COVID-19 Litigation: Identifying Types and Mitigation Strategies for Employers
Taking steps in advance to avoid these risks will not eliminate them, but it will reduce the risk and better position the employer to defend future litigation and agency complaints.
July 29, 2020 at 01:55 PM
5 minute read
To date, nearly 60 percent of coronavirus-related employment litigation falls into one of three categories: wrongful discharge, leave and discrimination, according to in-house tracking by my law firm, Ogletree, Deakins.
Twenty-five percent can be classified as discharge claims, which include whistleblower and retaliation issues stemming from employers' failures to protect employees, follow guidance, and misuse of Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds; and employees' refusals to return to work. Nineteen percent of claims are related to leave violations of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) and the CARES Act. Thirteen percent of COVID-19 claims can be categorized as discrimination, which include accommodations issues and are largely comprised of disability claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Following are some scenarios by which coronavirus-related claims may arise or already have.
Discharge claims
In fiscal year 2019, just under 2,100 whistleblower complaints were filed with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. To date, OSHA has already received more than that in COVID-19 related complaints, including those for inadequate personal protective equipment, exposure to illness by co-workers and customers, and failure to enforce safety rules. Although OSHA prohibits employees generally from walking off the job, they are protected "if the employee, with no reasonable alternative, refuses in good faith to expose himself to the dangerous condition," 29 CFR 1977.12. Although an employee may not pursue a private cause of action, if OSHA finds merit after investigating the complaint, OSHA litigates the case as the employee's attorney.
The National Labor Relations Act protects employees who engage in "… concerted activity for mutual aid or protection" in the workplace, including those not in a union environment. 29 U.S.C. § 157. The NLRA is another avenue for retaliation claims where employees are disciplined after acting together to raise health and safety concerns related to COVID-19, including concerns raised on social media.
Leave Claims
Less than three weeks after FFCRA went into effect on April 1, the first plaintiff filed claims under this act in federal court in Pennsylvania. The company's former director of revenue management alleges she was terminated for seeking time off to care for her child. Just as with FMLA, in addition to retaliation, other FFCRA cases allege denial of benefits and/or interference with the employee's leave entitlement. Note that managers can be sued personally because FFCRA adopts the Fair Labor Standards Act's broad definition of employer—"any person acting directly or indirectly in the interest of an employer in relation to an employee," 29 U.S.C. § 203(d).
Although the severity of COVID-19 symptoms will not rise to the level of a disability for many people, the ADA also protects employees who have "a record of a disability" and those the employer "regarded as" as disabled. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1). Further, certain employees are at a higher risk for severe illness due to underlying conditions that may be disabilities. As leave can be a reasonable accommodation for a disability, ADA claims (which must be filed first with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission for failure to accommodate can arise in this context.
Discrimination Claims
A case filed in federal court in New York alleges that the employee was chosen for layoff before others because of his age, in violation of state and local age discrimination laws. The EEOC has published guidance making clear that employers should avoid blanket policies requiring "high risk" employees (as defined by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines), such as older or pregnant employees, to continue to telework while others return on-site, which blanket policies run afoul of federal laws prohibiting age and pregnancy discrimination.
Mitigating the Risk
Taking steps in advance to avoid these risks will not eliminate them, but will reduce the risk and better position the employer to defend future litigation and agency complaints.
- Monitor and comply with COVID-19 requirements.
- Prepare a workplace safety plan.
- Explore ways to increase social distancing and remote working opportunities. This will not necessarily continue after the pandemic.
- Implement and require screening and stay-home policies. Include confidentiality, complaint and non-retaliation provisions.
- Implement and publicize reopening requirements, including masks, social distancing signs and floor markers and cleaning processes.
- Ensure relevant policies are updated, including policies related to social media, non-harassment, anti-discrimination, anti-retaliation, FMLA, emergency leaves under the FFCRA, and any state or local laws.
- Check for consistency with public health recommendations and new laws.
- No policies or practices designed to "protect" older or pregnant employees more than other groups.
- Approach requests for leave and remote considering whether they are requests for accommodations and initiate the ADA interactive process as appropriate, documenting all of your communications and efforts.
- Encourage internal complaints/reports and handle them properly.
- Complaint procedures should be widely disseminated and easily accessible.
- Consider 24-hour toll-free hotlines, especially when employees work nontraditional shifts or are removed from immediate access to upper level managers and/or human resources.
- Consider additional ways to publicize the policy, such as the home screen of the company's electronic system and any relevant links.
- Investigate promptly and thoroughly.
- Educate managers who are designated to receive complaints on the policies and employment laws.
- Train/remind managers to investigate promptly and thoroughly or to escalate complaints to upper management immediately.
- Even anonymous complaints should be investigated as thoroughly as the information permits.
- Take consistent disciplinary action with respect to violations.
Amie Willis is a shareholder in Ogletree Deakins' Atlanta office. She is a member of the firm's COVID-19 Litigation practice group and represents employers across the country in employment matters in a variety of industries.
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 AllCFPB Proposes Rule to Regulate Data Brokers Selling Sensitive Information
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Pa. High Court: Concrete Proof Not Needed to Weigh Grounds for Preliminary Injunction Order
- 2'Something Else Is Coming': DOGE Established, but With Limited Scope
- 3Polsinelli Picks Up Corporate Health Care Partner From Greenberg Traurig in LA
- 4Kirkland Lands in Phila., but Rate Pressure May Limit the High-Flying Firm's Growth Prospects
- 5Davis Wright Tremaine Turns to Gen AI To Teach Its Associates Legal Writing
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