As the COVID-19 pandemic continues to financially impact companies worldwide, employers have been working to implement creative compensation strategies to mitigate the financial impact on their workforce, continue to incentivize employees and reward on-site essential workers. While cash is king, equity awards have long been a key component of an overall compensation and benefits strategy for many companies, from small to large, private and public. In difficult economic times such as these, granting equity awards can help companies save cash while filling a compensation gap created by salary reductions, unpaid furloughs or decreased benefits. Equity awards could also soften the blow to employees losing their jobs due to layoffs and redundancies resulting from an employer’s Coronavirus-related financial losses and cost-cutting measures. READ MORE
On May 26, 2020, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) released its anxiously awaited Interim Guidelines for COVID-19 Antibody Testing (the “Guidelines”). As set forth in further detail below, the Guidelines make clear that COVID-19 antibody testing should not be used to make decisions about returning employees to the workplace.
While the Guidelines detail some encouraging data developed from early studies on antibody testing, several concerns remain. On the encouraging side, the CDC states in the Guidelines that “nearly all immune competent individuals” will develop an immune response following infection with COVID-19 and recurrence of COVID-19 illness “appears to be very uncommon,” suggesting that COVID-19 antibodies may confer at least some short-term immunity. Consistent with this observation, the Guidelines further note that in experiments involving primates, infection and subsequent development of antibodies resulted in protection from reinfection. Additionally, the Guidelines note that antibody development in humans correlates with a marked decrease in viral load in the respiratory tract. According to the CDC, taken together, these observations suggest that the presence of antibodies may decrease a person’s infectiousness and offer some level of protection from reinfection. However, the Guidelines make clear that definitive data are lacking and it remains uncertain whether individuals with antibodies are protected against reinfection with COVID-19, and if so, the duration of that protection and what concentration of antibodies is needed to confer protection.
In addition to these issues, the CDC raises several other concerns in the Guidelines regarding antibody testing. The Guidelines note that some antibody tests can lead to false positive results, when they react with the presence of antibodies to other coronaviruses like the common cold. Moreover, the CDC cautions that certain individuals may not develop detectable antibodies even after infection while others’ levels could wane over time to be undetectable. The timing of antibody tests can affect the result as well; as the CDC notes, the most useful antibodies for assessing antibody response are not present early in infection, and only become detectable 1-3 weeks after symptom onset. Thus, antibody test results may not definitively indicate the presence or absence of current or previous COVID-19 infection.
In light of the continuing uncertainty regarding these issues, the CDC affirmatively states that COVID-19 antibody testing results “should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.” The CDC specifically notes that although certain testing can have “high positive predictive value” indicating at least some degree of immunity, “until the durability and duration of immunity is established, it cannot be assumed that individuals with truly positive antibody test results are protected from future infection.” In addition to stating that employers should not use antibody testing to determine eligibility to return to the workplace, the CDC also recommends against using antibody testing to make decisions about admitting individuals to other congregate settings, such as schools, dormitories, or correctional facilities.
Finally, the CDC states that its Guidelines do not affect existing guidance from public health authorities and other governmental agencies on maintaining social distancing and using PPE in the workplace. The CDC notes that healthcare workers and first responders should continue to use PPE even if they test positive for COVID-19 antibodies. Further, while those who test positive for antibodies and do not have a recent history of “a COVID-19 compatible illness” have a low likelihood of active infection, they should still follow general recommendations to prevent the spread of infection.
While this area is rapidly evolving, employers now have affirmative guidance from the CDC that antibody testing should not be used to make decisions about bringing employees back to work. Since the EEOC has largely deferred to the CDC on this issue, employers who condition an employee’s return to work on a positive test for antibodies may be subject to claims by both the individual and the EEOC.
On 13 May 2020, the UK government published guidance giving employers much needed clarity on how holiday entitlement and pay operate during the Coronavirus pandemic. It considers both those who continue to work and those who have been placed on furlough under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme.
When the government issued travel advice against all non-essential travel back in mid-March, perhaps we might have been forgiven for thinking that summer plans would be unaffected. However, it is becoming clear that such plans will also have to be put on hold and so employees may be considering cancelling their holiday bookings. READ MORE
Of the many new terms that we have learned as part of the current pandemic, ‘contact tracing’ is one that seems to offer some light at the end of the tunnel. READ MORE
Earlier this month, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Executive Order N-51-20, mandating that certain “hiring entities” provide supplemental paid sick leave for food sector workers. The executive order (EO) acknowledges that workers who help grow and provide food, work in food facilities and deliver food are essential critical infrastructure workers who continue to work outside their homes during the COVID-19 pandemic. In an effort to prevent food sector workers from having to go to work when they are sick, which increases health and safety risks, the EO mandates supplemental paid sick leave for certain COVID-19-related reasons. Here’s what hiring entities need to know about the EO.
As we reported in our previous blog post, the city of San Francisco recently enacted the Public Health Emergency Leave Ordinance (“Ordinance”) which requires certain employers to provide employees with paid leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. This week, the San Francisco Office of Labor Standards Enforcement issued Implementation Guidance (“Guidance”) regarding the new Ordinance. The Guidance sheds light on important issues such as the scope of the Ordinance, the amount of leave available under the Ordinance, how to calculate rate of pay, and notice requirements under the Ordinance.
Given the current pandemic, companies are tackling an array of business-critical decisions ranging from workplace safety measures to remote working parameters to pay cuts, furloughs and reductions in force. In this mass of competing priorities, employers of foreign national employees should be careful not to overlook any unique impact that their decision making can have on their nonimmigrant employee population and corresponding compliance requirements that may be triggered. The analysis and impact will be highly contingent upon what type of work authorization and nonimmigrant status the employees are working pursuant to (for example: H-1B, O-1, L-1, TN or F-1 OPT EAD holder), and what the corresponding parameters of their status are. READ MORE
Last week, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy signed into law an amendment to the New Jersey Millville Dallas Airmotive Plant Job Loss Notification Act (“NJ WARN Act”) that delays earlier amendments that would have taken effect in July of this year, and excludes COVID-19 related layoffs from the requirements of the act. READ MORE
“Unlimited” vacation policies have become incredibly popular throughout California, particularly in the tech industry, as a means of offering greater flexibility to employees. Under typical unlimited vacation policies, employees can take as much vacation as they like, subject to their manager’s approval. Because employees do not accrue vacation under these policies, there is presumably no obligation for an employer to pay employees for any unused vacation upon their departure from the company, as required by Labor Code section 227.3. READ MORE
On 15 April 2020, the Treasury, in exercise of the powers conferred by sections 71 and 76 of the Coronavirus Act 2020, gave a Direction to HMRC, setting out the mechanics of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). Note, the Direction does not replace the HMRC Guidance, but a valid Direction has the standing of an Act of Parliament and is therefore subject to the usual rules of statutory interpretation. By way of background, please refer to our recent insight piece with the previous details of the Scheme and guidance for employers and employees: read here.