On December 14, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) added a new section, COVID-19 and the Definition of “Disability” Under the ADA/Rehabilitation Act, to its COVID-19 guidance. The updated guidance describes how the ADA’s three-part definition of disability (actual disability, record of disability or being regarded as an individual with a disability) applies to COVID-19 and the resulting impact on employers’ obligations under the law.

Much of the updated guidance focuses on situations when COVID-19 is, or is not, an actual disability. For example, the guidance confirms that an individual with COVID-19 who is asymptomatic or who experiences “mild symptoms similar to those of the common cold or flu that resolve in a matter of weeks – with no other consequences – will not have an actual disability within the meaning of the ADA.” However, the updated guidance clarifies that situations involving more serious symptoms, particularly those expected to last several months, may constitute an actual disability under the ADA. In addition, the updated guidance confirms that conditions that are caused or worsened by COVID-19 can be an actual disability. The guidance reiterates that only individuals with an actual disability or record of a disability are eligible for reasonable accommodations (assuming the disability requires an accommodation and there is no undue hardship on the employer).

The EEOC’s updated guidance also raises key considerations for employers on the risks of potential “regarded as” disability claims.

Specifically, question N.8 of the EEOC’s updated guidance confirms that an employer does not automatically violate the ADA by taking an adverse action against an individual because they have COVID-19. “The ADA’s “direct threat” defense could permit an employer to require an employee with COVID-19 or its symptoms to refrain from physically entering the workplace during the CDC-recommended period of isolation, due to the significant risk of substantial harm to the health of others.” The guidance goes on to caution, however, that employers risk violating the ADA if they exclude an employee from the workplace based upon “myths, fears, or stereotypes” after the threat has passed (i.e., when an individual is no longer infectious and medically cleared to return to work).  The EEOC’s updated guidance highlights the need for employers to ensure their policies are consistent with current guidance issued by the CDC.

In addition, employers should take note of the EEOC’s reminder at question N.14 that the ADA’s requirements with respect to disability-related inquiries, medical exams, confidentiality of medical information, retaliation and interference apply to all applicants and employees regardless of whether they have a “disability” as defined by the ADA.

As employers work to implement policies and collect information regarding employees’ vaccination status, employers should be mindful of the guidance issued by the EEOC.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Catherine A. Cano Catherine A. Cano

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

Catherine helps clients navigate obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and…

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

Catherine helps clients navigate obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Family and Medical Leave Act, and state disability and leave laws. She also counsels clients on workplace drug and alcohol issues, including developing substance abuse policies. Catherine has defended more than 100 charges of discrimination filed with federal, state and local administrative agencies, and regularly appears before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Iowa Civil Rights Commission and Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission. Catherine represents in employers in federal and state court proceedings and has successfully defended multiple employment arbitrations.

Catherine’s practice also includes assisting clients with union organization campaigns, collective bargaining, grievance arbitrations, and unfair labor practice charges. Catherine also has experience defending employers against whistleblower claims filed with the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

Photo of Tania J. Mistretta Tania J. Mistretta

Tania J. Mistretta is a principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She partners closely with national and local clients to advise on challenging workplace law issues, providing strategic advice on how to achieve business objectives while…

Tania J. Mistretta is a principal in the New York City, New York, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. She partners closely with national and local clients to advise on challenging workplace law issues, providing strategic advice on how to achieve business objectives while ensuring compliance with the law.