'My Employer Forced Me to Return to Work': 3 Tips From Lawyers as South Florida Businesses Prepare to Reopen
If OSHA inspects the building, the government agency will examine whether the company is failing to provide a safe environment, and will focus its attention on policies the company has in place to mitigate the risks of not social distancing.
May 12, 2020 at 03:39 PM
4 minute read
South Florida businesses set to reopen May 18 need to develop and implement new policies in place to shield them from potential liability and costly COVID -19 lawsuits.
The advice comes as Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez pinpointed May 18 as the target reopening date under Phase 1 of the state's guidelines for reopening, with Broward County also set to follow that date. Palm Beach County has already implemented Phase 1, having reopened Monday.
But attorneys note the reopening could be problematic for South Florida employers as Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties lead the state with the greatest number of deaths and confirmed cases of the coronavirus.
As of Tuesday morning, the Florida Department of Health tallied 14,385 cases and 505 deaths in Miami-Dade County from the coronavirus. Broward and Palm Beach Counties collectively reported around 10,000 total cases and just over 500 deaths.
1. Stagger employee return dates
With the reopening of a number of businesses next week is inevitable, Alison Smith, a partner at Kelley Kronenberg in Fort Lauderdale, says logistical preparations have to be developed so that local businesses can minimize their exposure to liability.
For instance, one of Smith's clients is spacing out the start date of employees in four phases of 25% each after auditing the positions and considering the business' needs. Another client is spacing out employee desks to be six feet apart, and those who need to move are placed in a large conference room to work with social distancing in place.
"The worry is if you don't have these policies, you could be subjected to an OSHA complaint," Smith said, referring to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. "The employee could go to OSHA and say, 'My employer forced me to return to work. I don't feel safe because they have all these people congregating together, people are breathing on me and sneezing like crazy!'"
2. Focus on social-distancing policies
If OSHA inspects the building, the government agency will examine whether the company is failing to provide a safe environment, and will focus its attention on policies the company has in place to mitigate the risks of not social distancing.
"As the employer, that policy is your insurance," Smith said. "It is to say, 'This is not my child. I cannot police this person any more than I have already done. The liability does not rest with me. It rests with this singular individual.'"
Smith says a company that has its reopening policy spelled out in a document shows that it takes the social distancing measures seriously from a liability standpoint. As long as the company distributes the written policy to staff, it has done its part in large measure. The rest is a trust factor that the employees will follow the dictates of the reopening policy, subject to reinforcement by management.
3. Revise and update
April Boyer, a partner at K&L Gates in Miami, says revising a reopening policy could be expensive for a company, especially if the revision seeks to enforce new procedures, such as the initial verification of an employee's health upon return to work and the frequency with which the company will follow up on the employee's health after returning to work. She advises her clients to find the balance that works with their bottom line.
"People are going to get sick," Boyer said. "We can't prevent people from catching COVID-19. But we can certainly create a physical workspace that does what's possible to create a healthy environment for employees to work in."
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 AllDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readBack-To-Back Hurricanes' Impact on Florida Legal Work Will Go Beyond Usual Suspects
5 minute readHolland & Knight Snags 2 Insurance Partners in New York and Philadelphia From Goodwin
3 minute readTurning the Tables: Defense Litigators Embrace Lawsuits, Alleging Fraud at Plaintiffs Shops
6 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