How US Companies Reacted to Coronavirus Outbreak Just Before Spike in Cases
A majority of the companies were encouraging staff to work remotely and were already considering changes in personnel policies as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, though only 12% said they were providing extra benefits to their affected employees.
March 19, 2020 at 02:29 PM
3 minute read
A new coronavirus flash survey offers a glimpse into how stateside companies in a wide range of industries were reacting to the COVID-19 pandemic just as it was beginning to take hold in the United States.
As of Monday, 19 of the 551 companies that participated in the Seyfarth Shaw study reported having a U.S.-based employee who had tested positive for COVID-19.
Of those companies, 50% reacted by closing for an extended period, 25% shut their doors for a day to two days of cleaning, and 25% required anonymous disclosure of potential infection and encouraged self-quarantine, according to the March 12-16 survey.
The report acknowledges that much has changed in just the past few days since the study was completed. The number of confirmed coronavirus cases has skyrocketed from about 100 at the beginning of March to more than 10,000 with 150 deaths and counting as of Thursday. But the findings serve "as a brief snapshot in time that points to interesting insights and trends."
A Seyfarth lawyer was not immediately available for comment Thursday.
As the number of coronavirus cases began to spike in the U.S., 73% of respondents said they were planning to evaluate or change personnel policies, benefits or safety rules as a result of the outbreak.
But only 12% said they were providing extra benefits to their employees, such as supplemental leave policy, increased sick days, paid administrative time off and alternate work schedules.
Nearly 40% of the companies were not planning to offer extra benefits to their affected employees and the remaining 48% said they hadn't considered doing so or were unsure of the legal requirements.
As for allowing employees to work from home: 42% said they were determining whether workers could telecommute on a case-by-case basis, 36% were allowing all staff to work remotely, 16% said they weren't allowing it, and 6% said they were but only in coronavirus hotspots.
The situation had spurred 67% of companies to take proactive steps to expand their employees' ability to work from home, while the remainder of respondents said they were not taking those steps or that it would be impractical or impossible to do so.
Other findings include:
- 48% of respondents planned to provide leave to allow employees to care for their children where schools or child care centers were closed, while 32% were on the fence and 20% were not providing leave for child care.
- 41% were continuing to pay wages during work stoppages or quarantines, 27% were not paying wages, 19% were unsure of whether they were legally required to keep paying employees, and 13% hadn't considered the issue.
- Only 350 of the participants answered whether they'd require employees to be quarantined under certain circumstances in the 14 days before the survey: 90% of respondents said they had done so for employees who visited high-risk countries and 40% said they had done so for staff who had gone on a cruise.
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
© 2025 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 AllAd Agency Legal Chief Scores $12M Golden Parachute in $13B Sale to Rival
3 minute readFTC Sues PepsiCo for Alleged Price Break to Big-Box Retailer, Incurs Holyoak's Wrath
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Considers Reviving Lawsuit Over Fatal Traffic Stop Shooting
- 2Long Hours and Lack Of Boundaries: Associates In India Are Leaving Their Firms
- 3Goodwin Procter Relocates to Renewable-Powered Office in San Francisco’s Financial District
- 4'Didn't Notice Patient Wasn't Breathing': $13.7M Verdict Against Anesthesiologists
- 5'Astronomical' Interest Rates: $1B Settlement to Resolve Allegations of 'Predatory' Lending Cancels $534M in Small-Business Debts
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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