Are You Responsible for “Take Home” Covid?

January 14, 2022 at 9:23 am Leave a comment

Although the decision by the Supreme Court to block OSHA’s implementation of an emergency vaccine mandate/ testing requirement for businesses with 100 or more employees has understandably gotten a lot of attention, all employers should remain mindful of their ongoing responsibility to ensure a safe workplace during the pandemic. A case pending in California demonstrates precisely what I am talking about.

Rose Gomez vs LOGIX Federal Credit Union, et al. involves a credit union employee who is suing the credit union for negligently protecting its employees against Covid resulting in the death of her relative after she contracted the virus. The plaintiff alleges that despite the known risks of Coronavirus spreading after the declaration of local, state, and national emergencies, the Credit Union continued to group employees close together. This case and another in California dealing with a closely related issue are being scrutinized nationally as courts begin to examine employer responsibilities in responding to the pandemic.

Among the issues that are being litigated in New York and other states are the extent to which Worker’s Compensation laws block employees from making claims such as the one being brought against the California credit union and the extent to which these laws also shield employers against the claims of third parties who claim to have been made ill after an employee “took home the Coronavirus.”

And of course because New York is New York there are increased legislative and regulatory requirements of which New York credit unions should be aware. As I have explained in previous blogs, New York’s HERO Act mandates that employers promulgate baseline protocols in response to airborne infectious diseases and authorizes employees to sue over the violation of these protocols.

In other words, if you think yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court made your life easier you are sadly mistaken. Employers have an ongoing obligation to respond to the Covid pandemic and the courts will be defining the contours of those obligations for years to come.

Entry filed under: COVID-19, HR, Legal Watch, New York State, Regulatory. Tags: , , , , .

NCUA Dips Its Toes Into The cryptocurrency Waters NCUA, Gov Hochul Outline Key Spending, Supervisory Priorities

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Authored By:

Henry Meier, Esq., Senior Vice President, General Counsel, New York Credit Union Association.

The views Henry expresses are Henry’s alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Association. In addition, although Henry strives to give his readers useful and accurate information on a broad range of subjects, many of which involve legal disputes, his views are not a substitute for legal advise from retained counsel.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 757 other followers

Archives


%d bloggers like this: