On January 13, 2021, the United States Supreme Court blocked the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (the ETS) regarding COVID-19 vaccination and testing in the workplace. The ETS generally required covered employers to have either a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy or a policy where unvaccinated employees undergo weekly testing and wear
The Biden administration on Nov. 4 released a Fact Sheet announcing the details of its Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) COVID-19 vaccination mandates.
OSHA is issuing a Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that requires employers with 100 or more employees to get their employees vaccinated by Jan. 4. Unvaccinated employees will have to produce a negative test on at least a weekly basis.
CMS is requiring workers at healthcare facilities that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to be fully vaccinated by Jan. 4. The rule covers approximately 76,000 healthcare facilities and more than 17 million healthcare workers.
The Fact Sheet also announced that the Dec. 8 deadline for compliance with Executive Order 14042’s vaccination mandate for federal contractors would be extended to Jan. 4. The guidelines released Sept. 24 by the Biden administration paints federal contractors with a broad brush, stating that employees who work in human resources, billing, legal review and perform work “in connection with a Federal Government contract” must be vaccinated.…
Winstead PC Shareholder Taylor White recently discussed Wellness Programs as Alternatives to Employer Vaccine Mandates in a new Bloomberg article.
The article can be read here: Wellness Programs as Alternative to Employer Vaccine Mandates
Join Winstead attorney, Taylor White along with BOMA as they discuss bringing the future of medical real estate into focus. On Tuesday, November 2, Taylor will participate on the panel titled ‘The Financial, Legal and Operational Impact of the new SOHA Guidelines.’
Date: Monday, November 1 – Wednesday, November 3, 2021
Location: Omni Dallas Hotel
Winstead hosted a webinar entitled “Returning to Work: Employer Considerations.” The event, which was presented by Winstead shareholder Taylor E. White, explored the challenges associated with returning to an in-person setting in the wake of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. During the webinar, Taylor discussed how organizations can minimize legal exposure and the best practices…
Aug 31, 2021 | 12:00 PM CT
In this presentation, we will discuss legal risks and best practices to mitigate the same associated with returning to in-office work amidst the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. More specifically, we will analyze potential pitfalls, requirements, and considerations for employers under the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations, Americans with…
Houston’s Fourteenth Court of Appeals recently held that a claim for attorney’s fees under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act (“UDJA”) is not preempted by the Texas Covenants Not to Compete Act where the action brought under the UDJA seeks to declare a covenant not to compete unenforceable.
In Traina v. Hargrove & Associates Inc. a former employee filed suit against his former employer seeking a declaratory judgment that a covenant not to compete he entered into with his employer is unenforceable. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the employer that the employment agreement was enforceable, reformed the covenant to limit the scope of restrictions, and declined to award attorney’s fees under the UDJA. The trial court’s ruling stated that fees under the UDJA were preempted by the Covenants Not to Compete Act.
After affirming the trial court’s determination of the enforceability of the covenant, the court of appeals determined that since the employee’s UDJA claim sought to declare the covenant unenforceable, his claim for attorney’s fees was not preempted. The court noted: “The only claim brought in this case is Traina’s claim for a declaration that the covenant is unenforceable. Under such circumstances, this case does not qualify as “an action to enforce a covenant not to compete” under the plain meaning of the statute.” (emphasis own). The court concludes that since there was no claim to enforce the covenant not to compete, UDJA attorney’s fees are not preempted by section 15.52 of the Business and Commerce Code. The court remanded the proceedings to determine the issue of whether the former employee is entitled to attorney’s fees.…
Join Labor & Employment Shareholder Taylor White for a live 90-minute CLE webinar titled ‘Construction Employers and OSHA Violations: Willful Violations, Civil and Criminal Penalties.’ This CLE webinar will provide construction counsel with advice based on recent decisions by the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission that found contractors were liable for hazardous working conditions…
Winstead PC Shareholder Taylor White published his column in Texas Lawyer about labor and employment issues and trending topics. The article is titled ‘Employers Get Clarity on Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policies in the Workplace.’ The article is below:
For months, employers and employment attorneys have navigated a number of considerations and governmental guidance documents regarding COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace. A key question has been whether employers can implement policies requiring employees entering the workplace to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Notwithstanding the business consideration of whether such policies should be implemented, the consensus among practitioners has been that mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations in the workplace are legally permissible. Two recent developments have generally confirmed that consensus: the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s May 28, 2021, updates to its technical assistance guidance, and a recent federal court order dismissing claims brought by employees against their employer based on the employer’s mandatory vaccination policy.…
Winstead PC Shareholder Taylor White published his column in Texas Lawyer about labor and employment issues and trending topics. The article is titled “Misclassification Whiplash: US Department of Labor Withdraws Independent Contractor Rule.” The article is below:
As of May 6, the United States Department of Labor withdrew the Trump Administration’s “Independent Contractor Rule” (Rule). The Rule, had it gone into effect, would have arguably been more employer-friendly in that it would have potentially broadened the factual circumstances in which an independent contractor relationship could be found. It did so by focusing a 5-factor analysis on two “core factors,” which were “(1) [t]he nature and degree of the worker’s control over the work; and (2) the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss.”
The Department of Labor believed the rule was at odds with the FLSA’s statutory text and existing judicial precedent regarding the same. Specifically, the Department of Labor stated that the Rule’s focus on “two ‘core factors’ for determining employee status under the FLSA would have undermined the longstanding balancing approach of the economic realities test and court decisions requiring a review of the totality of the circumstances related to the employment relationship.” The Department of Labor’s goal with the withdrawal is to preserve protections for workers under the FLSA, as well as to ensure their access to benefits normally attendant in an employment relationship.
Continue Reading Taylor White in Texas Lawyer: Misclassification Whiplash: US Department of Labor Withdraws Independent Contractor Rule