California Recording Law Requires All Parties to Consent

Posted by on May 3, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

California generally provides heightened protection for individual privacy rights. Consistent with protecting individual privacy rights, the California Supreme Court recently ruled that both parties and nonparties must get consent from everyone on a cellular or wireless telephone call before making a recording of the call. From a legal perspective, the most important question in the recording context is whether consent must be obtained from one or all parties to a wireless communication before recording it. Federal law and many state statutes from other states permit recording if one party to the telephone call or conversation consents. In California, however, not only is it a criminal offense to record a communication without consent of all parties, but it can also potentially give an injured party a civil claim for money damages. Individuals and businesses often have a need or desire to record telephone conversations that relate to their business dealings or customers. California law applies when you and the person you are recording are both located in California. Anyone in California who records telephone calls should know and understand California law on the subject, as even minor violations can carry significant consequences. In Smith v. LoanMe, Inc. (2021) WL 1217873, the California Supreme Court struck down a California Court of Appeals ruling which held that only third-party eavesdroppers needed to obtain consent to record a phone call.  The Court of Appeals had held that California Penal Code section 632.7 did not forbid one party in a call on a cellular or cordless telephone from recording the call without the other party’s consent. The California Supreme Court disagreed, holding instead that the statute applies to both active participants on the telephone call and non-participants alike. The facts giving rise to the case are rather succinct. LoanMe extended a loan to plaintiff’s wife, after which a LoanMe employee called a phone number provided by plaintiff’s wife. The employee reached plaintiff Jeremiah Smith instead. Plaintiff answered the phone on a wireless telephone and informed the employee that his wife was not home. The call was brief- lasting only 18 seconds. The LoanMe employee recorded the call but did not inform plaintiff that the call was being recorded. In September 2016, plaintiff filed a class action consisting of anyone in California whose calls on a wireless telephone with LoanMe were recorded without their consent by LoanMe within one year of September 2016. The complaint alleged that the recording of these calls violated California law. The trial court dismissed the action. The Court of Appeals ultimately concluded that California law prohibits only nonparty eavesdroppers from intentionally recording phone conversations. The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal ruling and allowed the class action to move forward. The Supreme Court reasoned that Penal Code section 632.7 is a general prohibition against the intentional recording of a covered communication without the consent of all parties, regardless of whether the recording is performed by a party to the communication or by someone else. While it is common business practice to inform incoming callers that the call may be recorded, businesses should also be mindful to implement this practice on outbound calls. Businesses should train employees to immediately inform the person answering the telephone that the call is being recorded and to obtain consent to continue to do...

read more

California Enacts Right of Recall

Posted by on May 3, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

On April 16, 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 93 into law, which law went into effect immediately. This new legislation enacts a “right of recall,” requiring certain employers to first offer employees laid off due to the COVID-19 pandemic available positions based on a preference system. The law applies generally to hospitality and maintenance-related employers- hotels, private clubs, event centers, and airport hospitality services as well as janitorial, building maintenance, and security services provided to office, retail and other commercial buildings. Covered Employees A “laid-off employee” under the new law is defined as an employee who was employed by the employer for 6 months or more in the 12 months preceding January 1, 2020 and was laid-off for a reason related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Employer Obligations Covered employers must make written job offers to “laid-off employees” for all job positions that become available for which the employee is qualified. Laid-off employees are deemed qualified under the law if the employee held the same or similar position at the time the employee’s previous employment with the employer terminated. The employer must deliver the offer “either by hand or to their last known physical address, and by email and text message” if the employer has that information. Laid-off employees have five business days to accept the offer. If more than one qualified laid-off employee accepts the job offer, the employer must rehire the “individual with the greatest length of service based on the employee’s previous date of hire,” (i.e., the employer must rehire based on seniority). In the event an employer declines to recall a laid-off employee on the grounds of lack of qualification, the employer must provide the laid-off employee a written notice of this decision within 30 days. The written notice must include a list of all employees hired for that position and state their length of service with the employer. Further, the written notice must include the employer’s explanation as to why the employee was not rehired. Employers must maintain records relating to rehiring laid-off employees for three years, “measured from the date of the written notice regarding the layoff.” These records must include, for each laid-off employee, the following information: (1) the employee’s full legal name; (2) the employee’s job classification at the time of the lay-off; (3) the employee’s date of hire; (4) the employee’s last known address; (5) the employee’s last known email address; (6) the employee’s last known telephone number; (7) a copy of the written notice regarding the layoff provided to the employee; and (8) all records of communications between the employer and the employee concerning offers of rehire. Penalties The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce this law. A laid-off employee may file a complaint with the DLSE and DLSE is authorized to award the laid-off employee: (1) hiring and reinstatement rights; (2) front pay or back pay for each day during which the violation continues; and (3) the value of the benefits the laid-off employee would have received under the employer’s benefit plan. In addition, the DLSE may impose civil penalties of $100 for each employee whose rights are violated and liquidated damages in the amount of $500 per employee for each day the violation continues. The penalty and liquidated damages collected by the...

read more

EMPLOYERS MAY REQUIRE EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE COVID-19 VACCINATION

Posted by on Apr 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

The California Department of Fair Employment and Housing (“DFEH”) released guidance indicating that employers may require employees to receive an FDA-approved vaccination against COVID-19 infection so long as the employer does not discriminate against or harass employees or job applicants on the basis of a protected characteristic and provides reasonable accommodations related to disability or a sincerely held religious belief. While employers may mandate that employees receive vaccinations, employees have a right to object on the basis of disability or a sincerely held religious belief. If an employee objects to being vaccinated on the basis of disability, the employer must engage in an interactive process with and make efforts to reasonably accommodate the employee to address the employee’s disability-related reason for refusing to be vaccinated. However, DFEH indicates that an employer may exclude an employee from the workforce if the employer shows that the accommodations would result in an undue hardship to the employer, the employee is unable to perform the employee’s essential duties even with reasonable accommodations in place, or the employee cannot perform those duties in a manner that would not endanger the employee’s health or safety or the health and safety of others even with reasonable accommodations. Similarly, an employee that objects to receiving the vaccination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs or practices must receive reasonable accommodations, unless it would pose an undue hardship to the employer. According to DFEH’s guidance, when considering disability-based accommodations, an employer may consider whether the employee is able to work remotely or whether reasonable safeguards could be put in place at the worksite that would allow the employee to work without endangering the employee or others. DFEH also provides important guidance for employers in the event employees object to vaccination simply because they do not “trust” the vaccine. DFEH’s guidance indicates that employers are not obligated to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who object to getting vaccinated because they do not trust that the vaccine is safe. An employer’s obligation to provide reasonable accommodations is limited to employees who object to receiving a vaccination based on a disability or sincerely held religious belief. Lastly, employers may require employees to provide proof that they have in fact been vaccinated. DFEH’s guidance states that requiring proof of vaccination is not a disability-related inquiry, religious creed-related inquiry, or a medical examination. However, DFEH suggests that employers instruct employees to omit any medical information from such documentation because the documentation may contain disability-related information. Employers must remember to maintain all employee records of vaccination as confidential medical records, and to keep them separate and apart from other employment...

read more

California Introduces New COVID-19 Supplemental Paid Leave

Posted by on Apr 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

On March 19, 2021, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 95 into law, requiring many employers to provide employees with two paid weeks of supplemental COVID-19 sick and vaccination leave for 2021. SB 95 went into effect on March 29, 2021. The new law covers a broad range of employers, as it applies to employers with 26 or more employees. The prior supplemental paid leave law that expired on December 31, 2020, applied to employers with 500 or more employees. Further, the law applies retroactively to leave taken starting January 1, 2021, and is effective through September 30, 2021. Because the new law applies retroactively, employers must take immediate action to ensure compliance. SB 95 created new Labor Code section 248.2, which mandates that employers provide covered employees who are unable to work or telework for reasons related to COVID-19 with supplemental paid sick leave. This law entitles full-time employees to an additional 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave. Employers cannot require a covered employee to use any other available paid or unpaid leave prior to using the supplemental leave provided by SB 95. However, employees do have the right to choose whether they want to use supplemental paid sick leave or some other paid or unpaid leave benefit that either the employer provides or the law requires. The reasons for which an employee may use supplemental paid sick leave are expanded from the prior version of the law as well. Employees who are unable to work or telework can use supplemental paid sick leave for the following reasons: Employee is subject to quarantine or isolation period related to COVID-19 as defined by federal, state, or local orders or guidelines. Employee is advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19. Employee is attending an appointment to receive a COVID-19 vaccine. Employee is experiencing symptoms related to a COVID-19 vaccine that prevent the employee from being able to work or telework. Employee is experiencing COVID-19 symptoms and seeking a medical diagnosis. Employee is caring for a family member who is subject to a quarantine or isolation order or guideline or who has been advised to self-quarantine by a health care provider due to concerns related to COVID-19. Employee is caring for a child whose school or place of care is closed or otherwise unavailable on the premises for reasons related to COVID-19. This law entitles full time employees to 80 hours of supplemental paid sick leave. An employee is considered full time if the employee is classified as full-time by the employer or the employee was scheduled to work, on average, at least 40 hours per week in the two weeks preceding the date on which leave is taken. For employees not considered full time under the law, the employee’s schedule and length of employment determine the amount of supplemental paid sick leave the employee is entitled to as follows: (1) an employee with a normal weekly schedule is entitled to the total number of hours the employee is scheduled to work for the employer over two weeks; (2) an employee with a variable number of hours scheduled to work is entitled to 14 times the average number of hours the employee worked each day for the employer in the six months preceding...

read more

Rounding Employee Meal Periods Violates California Labor Law

Posted by on Mar 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

A few days ago, the California Supreme Court issued an opinion ruling that employers are not permitted to round an employee’s time punch for meal periods. (Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, Cal. Supreme Court Case No. S253677.) Prior to this decision, several California appellate courts held that an employer is entitled to use a rounding timekeeping policy if the policy is “fair and neutral” on its face and it is used in a manner that will not result, over time, in failure to compensate employees for all the time they have actually worked.[1] The California Supreme Court, however, narrowed this rule and held that while employers are generally permitted to round an employee’s time punches at the start and end of an employee’s shift, employers are not permitted to round an employee’s time punches for meal periods in the same manner. Facts AMN Services, LLC (“AMN”) a healthcare services and staffing company that recruits nurses for temporary contract assignments, and which used an electronic timekeeping system that rounded time punches to the nearest 10-minute increment. For example, if an employee clocked out for lunch at 11:02 a.m. and clocked back in after lunch at 11:26 a.m., each of the employee’s time punches was rounded to the nearest ten minute increment, resulting in official time punches of 11:00 a.m. and 11:30 a.m., respectively. AMN used the rounded time rather than the actual punch time to determine compliance with meal periods. The plaintiff, a former employee, filed a class action lawsuit against AMN alleging various wage and hour violations, including claims for meal period violations. With respect to the meal period claims, plaintiff argued that AMN improperly rounded time punches for meal periods and thereby deprived plaintiff of premium wages for noncompliant meal periods. Procedural Background Both plaintiff and AMN filed motions for summary adjudication at the trial court level. The plaintiff argued that AMN’s rounding policy should not be applied to meal periods and that plaintiff was entitled to premium wages for noncompliant meal periods. AMN, relying on See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court, argued that AMN’s rounding policy of meal period times was lawful because it was facially neutral and, over time, resulted in the overcompensation of wages to employees. The trial court sided with AMN and ruled that AMN’s rounding policy complies with California law. The trial court reasoned that AMN’s rounding policy fairly compensated employees over time and that “the rationale behind allowing rounding for work time would be the same for meal break time.” The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court decision and agreed with the trial court’s reasoning. The court held that the plain text of Labor Code section 512 and Wage Order No. 4, which govern meal periods, does not prohibit rounding. The court further explained that rounding “is a practical method for calculating worktime and can be a neutral calculation tool for providing full payment to employees” and that no case law suggests rounding does not apply to meal periods. California Supreme Court Analysis The California Supreme Court granted review and reversed the Court of Appeal judgment. The court addressed the following two questions: (1) whether an employer may properly round time punches for meal periods; and (2) whether time records showing noncompliant meal periods raise a rebuttable presumption for meal...

read more

Cybersecurity

Posted by on Mar 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

We at Navigato & Battin have witnessed the damage and destruction an individual or small business endures as a result of computer fraud.  We asked our friends at Gallant Risk & Insurance Service to provide some insight to our clients about the risks and insurance available to guard against internet fraud.  Below is an article prepared by Gallant.  Cybersecurity and Private Risks  Most small and medium-sized business operations are not immune to a cyberattack.  In fact, the personal customer data and payment information that most small businesses collect and store makes the business as much a prime target for hackers as a large corporation.  According to recent surveys, 43% of all cybersecurity attacks are aimed at small businesses, and that number is likely to increase.  Likewise, 54% of businesses believe their businesses are “too small” to be targeted by cyber criminals and 83% of small businesses say they lack the money they would need to recover from a cyberattack or data breach. Financial Impact of a Breach:  If your business is the victim of a data breach, the financial costs incurred to resolve and recover from the event can be staggering. According to the Ponemon Institute, the average price for a small business to clean up after a breach is approximately $690,000, and this figure doesn’t take into account the loss of revenue. Some of the direct costs associated with a data breach include:   Notifying your customers that a breach has occurred; Conducting a forensic investigation to determine the source and extent of the breach; Fines and penalties imposed by the Payment Card Industry, Security Standards Council, payment card associations, and your facility’s own financial institution; Ongoing customer credit report monitoring and identity theft repair and, in some cases, costs associated with reissuing credit and debit cards to customers whose personal data was compromised; Upgrading or having to replace your compromised computer system, payment software and hardware, and server; and The often-required implementation of additional security monitoring services to ensure ongoing compliance with the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standards (PCI DSS).  Securing Cyber Insurance: Cyber insurance is a critical but often overlooked component of cybersecurity management for businesses covering both first- and third-party costs, as well as business interruption expenses, if a cybersecurity breach forces your business to shut down. The agents at Gallant Risk & Insurance Services are experienced and knowledgeable about cybersecurity insurance. If your business does not yet have cybersecurity insurance, please contact our friends at Gallant Risk & Insurance Service to secure a policy that is right for...

read more

New California Law Imposes Successor Liability for Unpaid Wages

Posted by on Feb 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

Recently enacted AB 3075 (effective January 1, 2021) amends the California Labor Code to impose successor liability for unpaid wages owed to any of the predecessor/judgment debtor’s former employees. The following assembly bill analysis provides insight into the reason for enacting this law: “Assembly Bill 3075 will ensure employers cannot reorganize as a ‘new entity,’ change their company name, or hide their assets to avoid paying fines and workers what they are owed after being caught. It will also enable local enforcement agencies to issue citations for wage violations that may appear available only to the state. Lawbreaking employers should not be able to use loopholes to avoid paying hard working individuals the wages they are owed, especially during an economic and public health crisis.” Specifically, the Labor Code is amended to add a new section 200.3 that provides: A successor employer is liable for any wages, damages, and penalties its predecessor employer owes pursuant to a final judgment after the time to appeal therefrom has expired and no appeal therefrom is pending, to any of the predecessor employer’s former workforce if the successor employer meets any of the following criteria: (a) Uses substantially the same facilities or substantially the same workforce to offer substantially the same services as the predecessor employer. This factor does not apply to employers who maintain the same workforce pursuant to Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 1060) of Part 3. (b) Has substantially the same owners or managers that control the labor relations as the predecessor employer. (c) Employs as a managing agent any person who directly controlled the wages, hours, or working conditions of the affected workforce of the predecessor employer. The term managing agent has the same meaning as in subdivision (b) of Section 3294 of the Civil Code. (d) A business in the same industry that has an owner, partner, officer, or director who is an immediate family member of any owner, partner, officer, or director of the predecessor employer. AB 3075 also amends the Corporations Code to expand the information corporations and limited liability companies doing business in California must include in the statement of information filed with the California Secretary of State. Specifically, AB 3075 requires a corporation to state whether any officer or any director (or in the case of a limited liability company, a member or manager) has an outstanding final judgment issued by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (“DLSE”) or court of law for a violation of any wage order or labor code violation. This new law requires the Secretary of State to implement these changes by January 1,...

read more

California Supreme Court Rules that “ABC” Test Applies Retroactively

Posted by on Feb 1, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

On January 14, 2021, the California Supreme Court held that the “ABC” test laid out in its decision in Dynamex v. Superior Court[1], for determining worker classification, applies retroactively. The Dynamex case was decided on April 30, 2018. In Dynamex, the Court held that whether a worker is properly classified as an employee or independent contractor for purposes of the California Wage Orders is determined by the “ABC” test. The “ABC” test has subsequently been codified as AB 5. Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee and not an independent contractor unless the hiring entity establishes all three of the following conditions: The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. The issue of whether the decision in Dynamex applies retroactively was decided in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc.[2] The California Supreme Court relied primarily on the fact that Dynamex addressed an issue of first impression and did not change a settled rule on which the parties had relied. The Court reasoned that the decision in Dynamex was the first time the California Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of the “suffer or permit to work” language in the Wage Orders in the context of independent contractors.  Because it did not overturn any prior precedent, Dynamex applied retroactively. The Supreme Court also found no compelling reason to stray from the general rule that judicial decisions apply retroactively. The Supreme Court rejected Jan-Pro’s argument that it reasonably relied on the multi-factor common law test set forth in Borello[3] for distinguishing between employees and independent contractors. The Supreme Court was equally unpersuaded by the argument that businesses could not reasonably have anticipated that the “ABC” test would apply instead of the multi-factor common law test which had been in place since 1989. The Supreme Court reasoned that the test set forth in the Borello case was not a Wage Order case. Moreover, in two prior decisions the Supreme Court had declined to rule on whether Borello applied to Wage Order claims. In rejecting Jan-Pro’s arguments, the Supreme Court held that “…defendant’s argument carries little weight when, as here, the underlying decision changes no settled rule. Moreover, public policy and fairness concerns such as protecting workers and benefitting businesses that comply with the wage order obligations, favor retroactive application of Dynamex. Thus, we do not view the retroactive application of the ABC test to cases pending at the time Dynamex became final as improper or unfair.” The Supreme Court reasoned that fairness and policy considerations justified retroactive application of Dynamex because some workers would be denied the protections of the Wage Orders if Dynamex applied only prospectively. As the Vazquez decision makes clear, the “ABC” test applies to all independent contractor misclassification-related cases that were already pending when Dynamex was decided. The retroactive application also reaches to pre-Dynamex misclassification issues raised in new lawsuits that may be filed. NavBat recommends businesses...

read more

California Court of Appeals Holds that Title Insurance Policy Terminated When Individual Insured Transferred Title to a Wholly-Owned LLC

Posted by on Jan 5, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

A recent unpublished California Court of Appeals decision in Pak v. First American Title Insurance Company, 2020 WL 6886551, involved issues important to the title insurance industry and its insureds. The California Court of Appeals held that coverage under a title insurance policy terminated when the originally-named insureds transferred title to their property to a wholly-owned LLC via a quitclaim deed per the language in the title insurance policy at issue, and further held that the title insurance policy could not be reinstated by rescinding the quitclaim deed. In Pak, the plaintiffs purchased a commercial property in 2003 in their individual capacity and secured a title insurance policy from the defendant. In 2008, plaintiffs transferred their property via a quitclaim deed to an LLC in which the plaintiffs were the sole members. In 2017, a group of third parties purchased a neighboring property and informed plaintiffs that a portion of the plaintiffs’ property was burdened by an easement that granted the neighboring property the right to use a parking lot on the plaintiffs’ property. Plaintiffs notified defendant of the adverse claims against the property and made a claim under the title insurance policy. Defendant denied the plaintiffs’ claim on the grounds that the quitclaim deed to the LLC divested the plaintiffs of any interest in the property (as required by the condition of policy), thus voiding coverage of any such claims. In August 2018, plaintiffs rescinded the quitclaim deed and notified defendant of the recission. Defendant again denied coverage, reasoning that the title insurance policy was voided when title was transferred via the quitclaim deed from plaintiffs to the LLC and that the recission could not revive coverage. Plaintiffs then brought suit against defendant and the trial court dismissed the suit, finding that the title insurance policy terminated when plaintiffs transferred their property to their LLC. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision and found that “because it is well established that a limited liability company is an independent legal entity and the members of such a company have no interest, much less a fee interest, in the company’s property, the transfer of the property to the LLC triggered Condition 2 and terminated the Policy.” The Court also found that the recission of the quitclaim deed did not revive coverage because the title insurance policy immediately terminated upon the 2008 transfer. The court held that “the subsequent recission of the quitclaim deed did restore the plaintiffs and the LLC to their pre-contracts statuses vis-à-vis each other, but it did not erase the consequences and effects of originally executing the quitclaim deed, including the violation of Condition 2 and termination of coverage.” Generally, obtaining title insurance provides the owner peace of mind that most types of adverse claims against its property rights will be covered by the title company. However, based on the language of your specific title insurance policy, transferring a piece of property into a wholly-owned LLC, via quitclaim deed, may very well void the policy protections a property owner believes are in place.  If you have transferred property into a wholly-owned LLC via quitclaim deed, you should review your title insurance policy to determine whether there is a chance coverage has terminated as a result of the transfer.  If so, and if title insurance may...

read more

EEOC Provides Guidance for Employers on COVID-19 Vaccinations

Posted by on Jan 5, 2021 in Newsflash | 0 comments

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) issued guidance for employers relating to mandating employee COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment. The EEOC confirmed that employers can legally require their employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccination, subject to several caveats. The primary legal restrictions on employers mandating COVID-19 vaccinations or any other employer-mandated vaccination arise under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), which limits an employer’s ability to require employees to undergo medical examinations and make disability-related inquires. The EEOC in its latest guidance confirms that the COVID-19 vaccination is not a “medical examination” and that asking employees whether they have been vaccinated is not a “medical inquiry” within the meaning of the ADA. Employers may also ask employees to show proof of vaccination without running afoul of the ADA, at least according to EEOC’s guidance. However, employers should avoid any follow-up questions and should warn employees not to share any other medical information when providing proof of vaccination because the additional information may elicit disability-related information. Although the COVID-19 vaccination is not a medical exam under the ADA, the EEOC notes that pre-screening vaccination questions may impact the ADA’s provision on disability-related inquiries and thus employers should be mindful of what questions they ask employees about their health and vaccination status. The ADA prohibits employers from making disability-related inquiries that are not “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” However, the EEOC provides that the pre-screening rule will not apply if the employee receives the vaccination from a non-employer related third party such as the employee’s own health care provider or if the employer offered the vaccine on a voluntary basis, because then answering the pre-screening questions would also be voluntary. Therefore, employers should proceed with caution and consult with counsel if the employer contemplates requiring its employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccination. While employers can require employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine, employers must make exemptions for employees that have a sincerely-held religious belief or a disability that would prohibit them from taking the vaccine. The EEOC cautioned that if an employee is unwilling or unable to be vaccinated due to an alleged disability or based on a protected characteristic, then the employer must undertake a two-step analysis. First, the employer must assess whether an unvaccinated employee would constitute a “direct threat” to the workplace by considering: “(1) the duration of the risk; (2) the nature and severity of the potential harm; (3) the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and (4) the imminence of the potential harm.” To determine that an unvaccinated employee constitutes a “direct threat,” an employer must conclude that “an unvaccinated individual will expose others to the virus at the worksite.” Second, the employer must consider whether any reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship) would eliminate or reduce the risk. Under the ADA, reasonable accommodation is an individualized, fact-based, and interactive process between the employer and the employee. Employers that adopt mandatory vaccination policies and then receive requests from employees for accommodation or exemption are encouraged to contact NavBat to discuss...

read more