Coronavirus prevention

By Conn Maciel Carey LLP’s COVID-19 Task Force

In case anyone has forgotten, there are still a few COVID-19 vaccine mandates out there that the Supreme Court has not struck down. There are the federal employee and military vaccine mandates, and for private employers, the federal contractor vaccine-mandate. The federal contractor mandate arose from Pres. Biden’s Executive Order 14042, which directed executive agencies to include a clause in procurement agreements requiring employees who work on or in connection with a covered federal contract, or who even share a workplace with another employee who does, to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19.

You may have forgotten about that federal contractor vaccine mandate because that requirement has been the subject of nationwide temporary injunction for the last nine months, following a decision in December 2021 by a federal district court judge in Georgie in a legal challenge captioned Georgia v. Biden, one of several legal challenges to the Biden Administration’s authority to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine through the 1949 Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (aka the Procurement Act). The district court judge in Georgia v. Biden entered a nationwide preliminary injunction after concluding that the plaintiff States and one trade association were likely to prevail on their assertion that the mandate was outside the scope of the Procurement Act. The judge ordered the federal government not to enforce the mandate in any covered agreement, and several other federal courts have also imposed other, though narrower, restrictions on EO 14042. Since then, the Administration has shelved the vaccine requirement for federal contractors.

A lot of water has also passed under the bridge since that time, and the COVID-19 landscape has changed pretty significantly. Most notably, the CDC recently updated its COVID-19 guidance in several ways, but most relevant to the federal contractor vaccine mandate, the CDC now no longer distinguishes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals for how COVID-19 controls should apply. For example, quarantine and isolation requirements are perfectly aligned for fully vaccinated, partially vaccinated, and completely unvaccinated individuals. The rationale for the new relaxed guidance from Pres. Biden’s CDC is that there are now “so many tools available to use for reducing COVID-19 severity, [so] there is significantly less risk of severe illness, hospitalization and death compared to earlier in the pandemic.” That rationale would seemingly undermine the original purpose of the federal contractor vaccine mandate – ensuring “economy and efficiency” of the federal procurement system by ensuring the health of the contracting workforce.

Nevertheless, the Administration has continued to defend the federal contractor vaccine mandate as the legal challenges to EO 14042 have moved through the court system. The latest development in that litigation came in yet another Friday night COVID-19 surprise, Continue reading →

By Conn Maciel Carey’s COVID-19 Task Force

On May 19, Oregon OSHA issued a Statement Regarding Vaccination Status in Relation to Oregon’s Facial Covering and Social Distancing Requirements in which it advises that employers may discontinue enforcing face covering and physical distancing requirements as to employees and/or visitors (which apparently includes customers) only if the employer verifies the vaccination status of any such individuals attempting to enter without a face covering. Notably, Oregon OSHA further advises that the employer must enforce the physical distancing and facial covering requirements without regard to the exemption with respect to anyone who refuses to provide verification of their vaccination status. Over the past year, many retailers struggled to craft a workable policy that complied with the intent of Oregon OSHA’s expectation that they deny entry/refuse service to customers who refuse to wear a mask. As we discussed in prior blog posts, placing front line retail workers in such a position was not only infeasible, but it put them at greater risk of harm by customers who reacted in a violent manner when asked to wear a face covering. It remains to be seen, however, whether Oregon OSHA will adopt a rational approach respect to vaccination status verification requirements for retailers and other employers with public-facing operations.

Notably, Oregon OSHA’s Statement references the Oregon Health Authority’s May 18 Interim Guidance for Vaccinated Individuals, which includes retailers in the definition of a covered business; it does not, however define visitor. We nonetheless read the OHA’s Interim Guidance and the OR OSHA Statement together to treat customers/shoppers as visitors. According to the OR Health Authority, a business must continue to enforce the physical distancing and face covering requirements unless it: Continue reading →