applicable large employers

Despite Supreme Court Vaccine Mandate Defeat, OSHA Still has Authority to Regulate COVID-19 Workplace Safety

The major headlines about the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and COVID-19 over the last few weeks have all been focused on the fact that on January 13, 2022, the United States Supreme Court blocked OSHA’s vaccine mandate for employers with 100-plus employees. On January 25, 2022, OSHA officially withdrew the mandate.

But that doesn’t mean that OSHA has no role in enforcing workplace safety in connection with COVID-19. A stark reminder of OSHA’s enduring enforcement powers is a recent case in which significant fines were proposed by OSHA against an Ohio-based auto supplier because it failed to follow its own policies and federal guidance related to COVID-19 health and safety protocols.

OSHA’s Investigation and Allegations

According to a January 14, 2022, news release from OSHA, a complaint was lodged against the auto supplier alleging that it ignored guidelines to limit employee exposure to COVID-19 and that several employees became sick. OSHA then launched an investigation.

During its first inspection of the facility, OSHA found that 65 employees had tested positive for COVID-19. A few days later, 88 had tested positive. Five employees were hospitalized and two died, and OSHA determined that at least one of the deaths was work-related.

While investigators determined that the company issued a corporate-wide social distancing policy in March 2020 and trained employees in May 2020 on precautions for returning to work that included social distancing and mask wearing, OSHA found that the company did not adhere to these policies during the COVID-19 outbreak and OSHA inspection.

OSHA cited the company and proposed penalties of $26,527.

Implication for Employers

Given that we have now been dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic for two years, employers (and their employees) are understandably fatigued and finding it difficult to remain vigilant in terms of maintaining COVID-19 safety protocols. Many welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling blocking OSHA from enforcing its large employer vaccine mandate. However, it’s important for employers to remember that OSHA—as well as other federal, state and local regulatory authorities—are still investigating violations of safety protocols, and levying penalties when appropriate.

Indeed, as demonstrated by the Ohio auto supplier case described above, OSHA still has the authority to regulate workplace safety—notwithstanding the Supreme Court’s ruling. OSHA’s authority derives from several provisions of federal law, including 29 C.F.R. § 1910.132-140 (Personal Protective Equipment), 29 C.F.R. § 1904 (Recording and Reporting Occupational Injuries and Illnesses), and 29 U.S.C.A. § 654 (General Duty Clause).

Accordingly, vigilance remains essential. If your business hasn’t audited its COVID-19 protocol compliance recently, or is uncertain of its obligations, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Elizabeth H. Latchana specializes in employee health and welfare benefits. Recognized for her outstanding legal work, in both 2019 and 2015, Beth was selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in Lansing for Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law by Best Lawyers, and in 2017 as one of the Top 30 “Women in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Contact her for more information on this reminder or other matters at 517.377.0826 or elatchana@fraserlawfirm.com.

Lauren D. Harrington is an associate attorney at Fraser Trebilcock focusing on Employment Law. You can reach her at 517.377.0874, or email her at lharrington@fraserlawfirm.com.

Client Alert: SCOTUS Rules on Vaccine Mandate – OSHA’s Mandate Stricken; CMS Mandate Upheld

New Deadlines for Compliance Have Been Announced

On Thursday, January 13, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States released opinions on the much anticipated vaccine mandate litigation. As discussed in our previous blog posts, late last year the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the Center for Medicaid and Medicare Services (CMS) published two different vaccine mandates to respond to everlasting Covid-19 pandemic. OSHA’s mandate required all private employers of 100+ to enforce Covid-19 vaccinations on employees OR require them to wear a mask and test weekly. (OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard.) CMS’ mandate subjected virtually all health care workers who work for providers and suppliers that participate in the Medicaid and Medicare programs to a Covid-19 vaccination requirement, allowing for religious and medical exemptions. (CMS Interim Final Rule: Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination.) Both mandates were challenged by conservative states resulting in a rollercoaster of litigation prohibiting and then again permitting enforcement. Just before SCOTUS heard the cases on January 7, 2022, the OSHA mandate had been validated by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and OSHA had set new dates for enforcement to begin just a few days later. The CMS mandate, however, had been prohibited in 25 states and ordered eligible for enforcement in the other 25, District of Columbia, and US territories with deadlines for compliance of Phase 1 implementation set for January 27, 2022 and of Phase 2 implementation for February 28, 2022. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court released its decisions, and here is what you should know:

In the case of National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor, the Supreme Court issued a stay on OSHA’s vaccine mandate, putting an indefinite hold on implementation and enforcement of the rule while its validity is challenged at the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In the per curiam opinion, the court held: “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.” While this is not necessarily a final rule, it is almost impossible to foresee any difference in an outcome. The Supreme Court’s stay is a temporary halt as the merits are decided by the Sixth Circuit. However, even if the Sixth Circuit determines that the rule is valid, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court who has just expressed where it stands. Unless Congress takes any action, it will fall on states and employers to develop their own vaccine mandates and safety measures to combat Covid-19 in private workspaces.

Opposite to this defeat, the Biden administration received a victory with CMS’ health care worker vaccine mandate. In Biden v. Missouri, the Supreme Court by a 5-4 decision stayed the preliminary injunctions from the Eastern District of Missouri and the Western District of Louisiana, allowing the implementation and enforcement of the mandate in all jurisdictions except for Texas. Texas initiated its own litigation separate from the injunctions protecting the other 24 states and the Supreme Court’s ruling did not affect its current status. Considering the overwhelming support from health care workers and public health organizations, the court stated that “their support suggests that a vaccination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the health and safety regulations that Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose. We accordingly conclude that the Secretary did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the facilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their employees be vaccinated against COVID–19.” As with the OSHA decision, this decision too is not a final rule but is unlikely to change once litigation on the merits proceeds through court channels.

As has been announced by several news articles quoting CMS officials today, the deadline to come into compliance (where employees are fully vaccinated) remains the same for the 24 states and D.C. not protected by the Missouri and Louisiana injunctions (including Michigan), which is February 28, 2022. As for the other 24 states (Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming), health care facilities are required to have their staff fully vaccinated by March 15, 2022.

As deadlines approach, health care employers should consult with counsel as quickly as possible to establish the policies and procedures necessary to meet the rule’s requirements. Vaccinations are the pinnacle of the mandate, but there is work needed to facilitate reaching that goal.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Client Alert: Delay of Deadline to Furnish Forms 1095-B and 1095-C to Individuals

Statements to Individuals

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has extended the deadline for 2019 Information Reporting by employers (and other entities) to individuals under Internal Revenue Code sections 6055 and 6056 by just over a month. However, the deadline for these entities to file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) remains the same.

IRS Notice 2019-63 extends the due dates for the following 2019 information reporting Forms from January 31, 2020 to March 2, 2020:

2019 Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage
2019 Form 1095-B, Health Coverage

Please note that no further extension beyond the March 2, 2020 deadline is allowed. Therefore, this deadline for furnishing the Forms to individuals must be met.

Reporting to IRS

However, the due dates for filing these Forms and their Transmittals with the IRS remains unchanged. Specifically, the due date for filing the following documents with the IRS is February 28, 2020 for paper filings; however, if filing electronically, the due date is March 31, 2020 (employers who are required to file 250 or more Forms must file electronically):

2019 Form 1094-B, Transmittal of Health Coverage Information Returns, and the 2019 Form 1095-B, Health Coverage
2019 Form 1094-C, Transmittal of Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage Information Returns, and the
2019 Form 1095-C, Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage

Additional extensions may still be available for filing these Forms with the IRS.

Good-Faith Transition Relief

IRS Notice 2019-63 also extends the good-faith transition relief from Code section 6721 and 6722, which are the Code sections imposing penalties for filing incorrect or incomplete information on the return or statement. Specifically, entities showing that they have made good faith efforts to comply may avoid penalties for incorrect or incomplete information reporting. However, relief is not available to entities who fail to file returns or furnish the statements, miss a deadline, or otherwise had not made good faith efforts to comply. The Notice states that in determining good faith, the IRS “will take into account whether an employer or other coverage provider made reasonable efforts to prepare for reporting the required information to the Service and furnishing it to employees and covered individuals, such as gathering and transmitting the necessary data to an agent to prepare the data for submission to the Service or testing its ability to transmit information to the Service.”

Penalty Relief for Form 1095-B Statement to Responsible Individuals

Last, the Notice addresses that as the individual shared responsibility payment was reduced to zero for months beginning after December 31, 2018, the IRS and Department of Treasury are continuing to analyze if and how the section 6055 reporting requirements should change in the future. Comments are requested. However, because an individual will not need the information on Form 1095-B to compute his or her federal tax liability or to file an income tax return with the IRS, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that relief from penalties associated with furnishing a statement under section 6055 is appropriate. Therefore, the IRS will not assess a penalty under section 6722 against reporting entities who fail to furnish a Form 1095-B to responsible individuals if two conditions are met:

First, the reporting entity posts a notice prominently on its website stating that responsible individuals may receive a copy of their 2019 Form 1095-B upon request, accompanied by an email address and a physical address to which a request may be sent, as well as a telephone number that responsible individuals can use to contact the reporting entity with any questions.
Second, the reporting entity furnishes a 2019 Form 1095-B to any responsible individual upon request within 30 days of the date the request is received.

This relief does not extend to the requirement that applicable large employers (ALEs) must furnish Forms 1095-C to full-time employees, whether or not self-insured health plans. Those statements must continue to be provided. However, the penalty relief will apply to employees enrolled in an ALE’s self-insured health plan who are not full-time employees for any month of 2019.

You can find the full Notice here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-19-63.pdf.

If you should have questions regarding employer reporting requirements or other ACA mandates, the Employee Benefits Department at Fraser Trebilcock can assist.