Coronavirus Update 8-5-2020: Who pays for employer mandated COVID-19 tests?

The inevitable has happened. One of your employees has tested positive for COVID-19. You do what you're supposed to do. You clean and sanitize your workplace. You communicate with your other employees to let them know that you've had someone test positive. You reinforce all of your coronavirus safety rules, protocols, and procedures. And you require the COVID-positive employee to isolate and not return to work per CDC guidelines.

Those guidelines recommend that a positive employee not return to work for either of: 1) being three days fever-free, respiratory symptoms have improved, and it's been at least 10 days since symptoms first appeared; or 2) the receipt of two negative tests at least 24 hours apart. You opt for the latter, believing that negative tests will provide you and your employees better confidence that COVID-19 will not reenter your workplace when that employee returns.

Who pays for these coronavirus tests?

We have several of federal statutes, old and new, that guide the answer.

Coronavirus Update 8-4-2020: NY federal judge invalidates key parts of FFCRA regulations

Yesterday, a New York federal judge issued an order invalidating several key aspects of the Department of Labor's regulations interpreting the paid sick leave and expanded FMLA provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

Judge J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York found that the DOL exceeded its authority in enacting each of the following of the DOL's regulatory interpretations of the FFCRA:

Coronavirus Update 8-3-2020: How have employers responded to COVID-19?

A recent survey of businesses reveals a variety of trends about COVID-19 in the workplace.

• Nearly 6 out of every 10 employers has had an employee test positive for COVID-19 (double the number from April).


• 92 percent require on-site employees to wear masks in common areas and mandate physical distancing.

Coronavirus Update 7-31-2020: 41,214 reasons not to fire employees who request FFCRA leave

A San Jose, California, manufacturer has reached an agreement with the Department of Labor's Wage & Hour Division to pay 17 employees $41,214 for wrongly denying their requests for paid coronavirus sick leave under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act. Specifically (and much worse than that description sounds), the employer terminated each of the 17 employees after they requested paid leave under the FFCRA. 

According to the DOL, "The employer's action resulted in a violation of the FFCRA."

No kidding!

Coronavirus Update 7-30-2020: Ohio needs to fix its unemployment system, 𝗻𝗼𝘄

The State of Ohio has temporarily frozen its Pandemic Unemployment Assistance benefits, as the Ohio Department of Jobs & Family Services investigates what it believes are more than 275,000 fraudulent claims that have flooded the system.

The CARES Act created Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) for individuals who are self-employed, seeking part-time employment, or who otherwise would not qualify for regular unemployment benefits because of a coronavirus related reason. 

Coronavirus Update 7-29-2020: SAFE TO WORK Act would offer employers a significant shield from employee COVID-19 lawsuits

Earlier this week, Senate Republican introduced their $1 trillion COVID-19 economic stimulus package. Among other proposals the bill contains the SAFE TO WORK Act [pdf], which would provide employers a significant shield from liability for lawsuits related to coronavirus exposure by requiring gross negligence or willful misconduct that actually causes a personal injury before liability could attach. 

Employers would receive significant protections from employment-related COVID-19 lawsuits brought by employees. 

Coronavirus Update 7-28-2020: Do you know what to do when an employee tests positive?

Yesterday, the Miami Marlins announced that 14 members of its organization—12 players and two coaches—have tested positive for coronavirus. Most appallingly, however, is a report that the team decided via text message to play its scheduled Sunday game in Philadelphia despite the rash of positive tests. Ignoring the irresponsible selfishness of that decision, it also almost certainly violates Major League Baseball's 100-plus page COVID-19 operations manual, which instructs teams how to handle a positive test. I can guarantee that "tell no one; play your game anyway" is not the recommended best practice.

Other than, "Don't do what the Marlins did," what can we learn from this fiasco in how to handle a positive test among your workforce?