COVID-19's Effect on the Dynamic Workplace Safety-Employee Privacy Relationship
Over the past several weeks, some local governments around the globe have begun slowly to initiate progressive measures to revise and even rescind COVID-19 emergency legislation, orders and lockdowns.
June 30, 2020 at 04:55 PM
7 minute read
Over the past several weeks, some local governments around the globe have begun slowly to initiate progressive measures to revise and even rescind COVID-19 emergency legislation, orders and lockdowns. These governments now are grappling with workplace-specific issues. As such, employers must determine how to maintain their duty of care to all employees and to protect employees' health and safety, while safeguarding employees' privacy.
This inevitable and inherent tension underlies the discussion surrounding several workplace issues, including COVID-19 testing, taking temperatures, requiring face coverings and disclosing COVID-19 exposure in employee return to work questionnaires. The below analysis highlights some general themes and practices before providing some country-specific information. Note, however, that this is intended as a high-level overview of the applicable legal issues in certain jurisdictions, and this country-specific information likely is not sufficiently comprehensive or exhaustive to address fact-intensive inquiries and concerns.
COVID-19 Testing
Assuming that COVID-19 tests are available and can produce accurate results quickly, certain countries, including Australia and Brazil, allow employers to require employees to submit to COVID-19 tests. In such countries, the principle of protecting employees' health is paramount in relation to employee privacy concerns. Employers, however, may be required to support such a request with a lawful and reasonable purpose. For example, employers must comply with privacy laws when requiring COVID-19 testing of employees and failure to do so may render such requests unlawful. In addition, prior to requiring a COVID-19 test, employees may have to show or report COVID-19 symptoms. Many countries also require employers to obtain employee consent in a certain form prior to mandating COVID-19 testing. For example, in Luxembourg, Thailand and the United Kingdom, employee consent should be obtained in writing. That said, some countries, including France and Germany, among others, do not allow employers to require COVID-19 testing of employees because, for example, nasal swabs are invasive and employers unlikely are able to justify that such a test is necessary and proportionate, except in very exceptional cases, employers are not allowed to require employees to submit to any type of health check and employers cannot process any medical data of employees. Some other countries, including the Netherlands and Singapore, do not allow employers to require COVID-19 testing, and instead only company doctors or medical professionals may assess whether employees should take a COVID-19 test.
Temperature Screening
Across international jurisdictions, assuming that thermometers are adequately cleaned and sanitized, employers overwhelmingly are allowed to require employees to have their temperature screened prior to entering the workplace. Temperature screenings generally are considered the least drastic measure to maintain employees' health and safety at the workplace. Several countries, including China, Colombia, Indonesia and Malaysia, among others, legally require employers to screen employees' temperatures as part of a standard health measure. Other countries, including Japan, also allow employers to screen employees' temperatures, but as a best practice, employee consent should be obtained in advance. Furthermore, in Belgium, prior to screening employees' temperatures, employers should consider obtaining the advice of the company doctor and health and safety committee.
Despite the international community's broad support for allowing employers to screen employees' temperatures, some countries, including Luxembourg and the Netherlands, do not allow employers to screen employees' temperatures prior to entering the workplace because medical data, including temperature, is employees' medical data that cannot be processed. In addition, while France does not ban temperature screening, it is not recommended. Instead, the French government recommends that all employees measure their temperature if they believe that they may have a fever and self-monitor the appearance of symptoms suggestive of COVID-19. Even in jurisdictions where temperature screening is not permitted, it always is possible to request employees to monitor their own temperatures.
Face Coverings
Generally, employers likely may require employees to wear face coverings in the workplace during the COVID-19 pandemic to protect all employees' health and safety. This is true even in countries that are highly protective of employees' privacy rights, including France and Germany. Indeed, many countries, including Chile, China, Italy and Singapore, among others, require employees to wear face coverings in the workplace. Employers should consider who will provide the face coverings, and if employees must provide their own face coverings, who will cover the costs of the face covering.
Disclosing COVID-19 Exposure in Return to Work Questionnaires
Prior to returning to the workplace, employees in many jurisdictions, including, for example, Brazil, Germany and Singapore, may be required to certify responses to questionnaires that inquire about COVID-19 diagnosis, symptoms and close contacts with individuals who are or have been diagnosed with COVID-19. Requiring employees to certify certain COVID-19 information places a premium on workplace safety because collecting such information allows employers and local authorities to carry out COVID-19 response measures (e.g., contact tracing). If employees answer "Yes" or refuse to answer any such question, local law in China, Hong Kong, Japan and New Zealand, among other jurisdictions, allows employers to prevent such employees from entering the workplace.
But in other jurisdictions, employee privacy rights are paramount, even in the context of workplace safety. Note that employers always must comply with data protection laws when implementing protocols such as return to work questionnaires. In Singapore, for example, employers must comply with the Personal Data Protection Act and ensure that reasonable security arrangements are in place for the protection of collected information, collected information will not be used for purposes not related to COVID-19 response measures without employee consent or legal authorization and (iii) collected information will no longer be retained as soon as it is reasonable to assume that the COVID-19 response measures cease to exist. Indeed, in Ireland, employers also may be obliged to demonstrate a strong justification for requiring employees to certify such information based upon necessity and proportionality. In addition, in some countries, including the Netherlands, employers cannot process any medical data of employees. Rather, only a company doctor or other medical professional may ask these questions. Other jurisdictions, including France, completely ban employers from inquiring about COVID-19 exposure in such return to work questionnaires.
These are just some of the concerns that employers must consider. Stemming from these complicated issues, employers must determine (i) how to respond to inevitable violations of policies and requirements (e.g., whether to follow a progressive disciplinary procedure or to terminate the employment relationship) and (ii) how to maintain the confidentiality of employee medical information while still notifying the applicable government authorities and employees who have had close contact with employees who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or are suspected COVID-19 cases.
Generally, it is crucial that employers communicate effectively with employees when managing the COVID-19 return to the workplace phase. To alleviate employees' fears when returning to the workplace, employers should provide employees with a COVID-19 Safety Policy/COVID-19 Return to Work Policy that sets out the precautionary and preventative measures and controls that employers are implementing to ensure all employees' health and safety. Such a policy should identify and implement employers' measures to mitigate the risk of infection (e.g., social distancing measures, wearing face coverings and maintaining high standards of hygiene and cleanliness).
In the end, COVID-19 legislation, emergency orders and lockdowns are dynamic, fluid and changing rapidly. As a best practice, employers should seek legal counsel for timely analysis and guidance on any COVID-19-related issue. Obtaining legal counsel also will allow employers to appreciate the cultural differences and nuances that permeate the multi-national employer-employee relationship generally and affect employers' strategies and responses to the current COVID-19 pandemic.
Erika C. Collins is a member of Epstein Becker Green's employment, labor and workforce management practice. Based in New York, she co-heads the firm's international employment law group.
Ryan H. Hutzler is an associate in the employment, labor and workforce management practice, in the Washington, D.C,., office of the firm.
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 AllLatest Class of Court Officers Sworn Into Service in New York
Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
Decision of the Day: Administrative Court Finds Prevailing Wage Law Applies to Workers Who Cleaned NYC Subways During Pandemic
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Lawyer’s Resolutions: Focusing on 2025
- 2Houston Judge Exonerated on Appeal, Public Reprimand Vacated
- 3Bar Report - Dec. 30
- 4Employment Law Developments to Expect From the Second Trump Administration
- 5How I Made Law Firm Leadership: 'It’s Imperative That You Never Stop Learning,' Says Ian Ribald of Ballard Spahr
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.