How to Determine What Is 'Essential Business' as More States Order Shutdowns
Violations of orders usually result in a misdemeanor offense, which can mean a fine, imprisonment or both. So far it is unclear how the orders will be enforced.
March 23, 2020 at 05:29 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Corporate Counsel
As a growing number of states proceed with unprecedented stay-at-home orders, including the closing of nonessential businesses, general counsel are struggling with the definitions as they guide their companies to comply.
Connecticut, Michigan and Wisconsin this week are the latest of at least 15 states, four cities and one territory that ordered nonessential businesses to close. The other states are California, Delaware, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Rhodes Island, plus Puerto Rico; Dallas; Kansas City, Missouri; Nashville, Tennessee; and St. Louis.
Nearly all states have closed public schools and most have urged people not to gather in groups. Many have also closed bars and restaurants and recommended, but not yet ordered, nonessential businesses to close.
So what is a nonessential business? The definition can vary from state to state, and even city to city.
For this reason, employment law firm Fisher & Phillips over the weekend created an Essential Business Task Force to help general counsel and their companies navigate state and local government closure orders.
On Monday two attorneys at Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner offered a short webinar on shutdown and shelter in place orders, including the important role of in-house counsel in guiding the company. The law firm said mostly in-house counsel are registering for its series of coronavirus-related webinars.
Thomas Lee, a partner in the law firm's San Francisco office, stressed that the situation is fluid, and more governments are issuing orders or revising guidance daily. Businesses need to stay on top of new developments, Lee said.
Lee along with employment attorney Hope Goldstein from the New York office, hit these points:
- The definition of an essential business can vary widely, depending on the order. Some adopt the 16 critical infrastructure sectors announced March 19 by the federal government, but many also add their own categories. The specifics of each order must be studied and applied.
- Companies need to know where their operations are located, and what critical work is done there, and what part of the workforce can work remotely. Those are the facts that counsel will use to evaluate whether each facility qualifies as essential.
- If a company thinks a shutdown order is likely coming in its area, it can reach out to the government and make a case for being included in essential services. Such efforts have received varied responses, some successful.
- Businesses need to keep abreast of employment law changes that also are coming rapidly, including what qualifies for paid leave or immediate unemployment pay.
- Violations of orders usually result in a misdemeanor offense, which can mean a fine, imprisonment or both. So far it is unclear how the orders will be enforced.
Lee told Corporate Counsel that once a company has decided to keep operating, in-house counsel can continue playing a key role by providing essential service letters for employees to carry in transit, as well as letters for facility personnel to provide to inspectors if they visit a facility.
He said the company also should reach out "to key upstream suppliers to ensure supply chain stability, and to customers to confirm continued operations."
Lee recommended implementing the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention cleaning guidance, social distancing and teleworking where possible.
He said to "make sure that all relevant levels of the company understand what the decision is with respect to a facility, and manage feedback from employees who may have concerns."
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250