News

After several rounds of discussion, congressional leaders reached a deal on a new COVID-related stimulus bill. The bill passed both houses of Congress on Monday, Dec. 21 and was signed into law by the President Trump on Sunday, Dec 27. The stimulus package, which totals nearly $900 billion, provides aid for workers and businesses and includes expansions and revisions of existing COVID relief programs.

On Wednesday, Dec. 16, the EEOC released new guidance for employers regarding how the legal requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) will impact administration of the COVID-19 vaccine. That guidance, which came in the form of frequently asked questions, recognizes the complex legal questions that arise with administering a COVID-19 vaccine in an employment context.

On Friday, December 4, the CDC issued new guidance for dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. That guidance recognizes the high levels of community transmission in recent weeks and the need to adopt more stringent measures to slow the spread of the disease.

On Wednesday, the CDC issued revised guidance announcing that the required time for quarantine after exposure to COVID-19 may be reduced from 14 days to 7 or 10 days. The CDC still recommends a quarantine period of 14 days when possible. But the CDC also recognizes that the burden and economic hardship of the 14-day quarantine may reduce compliance.

In McKey v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, No. 19-2638 (8th Cir. October 23, 2020), the Eighth Circuit ruled in favor of the employer in a case where an employee alleged it had illegally fired her on account of her age and in retaliation for reporting suspected age discrimination. The Eighth Circuit is the federal jurisdiction of appellate courts that includes Arkansas, and therefore valuable points can be drawn from its analysis on how similar cases will be analyzed in Arkansas.

As you know from following our alerts and blog (read previous article here) a federal district court recently ruled that portions of the April 2020 regulations from the Department of Labor (DOL) implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) were overly broad and invalid. This ruling left a vacuum with no clear guidance on the state of the law. On Friday, September 11, 2020, the DOL issued new guidance addressing the federal court’s criticisms of the previous rules. The DOL left some rules in place with clarification and additional explanation, and it modified some of the rules, in particular the definition of “healthcare provider.”

Earlier this month, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York struck down the Department of Labor’s (DOL) definition of “health care provider” as promulgated in the regulations implementing the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA). See State of New York v. United States Department of Labor. In this case, the State of New York sued the DOL claiming that several provisions of the regulations implementing the FFCRA violated the Administrative Procedures Act.