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.

In late-March and April 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released guidance addressing various questions with answers concerning COVID-19 and related workplace disability-related issues under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Recently, on June 17th, EEOC updated its guidance to include a new question regarding antibody testing.

Most of the questions concern general employee rights and privacy and employer obligations during the current state of the COVID-19 pandemic. A few of the questions relate to the anticipated gradual return to the office of employees temporarily working remotely due to the pandemic as the crisis subsides.

The EEOC’s April update, inter alia, included a determination that employers can administer COVID-19 testing (i.e. testing for active virus), and recommended that employers do the following:

  • Determine that tests are accurate and reliable.
  • Review guidance from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and other public health authorities and regularly check those authorities for updates.
  • Consider incidences of false positives and false negatives associated with particular tests.
  • Keep in mind that a negative test does not mean an employee will not contract the virus in the future.
  • Require that employees continue infection control practices, including social distancing, handwashing, and other cleanliness and disinfecting measures.

The April update was silent on whether its determination regarding COVID-19 testing also included antibody testing. Antibody testing (i.e. serological testing), is able to detect antibodies from a previous infection. However, the test can take one to three weeks for antibodies to develop following onset of symptoms, and it is not certain that antibodies provide immunity or, if so, how long immunity would last – the current reliability and utility of these tests is in question.

The June 17th update to the EEOC guidance weighs in on antibody testing in the workplace. Specifically, the EEOC provides an answer to the following question:

CDC said in its Interim Guidelines that antibody test results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” In light of this CDC guidance, under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) may an employer require antibody testing before permitting employees to re-enter the workplace? 

 The EEOC concludes that antibody testing constitutes a medical examination under the ADA, and employers cannot require antibody testing before permitting employees to re-enter the workplace.

“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. “

 It is important to note that as with other types of COVID-19-related guidance, the EEOC will continue to monitor the CDC’s recommendations, and update its discussion on this topic in response to changes in the CDC’s recommendations.

Takeaway

 In general COVID-19 testing methods come with administrative burdens to implement and ensure compliance. Such testing presents privacy implications, particularly with respect to testing that requires a blood sample or swab. Moreover, any information collected should be protected with access appropriately limited, particularly if the organization is using a third party. As issues and concerns around COVID-19 unfold daily, employers must prepare to address the threat as it relates to the health and safety of their workforce.

 

 

 

Since March 2020, workers have expressed elevated concerns about their exposure to COVID-19 on construction sites. As states lift restrictions on construction work, employers should note that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits workers’ ability to refuse work.

 

To read the full article, click here.

Since March 27, 2020 when the CARES Act was signed into law, many questions have mounted related to implementing the retirement plan provisions.  Now, with roughly 3 months under our belts since the issuance of the Act and countless CARES Act distributions and loan suspensions processed, the IRS clarified several eligibility, administrative, and taxation reporting rules by issuing IRS Notice 2020-50.  The Notice provides safe harbors, a model certification, and information reporting codes.  It is a must-read for those responsible for administering employer-sponsored retirement plans.  We discuss the basics of the CARES Act in an earlier article.

Coronavirus-Related Distributions

The CARES Act authorized eligible retirement plans to offer for a limited time a new type of distribution, a Coronavirus-Related Distribution (CRD), which is afforded special tax treatment.  Only Qualified Individuals (QI) are eligible for a CRD.  Significantly, the Notice expands the definition of a QI under Section 2202 of the CARES Act to include individuals whose:

  • Pay was reduced because of COVID-19, including self-employment income;
  • Job offer was rescinded or postponed;
  • Spouses’ or other household members (someone who shares the individual’s principal residence) experience a COVID-19 related adverse financial consequence, including the closing or reducing of hours of a business they own and operate.

The CARES Act allows employers to rely on an employee’s certification, barring any actual knowledge to the contrary, of being a QI when requesting a CRD.  Administrators do not have a duty to investigate.  Instead, actual knowledge is present only when the administrator already knows facts to determine the truthfulness of the certification.  The Notice provides sample language of an acceptable certification for employers and individuals to use for documentation.

The Notice clarifies the types of distributions that qualify as CRD, noting that even distributions to beneficiaries, required minimum distributions, and plan loan offset amounts can qualify.  A QI may consider a distribution to be a CRD for personal tax reporting even if the plan does not.  But the Notice explicitly excludes certain distributions from designation as a CRD, including:

  • Corrective distributions of elective deferrals;
  • Loans treated as deemed distributions;
  • Dividends on employer securities;
  • Distributions from an eligible automatic contribution arrangement.

The Notice also clarifies that an employer may expand options for CRDs to include sources that ordinarily are not permitted without a distributable event or reaching age 59 ½.  Examples of these sources include qualified nonelective or qualified matching contributions.  However, the Notice reminds employers that the CARES Act does not change the distribution rules normally applicable to plans, noting for example that pension plans and money purchase pension plans cannot permit distributions before a permissible distribution event, even if it would qualify as a CRD.

Unlike other need-based distributions, e.g., hardship distributions, the amount a QI requests as a CRD need not correspond to an actual amount of need.  But the eligible retirement plan and any related plans are limited to an aggregate amount of $100,000 for a CRD to anyone QI.

CRDs are not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty, reportable as gross income over 3 years and most may be recontributed and treated as a rollover contribution over a 3-year period to an eligible retirement plan that accepts rollovers.  Notice 2020-50 clarifies how to treat a CRD for tax purposes and provides specific codes an administrator should use in box 7 of the Form 1099-R.

Recontributions of CRD

A QI may recontribute a CRD as a rollover contribution over 3 years to an eligible retirement plan that accepts rollovers.  The Notice explains how a CRD may be recontributed, even for distributions not normally eligible for rollover.  The Notice identifies one situation, any CRD paid to a QI as a beneficiary of an employee, where a QI may not recontribute a CRD.  The employer may also rely on the individual’s certification of satisfaction of the QI requirements when determining the status of a CRD as eligible for recontribution.

A plan that does not accept rollovers need not accept recontributions of CRDs.  Instead, the decision of whether to amend a retirement plan to implement these CARES Act provisions is at the discretion of the employer.

Loans

Among other plan loan changes, the CARES Act allows certain loan repayments due by QI to be suspended.  The Notice provides a safe harbor for implementing these plan loan suspension rules.  The safe harbor applies if the loan is re-amortized after the suspension period (which must not end later than December 31, 2020) over the remaining period of the loan plus 1 year.  Interest accruing during the suspension period must be included in the re-amortized payments.

The Notice acknowledges there are other reasonable, and perhaps more complicated, ways to implement the CARES Act plan loan suspension provisions.  The safe harbor is not the only option available.

Required Minimum Distributions

The SECURE Act raised the beginning age for Required Minimum Distributions from 70 ½ to 72.  The CARES Act waived the requirement that an individual receive the distribution in 2020.  Individuals may elect to not receive their Required Minimum Distribution in 2020.  The Notice provides that a QI eligible to receive a Required Minimum Distribution may elect to receive the distribution and consider it a CRD on their individual tax return, which would allow the individual to include the amount in gross income over 3 years.  But these distributions are not eligible for recontribution into an eligible retirement plan.

Cancellation of 409A Deferral Elections

The adverse financial effects of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been limited to only certain factions of the workforce.  The Notice acknowledges that those participating in nonqualified deferred compensation plans also may experience financial challenges.  It provides that an individual qualifying for a CRD will be treated as having received a hardship distribution for purposes of the regulations implementing Section 409A of the tax code, enabling service providers to cancel nonqualified deferred compensation plan deferral elections if the plan so permits.

We are available to help plan administrators understand the new guidance.  Please contact a team member or the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work if you have questions or need assistance.

The Seattle City Council has enacted the Paid Sick and Safe Time for Gig Workers Ordinance, which temporarily provides paid sick and safe time (PSST) to “gig workers” for online-based food delivery network companies and drivers of transportation network companies with 250 or more gig workers worldwide. The ordinance takes effect July 13, 2020, and ends 180 days after either (1) the termination of the Mayor’s civil emergency, or (2) the termination of any concurrent civil emergency applicable to Seattle that is proclaimed by a public official in response to COVID-19, whichever is later. However, the law’s other legal requirements, such as recordkeeping, will stay in effect for three years. Read more.

The U.S. Courts’ COVID-19 Judicial Task Force has released guidance on conducting jury trials and convening grand juries during the pandemic.

The task force’s guidance, released on June 4, 2020, makes clear that each tribunal will ultimately set its own rules for jury trials after considering things like location, budget, and physical facilities.

Highlights from the guidance include:

  1. Communication. Courts are advised to ensure that jurors receive reasonable assurances about their safety prior to participating in jury service. Courts should consider jurors’ home situations, transportation issues, safety while in the courthouse, and concerns regarding being away from home. If jurors do not feel safe and are focused on COVID-19, they may not be able to properly focus on the evidence. Litigants should keep juror safety in mind too; jurors that feel a litigant is behaving unsafely might view the merits of their case less favorably.
  2. Personal protective equipment (PPE). Courts will be determining what level of PPE to require. Courts should consider what PPE all individuals (including jurors, attorneys, parties, the press, or other court personnel) are to wear. Courts also need to determine whether they will provide PPE or allow jurors to bring their own. Allowing jurors to bring their own PPE presents risks, including having contaminated PPE enter the building. Courts also need to determine whether and when individuals in the court must wear face coverings. This can present problems in communication with witnesses, attorneys, court reporters, and the judge. The courts will be balancing these considerations.
  3. Changes for jury selection and trial. The Task Force made several recommendations to limit or restrict person-to-person contact before and during trial. For instance, the Task Force recommends considering virtual voir dire where prospective jurors could participate from home. It also recommends working to limit contact between parties while in the courtroom by using other types of video or audio options (such as allowing sidebars to occur by an app or other type of electronic device), rather than require the litigants to approach the bench and be in close quarters with one another and the court.
  4. Courtroom preparations. Courtrooms may be modified. Counsel tables may be moved to locations different from normal. Courts may restrict movement of both attorneys and litigants. The Task Force recommends that counsel be directed to address the court, jury, and witnesses from the counsel tables.

With the rapidly changing circumstances, litigants must be prepared for anything and be able to adapt to what is likely to be a very wide range of approaches from various federal courts during jury trials. If you have questions about how the federal courts intend to handle jury trials in your area, contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you work.