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
© 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 AllElon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
Ben & Jerry’s Accuses Corporate Parent of ‘Silencing’ Support for Palestinian Rights
3 minute read'It's Not About Speed': Forging Strong Legal Department-Law Firm Relationships Starts With Humility, Trust
6 minute readNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Elon Musk Names Microsoft, Calif. AG to Amended OpenAI Suit
- 2Trump’s Plan to Purge Democracy
- 3Baltimore City Govt., After Winning Opioid Jury Trial, Preparing to Demand an Additional $11B for Abatement Costs
- 4X Joins Legal Attack on California's New Deepfakes Law
- 5Monsanto Wins Latest Philadelphia Roundup Trial
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