Get to the Point: OSHA’s New Rule on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
Nov 12 2021 • 7 Min Read
On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration published its anticipated emergency temporary standard on COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing (the “ETS”). Citing the “grave danger” posed by the virus to unvaccinated employees in the workplace, the headline-grabbing core of the ETS is the requirement that covered employers must implement and enforce a policy that mandates that employees be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by January 4, 2022 or to submit to weekly COVID-19 testing and wear a mask.
As expected, the ETS is currently the subject of numerous legal challenges, and a federal court of appeals has—for now—issued an order preventing the ETS from being enforced until the legal challenges are settled.
The ETS is one of a number of recent Biden Administration efforts to pull the levers of government to require vaccination in the U.S., and builds upon vaccine mandates applicable to federal employees, federal contractors, and health care and other recipients of Medicare/Medicaid funding.
The ETS applies to private sector employers with more than 100 employees (including full and part-time employees), and state and local government employers in the 22 states with OSHA-approved State Plans. OSHA estimates the ETS will cover nearly 85 million workers. Small businesses with less than 100 employees are not covered by the rule, although OSHA states that it will consider in the future whether smaller businesses should also subject to a vaccine mandate.
In addition to the “vaccination or testing” mandate, the ETS imposes a significant number of new documentation, reporting, and paid leave rules on employers while the ETS remains in effect. The following is a summary of employers’ key obligations:
OSHA is authorized to issue citations, and the penalties for noncompliance under the be severe: $13,653 per violation, and up to $136,532 for willful or repeated violations.
The ETS is to remain in effect for six months, at which time it must be replaced with a final standard. However, OSHA states that it will continue to monitor the pandemic, and will act to update the ETS if it finds the grave danger of the virus no longer exists or if new information indicates a change in the rule. In addition, under federal law, the public and businesses are entitled to submit comments to OSHA on the ETS, including on whether the ETS should become the final standard.
The ETS states that it is to take effect immediately, i.e., when it was issued on November 5, 2021. The ETS requires compliance with all of the above provisions by December 5, 2021 except for the actual implementation of the “vaccination or testing” policy. Under the rule, employers must apply and enforce the “vaccination or testing” policy beginning on January 4, 2022.
However, numerous legal challenges to the ETS were filed in federal courts across the country on the same day it was issued. In one of those challenges, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit issued a nationwide “stay” on November 6, which is a court order preventing the ETS from going into effect until the challenge is resolved in court.
The “legal” answer is that as of today, the ETS has been stayed by the Fifth Circuit and cannot be enforced anywhere in the country. If that stay is lifted, or if the ETS is ultimately upheld, then the ETS will be in effect and can be enforced by OSHA. While those legal challenges work their way through the courts over the comings weeks or months, it is essential for covered employers to keep a close watch on those proceedings.
The practical answer is more complicated and puts employers in a tough position. The ETS has enough complexities and requires the creation of enough policies and procedures that it cannot be implemented without advance planning in large organizations. This is particularly so for businesses that need to determine the vaccination status of a large number of employees and/or address the logistical challenges necessary in order to have an effective weekly testing program. Perhaps most significantly, the penalties that can be imposed by OSHA for noncompliance can be substantial.
For these reasons, a wait-and-see approach is probably not prudent for many, if not most, employers. This means that, at a minimum, employers should take the necessary steps to gather the required information and create the required policies and procedures so that they are prepared to implement them once the legal challenges are decided.
Given the uncertainties of the status of the ETS in the courts and the potentially short timeframe in which compliance may be required, we recommend employers take steps now to assess their situation and be prepared to comply if and when the ETS becomes effective.
For additional questions regarding the ETS, Womble Bond Dickinson’s Labor and Employment Team stands ready to assist.