned the CIPP/US credential through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). He helps organizations manage rapidly evolving privacy threats and mitigate the potential loss and misuse of information assets. He has an in-depth understanding of how privacy laws can impact business operations. These laws include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, California Financial Information Privacy Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Junk Fax Prevention Act, Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), Cable Communications Policy Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). With respect to laws affecting the ability of the government to obtain information, Sean can assist employers in understanding their obligations under the Federal Wiretap Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Right to Financial Privacy Act, Privacy Protection Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and USA PATRIOT Act.

Before becoming an attorney, Sean earned his bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Southern California, where he also played varsity ice hockey in the ACHA. When not practicing law, Sean enjoys spending time with his wife and three young children, playing adult league ice hockey, mountain biking, and motorsports.