Revised Michigan COVID-19 Health Order Re-institutes Business, Gathering Restrictions

16 November 2020 Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business Blog
Authors: Steven H. Hilfinger Robert Nederhood Felicia S. O'Connor Kenneth A. Johnson

On Sunday November 15th, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer announced an extensive set of new restrictions aimed at slowing the spread of COVID-19 in the state. The Gatherings and Face Mask Order (the “Order”), issued by Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (“MDHHS”), reinstates numerous protocols first implemented by the Governor through executive order earlier in the year. The order takes effect at 12:00 a.m. Wednesday, November 18th and remains in force through December 8th.

In her Sunday evening press conference, Governor Whitmer stressed that the Order was being implemented in hopes of avoiding more restrictive “Stay at Home” orders like those issued throughout the spring.  Nonetheless, with a record 8,516 new in-state cases identified on November 13th and over 3,000 Michiganders currently hospitalized, the Order contains some of the most restrictive provisions seen in months. Under the Order: 

  • Face masks must continue to be worn in public and at all gatherings; 
  • Employers, including those in manufacturing, must continue to adhere to the MIOSHA workplace safety requirements, which apply to workplace gatherings (including in-person work), issued on October 14, 2020; MIOSHA has announced stepped up enforcement (described below); the MIOSHA requirements state that in-person work is prohibited to the extent the work can “feasibly” be completed remotely, which is generally interpreted as requiring employees to work remotely unless it is impossible to perform the work remotely; 
  • High schools, colleges, and universities must move to distance learning (middle and elementary schools may continue ongoing in-person learning operations);
  • Indoor gatherings are limited to 10 people from no more than two households;
  • Outdoor gatherings and funerals are limited to no more than 25 people; 
  • Businesses must deny entry or service to all persons refusing to wear face masks while gathered (subject to a number of exceptions); 
  • Theaters, moving theaters, stadiums, arcades, bowling centers, ice skating rinks and indoor water parks must be closed;
  • Group fitness classes are prohibited; 
  • Exercise facilities, personal care businesses, and businesses that provide in-home services must maintain records of patrons’ names, date and time of entry, and contact information to aid with COVID-19 contact tracing; and 
  • Retail stores, libraries, and museums must not exceed 30% of total occupancy limits, and exercise facilities must not exceed 25% of a total occupancy limit established by the State or local fire marshal. 

The Order replaces an earlier October 29th MDHHS order containing less-restrictive gathering prohibitions, face covering requirements, and reporting protocols for confirmed and probable COVID-19 cases at schools.  As with the earlier October 29th order, non-compliance with the Order is punishable by a fine of up to $1000 for each violation or day that a violation continues. 

On Monday, November 16, 2020 MIOSHA further clarified in a Webinar and Q&A event that it intends to perform random pro-active inspections with an emphasis on office settings.  Upon inspection, the MIOSHA investigator will require companies to provide their written COVID preparedness and response plan which must include an analysis of any positions that perform work in person, and a justification for the in-person work.

The Order also contains an extensive explanation of the statutory authority under which MDHHS is authorized to issue pandemic directives. In the past several weeks a number of lawsuits have been filed alleging that MDHHS orders constitute government overreach – similar to the Governor’s executive orders invalidated by the Michigan Supreme Court in October. In issuing its recent orders, MDHHS is relying on different statutory authority than that relied upon by the Governor for issuing executive orders earlier in the year. Under the Michigan Public Health Code (MCL 333.1291 et. seq.) enacted following the 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic, MDHHS is statutorily authorized to “prohibit the gathering of people” and “establish procedures” during a pandemic or similar public health emergency. More broadly, under MCL 333.2226(d), MDHHS may “[e]xercise authority and promulgate rules to safeguard properly the public health; to prevent the spread of diseases and the existence of sources of contamination; and to implement and carry out the powers and duties vested by law in the department.” Regardless, it would not be surprising to see litigation filed challenging this exercise of authority by the MDHHS, in light of the Supreme Court’s recently articulated views on delegation of authority.  

Companies in all sectors of the economy continue to be impacted by COVID-19. Foley is here to help our clients effectively address the short- and long-term impacts on their business interests, operations, and objectives. Foley provides insights and strategies across multiple industries and disciplines to deliver timely perspectives on the wide range of legal and business challenges that companies face conducting business while dealing with the impact of the coronavirus. Click here to stay up to date and ahead of the curve with our key publications addressing today’s challenges and tomorrow’s opportunities. To receive this content directly in your inbox, click here and submit the form.

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.

Related Services