California Order Reinforces Need to Comply with Ongoing COVID-19 Employee Protections

01 March 2021 Blog
Authors: Angelica L. Novick
Published To: Labor & Employment Law Perspectives Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business

About a year into the pandemic, the California Labor Commissioner recently imposed fines on a Los Angeles fast food franchisee.  In doing so, the commissioner determined that the franchisee fired four employees after the employees reported they feared exposure to COVID-19 due to unsafe working conditions.  According to a press release, before their terminations, the employees reported their concerns to their employer and to the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health and the Los Angeles County Health Department.  The employees had also participated in strikes related to the safety of their working conditions at the franchisee, and claimed that they were fired shortly after those strikes. 

The California Labor Commissioner’s office reported that it issued citations totaling $126,913 in wages and penalties against the franchisee.  Those citations also named the franchisee’s individual owners, along with the franchisee’s human resources officer as jointly and severally liable.  The citations include over $45,000 in lost wages and interest, and $80,000 in retaliation penalties under California labor law.  The franchisee was also ordered to reinstate the four employees, to remove any negative references from their personnel files, and to post information about the citations and violations inside the workplace. 

As we have written about here and here, California, like many states, has implemented strong worker protection rules in response to the pandemic.  In September 2020, the California legislature passed A.B. 685, which imposes stricter COVID-19 reporting standards for employers than the current federal government guidelines (including the requirement that employers notify potentially infected workers within one business day of their potential workplace exposure).  A.B. 685 also requires employers to have a disinfection safety plan on hand in case of multiple infections in the same workplace.  Also passed in September of 2020, A.B. 1867 requires employers with 500 or more California employees to provide supplemental paid sick leave to each worker who contracts COVID-19 if such employee cannot work remotely.  Finally, S.B. 1159, another recently passed law, creates a legal presumption that an employee who contracts COVID-19 suffered an occupational injury that qualifies the employee for workers’ compensation benefits.  

Although there looks to be a light at the end of the pandemic tunnel, employers should keep abreast of the legal requirements in places where they operate and consult with trusted legal counsel should any compliance questions arise.

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

Insights

Review of Recent Whistleblower Developments
30 July 2021
Legal News: Whistleblower Developments
$4.24M Now the Average Cost Per Data Breach!
30 July 2021
Internet, IT & e-Discovery Blog
Podcast Episode 56: All Things Summer Associate Recruiting
30 July 2021
Foley Career Perspectives
Foley Podcast to Live Panel Discussion
29 July 2021
Foley Career Perspectives
30th Annual Law of Product Distribution & Franchise Seminar
29 September | 7 & 20 October 2021
Milwaukee | Chicago | Dallas
7th National Telehealth Summit
4-5 October 2021
Miami Beach, FL
AHLA Fraud & Compliance Forum
21-22 September 2021
Baltimore, MD
2nd Clinical Trial Agreements Forum
16-17 September 2021
Online Livestream