On May 19, 2020, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued Revised Enforcement Guidance (Guidance) requiring employers to investigate whether employee COVID-19 infections are “work-related” for the purpose of determining whether a record must be made of such infections. This Guidance, which is effective on May 26, 2020, backtracks from OSHA’s prior April 10 guidance which had previously relaxed recordkeeping obligations on all non-healthcare, emergency response, or correctional institution employers for COVID-19 illnesses.

As background, OSHA requires employers to make a record of a COVID-19 infection if: (1) the case is a confirmed case of COVID-19; (2) the case is work-related as defined by 29 CFR § 1904.5 (an injury or illness is work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness); and (3) the case involves one or more of the general recording criteria set forth in 29 CFR § 1904.7 (an injury or illness is recordable if it results in: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, loss of consciousness or if it is otherwise diagnosed by a medical professional as a significant injury or illness). Certain circumstances, such as work-related fatalities, must not only be recorded, but reported to OSHA.

In light of the difficulty of determining whether workers contracted COVID-19 due to exposures at work, in an April 10, 2020 memorandum, OSHA exercised its “enforcement discretion” to not require work-relatedness determinations to be made by non-healthcare/emergency response/correctional institution employers unless (a) there is objective evidence a COVID-19 case may be work related (e.g., a number of cases developing among workers who work closely together without an alternative explanation; and (b) the evidence was reasonably available to the employer.

OSHA now requires all employers (except employers who have less than 10 employees or employers who are otherwise partially exempt from OSHA’s recordkeeping obligations) to make work-relatedness determinations. The Guidance specifically requires an employer to make a “good faith and reasonable inquiry” into whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to a particular case of COVID-19. If it is, then the exposure should be deemed “work-related” and is potentially recordable. In determining the adequacy of the employer’s inquiry, OSHA will consider the following:

  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation into work-relatedness. Employers are not “expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries,” but should “(1) to ask the employee how he believes he contracted the COVID-19 illness; (2) while respecting employee privacy, discuss with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and (3) review the employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure,” including reviewing co-worker COVID-19 infections.
  • The evidence available to the employer. In determining the reasonableness of an investigation, OSHA will focus on “the information reasonably available to the employer at the time it made its work-relatedness determination” but will also consider later information learned by the employer. Thus, an employer may wish to revisit work-relatedness determinations based on new information learned.
  • The evidence that a COVID-19 illness was contracted at work. OSHA has explained that work-relatedness is more likely where:
    • Several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation.
    • A COVID-19 infection is contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation.
    • An employee’s job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.
  • By contrast, work-relatedness is less likely where:
    • An employee is the only worker to contract COVID-19 in her vicinity and her job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread.
    • An employee, outside the workplace, closely and frequently associates with someone (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who (1) has COVID-19; (2) is not a coworker, and (3) exposes the employee during the period in which the individual is likely infectious.
  • OSHA will give due weight to any evidence of causation, pertaining to the employee illness at issue, provided by medical providers, public health authorities, or the employee herself.

Employers should ensure they are prepared to conduct this inquiry into COVID-19 infections in the workplace. For more information regarding this development or other issues relating to COVID-19, please contact one of the authors of this article or the Hogan Lovells lawyer with whom you work.

Print:
EmailTweetLikeLinkedIn
Photo of George Ingham George Ingham

Partner, Northern Virginia

George Ingham represents and counsels clients in a wide range of labor and employment matters. Experienced in deciphering the complex and ever-changing landscape of employment law, he offers sensible guidance that is legally sound, practical, and in line with his…

Partner, Northern Virginia

George Ingham represents and counsels clients in a wide range of labor and employment matters. Experienced in deciphering the complex and ever-changing landscape of employment law, he offers sensible guidance that is legally sound, practical, and in line with his clients’ goals.

His experience includes advising clients in a range of labor and employment topics, including antidiscrimination, retaliation, non-competition agreements, and wage and hour law. He also advises clients on labor and employment laws applicable to government contractors, such as Executive Order 11246, labor-management relations, and workforce restructurings. When disputes arise, George has successfully represented clients in litigation, arbitration, and administrative proceedings.

Prior to joining the firm, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Karen LeCraft Henderson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Honorable W. Harold Albritton III of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama. George is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia Bars.

Photo of Zachary P. Siegel Zachary P. Siegel

Associate, New York

Zach Siegel is deeply committed to staying informed of the most recent trends in labor and employment law so that he can counsel his clients on any issues that may arise.

He has experience helping clients navigate state and federal…

Associate, New York

Zach Siegel is deeply committed to staying informed of the most recent trends in labor and employment law so that he can counsel his clients on any issues that may arise.

He has experience helping clients navigate state and federal labor and employment laws, such as the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), among others. He has assisted clients with defending allegations of wage and hour violations, discrimination and retaliation claims, and breach of contract claims. He also regularly advises on the labor and employment aspects of both domestic and cross-border mergers and acquisitions.

Zach is passionate about pro bono work. He regularly counsels nonprofit clients with employment-specific issues, which in turn allows him to provide real assistance to clients while simultaneously honing his craft. Zach has provided research for organizations seeking to ensure that individuals around the globe receive fair trials, and he is currently working on providing aid for an individual fleeing persecution who seeks asylum in the United States.

Zach began his Hogan Lovells career as a summer associate in the firm’s New York office in 2016. While at Duke Law, Zach was the Symposium Editor for the Law and Contemporary Problems Journal and worked in the Civil Justice Clinic.