As the federal government and state of California adjusted their COVID-19 guidance for vaccinated individuals, Cal OSHA remained silent on how vaccination affected the requirements under its COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). While there had been discussions of revisions to the ETS, it was unclear if Cal OSHA would be able to release such revisions prior to the targeted reopening of California by June 15, 2021.

Last week Cal OSHA updated its guidance on how the ETS mandatory exclusion requirements should be applied to fully vaccinated individuals. Under the guidance, employees who are not fully vaccinated must be excluded from the work site if:

  • The employee is positive for COVID-19, or
  • The employee had a COVID-19 exposure, whether symptomatic or asymptomatic.

As revised, the guidance now provides that a fully vaccinated employee who was exposed to COVID-19 does not have to be excluded from the workplace or quarantined, provided the employee is asymptomatic. If the fully vaccinated employee tests positive for COVID-19 or exhibits COVID-19 symptoms, the employee must be excluded from the worksite.  The agency made this change based on the State of California’s Department of Public Health’s May 3rd guidance, which relieves fully vaccinated individuals from having to quarantine if they do not develop symptoms.

That said, Cal OSHA’s guidance has not relaxed any other precautions under the ETS, like mandatory employee face coverings, social distancing, cleaning and disinfection measures, and testing requirements. Cal OSHA, in fact, expects these preventive measures to remain in place for both unvaccinated and fully vaccinated individuals in the workplace.

Employers should review Cal OSHA’s revised guidance on the ETS as well as watch for frequent updates from Cal OSHA on workplace safety expectations. Cal OSHA is expected to revise the ETS in the coming weeks and release more guidance as employers start working towards the state’s reopening date on June 15, 2021.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor changes in COVID-19 guidance and regulations in the workplace. If you have questions about the Cal OSHA ETS 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.

As access to COVID-19 vaccines becomes more prevalent, and we begin to conceptualize what a post-pandemic world might look like, many governments are assessing the idea of a COVID-19 vaccine passport framework.  In late March, the European Commission announced its plan for a COVID-19 Digital Green Certificate framework (“the framework”) to facilitate “safe free movement of citizens within the EU during the COVID-19 pandemic”. The Digital Green Certificate provides proof that an individual has either: 1) been vaccinated against COVID-19, 2) received a negative test result or 3) recovered from COVID-19.  But while the benefits to such a plan are clear, there are significant privacy and security issues to consider.

Shortly after the European Commission released the proposal of the framework, the European Data Protection Board (EDPB) and the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) issued a joint opinion on the framework in respect to personal data protection implications (“the joint opinion”).  The joint opinion addressed the personal data implications of the framework, and highlighted, above all, that such a framework must be consistent and not conflict with application of the General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”), and that there should be adoption of adequate technical and organizational privacy and security measures in the context of the framework.

Below are key recommendations from the joint opinion:

  • Categories of Personal Data. While Annex I of the framework sets out categories and data fields of personal data that would be processed under the framework, the joint opinion emphasizes that the “justification for the need for such data fields” should also be included in the framework, as well as developing “more detailed data fields (sub-categories of data)…under the already defined categories of data should be added”. These revisions will help ensure that the framework is consistent with several GDRP principles including data minimization (i.e. not processing more than the data necessary to fulfil the purpose for which the data was collected) , purpose limitations (personal data shall only be collected for a specified, explicit and legitimate purpose) , and impact assessment (the obligation under the GDPR which requires controllers to conduct a data protection impact assessment before processing personal data would have to be redone if data fields were altered).
  • Adoption of Adequate Technical and Organizational Privacy and Security Measures in the Context of the Proposal. The joint opinion highlights that the framework should explicitly state that controllers and processors of personal data “shall take adequate technical and organizational measures to ensure a level of security appropriate to the risk of processing, in line with Article 32 GDPR”.  Also included, the joint opinion suggests “the establishment of processes for a regular testing, assessment and evaluation of the effectiveness of the privacy and security measures adopted”, as well as including language in the framework consistent with the GDPR to prevent confusion and ensure relevance.  Finally, the joint opinion notes that adoption of privacy and security measures should be taken both at the time of the determination of the means for processing, as well as by the time of the processing itself.
  • Identification of controllers and processors. The joint opinion recommends that the framework specify “the list of all entities foreseen to be acting as controllers, processors and recipients of the data in that Member State”. Identifying these entities will provide EU citizens with an understanding of “whom they may turn to for the exercise of their data protection rights under the GDPR, including in particular the right to receive transparent information on the ways in which data subject’s rights may be exercised with respect tot the processing of personal data”.
  • Transparency and data subject’s rights. The personal data related to the framework is particularly sensitive.  As a result, the joint opinion urges the European Commission to “ensure that the transparency of the processes are clearly outlined for citizens to able to exercise their data protection rights”.
  • Data storage. The joint opinion notes that to ensure GDPR principles surrounding data storage principles (e.g. storing data no longer than is necessary for the purposes for which it was processed) in the context of the framework, where possible, the framework should “explicitly define” and if not possible, then at least provide the “specific criteria used to determine such storage period”.
  • International data transfers. Finally, the joint opinion recommends “explicitly clarifying whether and when any international transfers of data are expected” as well as including safeguards “to ensure that third countries will only process the personal data exchanged for the purposes specified” within the framework.

The EU is not the only region implementing or considering a vaccine passport program.  Israel’s vaccine passport, the Green Pass, is already up and running (available to the 80% of the adult  population that is fully vaccinated), and several private companies are trying to develop globalized vaccine passport programs.  For example, one large tech company’s vaccine passport technology is being tested by the State of New York, for some sports venues and arenas.  Likewise, another technology, the Common Pass  if implemented will help individuals when travelling globally to demonstrate their COVID-19 status. It is worth noting however, that some states are actively banning vaccine passport technology and requirements.  For example, just last week in Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis signed into law legislation prohibiting businesses, schools and government offices from requiring proof of vaccination, with fines of up to $5000. And in general, public support of vaccine passports in the U.S. seems to vary by activity. According to a recent Gallup poll the majority of Americans support proof of vaccination for travel by airplanes and attending events with large crowds. Conversely, Americans are less supportive of proof of vaccination at work, staying in a hotel or dining at a restaurant.

Whatever the program, the privacy and security considerations surrounding the collection of personal data are similar, and become increasingly complicated in the context of a global vaccine program where overlapping, and sometimes conflicting, data privacy and security laws and guidance come into play.   In the U.S. alone, there are numerous laws which may be implicated when vaccine related data is collected from individuals in the public or private setting – such as for employees or customers.  These include the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), state laws, and the CCPA.  In addition to statutory or regulatory mandates, organizations will also need to consider existing contracts or services agreements which may provide for or limit the collection, sharing, storage, or return of data. Moreover, if a vendor were involved in a vaccine passport program, contracts/agreements would need to include confidentiality, data security, and similar provisions. This is most important if the vendor will be maintaining, storing, accessing, or utilizing the information collected about the organization’s employees or customers.

In short, a vaccine passport program may play a crucial role in ensuring a safe and healthy return to normalcy across the globe.  Nevertheless, the legal risks, challenges, and requirements of any such program, whether in the public and private forum, must be considered prior to implementation.

The Social Security Administration (SSA) has stated that it has discontinued mailing No-Match letters (also known as EDCOR notifications) to employers.

SSA stated that it plans to focus instead on making it easier for employers to fix errors electronically through its Business Services Online Portal.

Immigration advocates and many employers welcomed the announcement, particularly as businesses begin rehiring employees who may have been terminated over the past year due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

No-Match letters are notifications that an individual employee’s W-2 form does not match SSA’s records. Beginning in 2018, SSA restarted the practice of sending No-Match notifications to employers where employee records generated a mismatch. Receipt of a No-Match letter does not by itself mean the employee was working illegally or using a fraudulent Social Security card. Mismatches might be due to administrative errors, misspelled names, reversed numbers, or name changes (such as due to marriage). Nonetheless, employers, upon receipt of the EDCOR No-Match notification, were expected to take the appropriate actions – checking for errors in records and notifying the employee to resolve the issue with SSA. Employers were advised not to take adverse employment action against “noticed” employees solely due to a No-Match letter. Employers had to walk a narrow path – fearful that a No-Match letter puts them on notice that an employee might not have valid work authorization but, at the same time, hesitant to take any adverse action that could raise allegations of discrimination or document abuse under the law.

In announcing its decision to discontinue EDCOR letters, SSA said it will look for new ways to educate employers and update its software to inform employers instantly of errors in wage reports. SSA also will educate employees about the importance of accurate SSA records and how to take advantage of its online system to manage their personal records. If wages are not accurately reported, employees can lose out on future Social Security benefits.

SSA did not issue a formal public announcement about the end of No-Match letters; however, it was published on the SSA website under “Educational Correspondence to Employers” and stated:

At present, we are discontinuing EDCOR letters to focus on making it a better, easier, more convenient experience for employers to report wages electronically. We also will continue to seek out new opportunities to educate employers.

Please contact a Jackson Lewis attorney with any questions about SSA’s announcement or how your business may be affected.

USCIS expects to suspend biometrics requirements for H-4, L-2 and E-1, E-2, and E-3 Form I-539 applications beginning May 17, 2021, for at least 24 months. It will retain the discretion to require biometrics on a case-by-case basis.

The suspension is intended to eliminate the adjudication backlog that has prevented H-4 and L-2 spouses from receiving Employment Authorization Documents (EADs) in anything close to a timely fashion.

The suspension is expected to apply to these categories of Form I-539 applications if:

  • The application is pending as of May 17, 2021, and a biometrics appointment notice has not been received; or
  • The application is received by USCIS between May 17, 2021, and the expiration date of the suspension.

How USCIS will handle biometrics fees is not clear but guidance is expected.

Notice of the proposal came in a declaration from USCIS Service Center Operation Directorate Associate Director Connie L. Nolan in Edakunni v. Mayorkas, a litigation pending in federal district court in Seattle.

Background

In 2019, biometrics requirements were imposed on Form I-539 applications. This resulted in delays in processing H-4 and L-2 extensions and the dependent EAD applications. When the COVID-19 pandemic struck and Applications Support Centers that process biometrics closed, the delays mounted. On top of that, there were even printing delays. It was taking so long to get H-4 and L-2 EADs approved that individuals were losing their jobs and their benefits while waiting for the cards – even if they applied the full six months before their cards expired.

Suggested Changes

About 30 companies, including many large technology firms, wrote to USCIS on March 22, 2021, with some ideas on how to eliminate the current problem hamstringing them and many of their employees. They asked the Biden administration to consider the following:

  • Rescind the 2019 biometrics collection policy for EAD applicants because it is largely redundant. Most applicants have had biometrics collected as part of a consular visa application or another benefit application.
  • Provide automatic extensions of employment authorization for timely filed EAD applications as is done for TPS (Temporary Protected Status) EAD applications.
  • Allow applicants to file EAD renewal applications more than six months before their current EAD expires, giving USCIS more flexibility in terms of adjudication.

For now, USCIS appears to have chosen the first option on a temporary basis.

If you have questions about how the expected suspension will affect H-4 or L-2 EADs for spouses, Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist.

With COVID-19 infection rates and hospitalizations decreasing, states are slowly loosening restrictions on businesses. For example, Connecticut, New York, and New Jersey announced plans to fully reopen by May 19th  with some constraints remaining in place, including mandatory wearing of masks and social distancing.  All three states have announced significant capacity rollbacks for indoor and outdoor activities.  The capacity rollbacks in these states will affect many businesses as operational needs will increase in the coming months.

What operational challenges should employers anticipate as they fully reopen?

Employers, particularly those who have allowed their employees to work remotely for the duration of the pandemic, can expect to face some resistance from employees as they begin to require those employees to return to the office. Some employees may be protected by local, state, or federal law, depending on the reason for their refusal to return, and others may be entitled to leave and/or certain accommodations.

As such, employers need to be strategic in their application of their reversion to ‘pre-pandemic’ operations.  In addition to ensuring that the workplace is compliant with CDC and OSHA guidelines,  employers may need to utilize the interactive process and analyze each situation on a case by case basis to ensure that they meet compliance obligations. Employers should coordinate their operational approach in such a way to ensure continuity of business while mitigating the risk of potential operational issues.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to guide businesses as they transition to pre-pandemic operations or their new normal.

The entry of nonimmigrants who were physically present in India during the 14-day period preceding their attempted entry will be suspended beginning 12:01 a.m. EDT on May 4, 2021, according to President Joe Biden’s April 30 proclamation on risk of transmitting COVID-19. Anyone on a flight that departed for the United States prior to that time is not subject to the proclamation.

The United States has adopted 14-day entry-suspension proclamations for many countries (each slightly different) due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Like the others, the India restriction:

  • Will remain in effect until terminated by the president (the situation will be reviewed in 30-day intervals); and
  • Exempts:
    • U.S. citizens and Legal Permanent Residents;
    • Spouses, parents, and legal guardians, siblings, and children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents;
    • Members of the U.S. Armed Forces and their spouses and children;
    • Individuals on diplomatic visas or travelling under the United Nations Headquarters Agreement;
    • Individuals entering to further important U.S. law enforcement objectives or whose entry would be in the national interest.

One difference from similar proclamations issued by the previous administration is that this one refers to the affected nonimmigrants as “noncitizens,” rather than “aliens,” and adds “noncitizen nationals” (individuals with ties to American Samoa including Swain’s Island) to the list of those exempted.

Please reach out to your Jackson Lewis attorney for assistance regarding eligibility for exemptions or strategies to employ for individuals who are subject to any of the 14-day restrictions by virtue of residing in China, Iran, the United Kingdom, Ireland, the 26 Schengen Zone countries, Brazil, South Africa, and, now, India.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has determined that it will consider an adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine a “work-related” recordable illness if an employee is required to take the vaccine as a condition of employment.

To read the full article, please click here.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced today that based upon CDC advice, India will be added to the list of countries subject to the 14-day travel restriction rule.  It is reported that the new rule will go into effect on Tuesday, May 4, 2021 at 12:01 am and that airlines and Congress have already been informed.  It appears that like the other 14-day restrictions, the India restriction will not apply to US citizens, US Legal Permanent Residents or others with exemptions.

Travelers who can enter the United States from India will be subject to the same testing restrictions as all other international travelers.

Jackson Lewis will provide updates as soon as they become available.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced DHS to delay full enforcement of the REAL ID law from October 1, 2021, to May 3, 2023, the agency has announced.

The REAL ID law requires every air traveler 18 years or older to show genuine REAL ID-compliant identification documents at airport security checkpoints for domestic travel. Those under 18 must be travelling with an individual who has acceptable documentation.

As air travel continues to pick up, full enforcement of REAL ID is being extended by 19 months to May 3, 2023. This is good news for air travelers who have not yet been able to obtain REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses or another TSA-acceptable forms of identification.

Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas announced the extension, explaining: “As our country continues to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic, extending the REAL ID full enforcement deadline will give states needed time to reopen their driver’s licensing operations and ensure their residents can obtain a REAL ID-compliant license or identification card.”

While all 50 states (and most U.S. territories) are prepared to issue REAL ID driver’s licenses and identification cards, many have had to extend driver’s license renewal deadlines and switch to appointment-only scheduling because of COVID-19 restrictions. In its announcement, DHS stated, due to the pandemic, only 43 percent of state-issued driver’s licenses and identification cards are REAL ID-compliant.

The REAL ID Act was passed by Congress at the recommendation of the 9/11 Commission in 2005 as a way to improve security. Other forms of compliant documents for boarding domestic flights include:

  • U.S. passport or U.S. passport card
  • DHS trusted traveler card (Global Entry, NEXUS, SENTRI, and FAST)
  • U.S. Department of Defense ID, including IDs issued to dependents
  • U.S. permanent resident card
  • Border crossing card
  • DHS-designated enhanced driver’s license
  • Federally recognized, tribal-issued photo ID
  • Foreign government-issued passport
  • Canadian provincial driver’s license or Indian and Northern Affairs Canada card
  • U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Employment Authorization Card (I-766)

REAL ID-compliant driver’s licenses have a star at the top of license.

If you have questions about REAL ID, Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist you.

Despite the Governor’s recent announcement for a tentative reopening of the state by June, California’s legislature has been busy passing COVID-19-related laws. At the end of March, the Governor signed Senate Bill 95, which resurrected and expanded supplemental paid sick leave. And more recently, the Governor signed Senate Bill 93, which implemented a statewide right of reemployment for certain industries.

Over the last four months, numerous localities (including the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, Costa Mesa, Irvine, and others) across California have issued or considered “hazard” or “hero” pay ordinances that mandate premium pay for grocery and drug store employees and similar industries. While several lawsuits have been filed seeking to strike down these local ordinances, the state is considering two statutes that would support them.

First, Assembly Bill 889, would require the owner of a grocery store as soon as possible, but not later than 60 days or 180 days before a planned closure of a grocery establishment, to provide written notice of the intended closure to the city and county in which the grocery store is located, the local workforce development board, and the State Department of Social Services, along with other requirements for store closures. While at first blush this ordinance seemingly has little to do with the hero pay ordinances, as support for the bill, the proposed statute explicitly cites to planned grocery closures allegedly done in response to implemented hero pay ordinances.

In addition to the grocery industry, the state legislature is also considering Assembly Bill 650, which would mandate hazard pay retention bonuses for employees in the health care industry. The bonuses would be in addition to all other compensation paid to eligible health care workers. The bill would also make it a violation for a covered employer to discharge, lay off, or reduce a covered health care worker’s compensation or hours to prevent that worker from receiving hazard pay retention bonuses.

Jackson Lewis will continue to track local and state laws pertaining to employers and COVID-19. If you have questions about hazard pay or related issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.