Fortunately, however, California’s recent decisions and public fitness updates have much-needed clarity on several key issues.
Employer’s Liability to Third Parties: Kuciemba v. Victory Woodworks, Inc.
On July 6, the California Supreme Court ruled that, in most cases, employers do not have a legal responsibility to ensure they have an office for staff family members in the context of COVID-19. In Kuciemba, a painter contracted COVID-19 from the paintings and passed it on to his wife, who became seriously ill. The Supreme Court attributed the husband’s infection to the employer’s failure to comply with protocols and precautions prescribed by a county fitness order, resulting in close contact with staff transferred from elsewhere.
Both husband and wife sued the employer for their injuries. The Ninth Circuit qualified the following two questions to the California Supreme Court: “(1) If a worker contracts COVID-19 in the California and returns the virus to his wife, the California Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA; Lab. Code, § 3200 et seq. ) Does it prohibit a claim for negligence through the opposing spouse from the employer?to members of workers’ households? The Tribunal answered any of the questions: “no”.
After conducting a lengthy investigation into the duty of care, the Court concluded that while all points favored extending the employer’s duty of care to members of an employee’s household, political considerations outweighed that investigation. Using terms such as “lockdowns,” “litigation explosion,” and “deluge,” and citing decisions from other jurisdictions, the Court ruled that, due to the scope and maximum transmissibility of COVID-19, creating a duty of care would threaten to overwhelm courts and destroy businesses and public services. territorial burden that courts would face in enforcing such legal responsibility, adding factual barriers to elegant moves and the near impossibility of resolving similar instances before trial through mechanisms such as determinative motions. Finally, the Court warned that the creation of such legal liability may lead to an explosion in insurance costs.
It is vital to note that Kuciemba in no way obviates the legal responsibility of California employers to hold office for COVID-19 or other potential risks. Employers deserve to continue to review disease and injury prevention policies, manuals, and programs, in addition to OSHA and Cal-OSHA regulations, the non-emergency regulations listed above, and other state, state, and federal public fitness orders. Please contact the authors or any member of the Nelson Mullins Employment and Work Group if you have further questions.
Reduces CRPD’s definition of “epidemic”
Old definition
New definition
At least 3 of COVID-19 during a 14-day period.
At least 3 of COVID-19 over a 7-day period.
As a reminder, in the event of an outbreak, the applicable sections of the NER require employers to implement a number of measures including testing, masking, and investigations. The CRPD justified the update based on the shorter incubation period of the Omicron variant.
Vaccination Mandate Advice: Hodges v. Cedars-Sinai Medical Center
In late April 2023, the California Court of Appeals provided welcome guidance on whether an employer responds to a worker’s request for a waiver of the employer’s vaccination requirement. At Hodges, the worker worked as an administrative assistant at a hospital. He has not worked in any kind of patient care capacity. the flu vaccine or its components.
The hospital denied the worker’s request for exemption because its only grounds were past cancer treatments, allergies derived from the same treatments and other general allergies. None complied with exemptions declared through the CDC. When the worker refused to reconsider the option of getting vaccinated, the hospital ruled her out.
The worker sued the hospital and filed court cases of discrimination, retaliation and wrongful dismissal. The Court of Appeal upheld the diminution court’s decision to dismiss the worker’s claims. It found that McDonnell Douglas’ load change check was not applied because the worker had not presented any direct evidence that the hospital had acted with discriminatory animosity or for some other prohibited reason. Consequently, the burden of evidence falls on the worker. He refused the flu shot and did not have a devout exemption or medically identified contraindication. This evidence supported the hospital’s argument that it rather believed the worker was not disabled, that any minor reaction she had to the threat of vaccination was not a disability, and that she could therefore get the flu shot.
The court also found that neither the employee’s feared effects of the vaccine nor her previous cancer diagnosis met FEHA’s definition of disability, as neither prevented her from performing her professional duties or other major life activities.
Finally, the Court denied the worker’s request for an interactive process. The court warned, however, that employers continue “at their own risk” if a worker is subsequently fired.
In light of Hodges, California employers deserve to consider whether there is a threat of asymmetric or inconsistent application of their vaccine or other moderate accommodation policies, and whether they comply with the rules of public bodies such as the CDC. At Hodges, the hospital has avoided any duty by scrupulously respecting both. The Court of Appeal noted:
An employer is not required to settle for an employee’s subjective confidence that he or she is disabled. Instead, the employer has the right to rely on other medical information. Here, Cedars relied on the CDC’s recommendation, implemented through its own physicians, to conclude that there was no objective evidence of disability. restricting the spread of disease in the United States and used the company’s unequivocal recommendation to formulate exceptions. Any employer adopting a similar policy could determine whether a waiver applicant has checked a box corresponding to a medically identified contraindication.
(Internal citations omitted. )
Upon discovering that the employee’s condition and similar claims were in fact subjective, despite her doctor’s support, the hospital allowed to deny the exemption and enforce its policy.
California employers see Hodges as an opportunity for clarity, but they continue to be cautious in handling workers’ requests for accommodations and seek the recommendation of an experienced attorney if necessary.
[1] Record-keeping needs for non-urgent criteria will expire until 2026.
DISCLAIMER: Due to the generality of this update, it is possible that the data provided here is not applicable under all conditions and will not be implemented without an express legal recommendation based on specific conditions.
© Nelson Mullins Riley