Alert: Register for FortneyScott's Next Webinar - EEOC Under The Trump Administration: What Employers Need to Know

EEOC Substantially Revises Key Components of its COVID-19 Guidance

July 18, 2022

OVERVIEW: EEOC quietly revised its COVID -19 guidance on July 12, 2022. In its latest update the Commission clarifies its view on several important issues for employers, announcing that the agency will apply pre-pandemic interpretations of ADA and Sections 503 standards to COVID-19 viral screening testing of employees which had been relaxed in response to the pandemic. These changes impact how employers must respond to pandemic-related issues making it even more challenging for employers who are grappling with reopening offices in the midst of another surge.


EEOC Guidance on COVID-19 Guidance

 

EEOC issued technical assistance guidance to provide answers to questions that frequently arise in the workplace during a pandemic beginning in March 2020. Since that time, EEOC has periodically updated What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws in response to new and emerging legal issues.

 

Here are some key takeaways from EEOC’s most recent update:

 

Major Changes involve Testing

 

  • Mandatory viral testing must meet the business necessity standard.  EEOC had previously permitted employers to mandate COVID-19 viral testing as a screening measure, without requiring any additional showing. Due to changes in the pandemic EEOC will now apply its a pre-pandemic ADA standard that viral testing be job related and consistent with business necessity. Employer mandated viral testing will meet the “business necessity” standard, according to the revised guidance, so long as it is consistent with the guidance from the CDC, DFA or state/local public health authorities current at the time of testing. (EEOC Guidance A.6 and G.1)
  • Employers are prohibited from requiring antibody testing.  Employers cannot require their employees to undergo antibody testing as a condition to reenter the workplace. Based on the CDC guidance, EEOC reasons that since an antibody test may not show whether or not an employee has a current infection or is immune to infection employer mandated antibody testing cannot meet the “business necessity” standard. (EEOC Guidance A.7)
  • Pre-employment screening must comply with existing ADA standards. Once an employer has made a conditional job offer it may screen job applicants for symptoms of COVID-19, so long as the employer screens all entering employees performing the same type of job. An employer may also screen all applicants at the pre-offer stage if the employer is screening everyone (employee, applicant, contractor or visitor) entering the worksite for COVID-19 before permitting entry. (EEOC Guidance C.1)

 

Return to Workplace Clarifications

 

  • Pandemic may cause excusable delays employers’ reasonable accommodation process. EEOC had previously acknowledged that circumstances surrounding the pandemic may interfere with employers responding expeditiously to an employee’s request for accommodation. In the recent update, EEOC notes that evolving circumstances, including, an onslaught of reasonable accommodation requests following an employer’s announcement of a return to the office, can justify delays in reasonable accommodation process and encourages employers to find interim solutions to keep employees working. (EEOC Guidance D.17)
  • Mandatory personal protective equipment & related infection control measures subject to reasonable accommodation. Employers are permitted to require workers to wear personal protective equipment and observe other infection control practices so long as they engage in the reasonable accommodation process with workers who requests reasonable accommodation due to disability or religious accommodation. (EEOC Guidance G.2)
  • Examples of reasonable accommodations that may reduce direct threat. The guidance provides examples of reasonable accommodations that could be deployed during the pandemic in order to reduce the direct threat to the employee or others in the workplace including enhanced protective gowns, masks, or gloves. Additionally, employers should consider enhanced protective measures like HEPA filtration systems; erecting barriers between employee and others; telework or other modifications of work schedules. (EEOC Guidance G.5)
  • Providing information about employers’ accommodation process to all employees. It is a best practice for employers to provide information on their reasonable accommodations process for disability and accommodations due to sincerely held religious beliefs prior to returning to the office (EEOC Guidance G.6) and to provide additional flexibility for older workers as the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age. (EEOC Guidance H.1)

 

Ability to Cancel Job Offers

 

  • Limited circumstances in which a job offer may be lawfully rescinded.  If a newly hired employee tests positive, has symptoms or has been exposed to COVID-19, an employer can rescind their job offer if they need the new employee to start immediately and that employee would be in close proximity to others, whether at the workplace or elsewhere. (EEOC Guidance C.4)
  • Job offers may not be withdrawn because of concerns about increased risk. Employers may not postpone the start date or withdraw a job offer due to concerns that the individual is older, pregnant, or has an underlying medical condition that puts the individual at increased risk from COVID-19. (EEOC Guidance C.5)


EEOC Guidance Continues to Support Vaccinations

 

  • Mandatory vaccinations are still acceptable. The guidance reiterates that employers are permitted to require that their employees be vaccinated and to require employees to provide documentation of their vaccination, subject to reasonable accommodation and confidentiality requirements. (EEOC Guidance K.1, 4, 5)
  • No limit on employer incentives for voluntary vaccinations administered by unaffiliated health-care provider. Presumably in an effort to eliminate any ongoing confusion caused by the Commission’s continued delay in issuing a new Wellness rule, the guidance states clearly that there is no limit on the incentives (including both rewards and penalties) that an employer may provide to employees who voluntarily receive a COVID-19 vaccination, from a health care provider that is not affiliated with the employer. (EEOC Guidance K.16)

 

Next Steps

 

The updated Guidance requires employers to walk a fine line as they work on returning their workforces to the workplace.  Feel free to reach out to any of the FortneyScott attorneys with questions.

February 22, 2025
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
February 20, 2025
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
The False Claims Act and
February 18, 2025
The False Claims Act and "Illegal DEI": What Federal Contractors Need to Know. Join Nita Beecher, Sarah Mugmon, and Adriana Joens to discuss the following questions.
February 7, 2025
On February 5, 2025, six Plaintiffs (the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU); The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA); and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Labor (DOL), Labor’s Acting Secretary Vince Micone, the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing DOL’s information systems and the sensitive data therein concerning both federal employees and private citizens. The complaint explains how DOGE, sanctioned only by Executive Order 14158 (Establishing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency), functions as a network of DOGE-related offices, teams, and roles overseen by Elon Musk within the Executive Office of the President and implanted within each federal agency. The complaint describes DOGE’s pattern as overtaking federal agencies without statutory authority, seizing their information systems, threatening career civil servants’ resistance with adverse employment action, and unilaterally dismantling or restructuring the agencies. As DOL is DOGE’s next posited target, plaintiffs seek to prevent DOGE from unlawfully accessing DOL’s sensitive information systems, including such systems maintained and managed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Claims Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These systems include medical information, financial information, and personnel information, as well as the identities of anonymous whistleblowers. Plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions are unconstitutional because DOGE lacks lawful authority to either direct agency actions or access statutorily restricted government systems. Rather, DOGE’s function is limited to advising and assisting the President. Plaintiff’s claims mostly arise under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects individuals harmed by “arbitrary and capricious” final agency actions and provides court intervention when such harm occurs. Specifically, Plaintiffs accuse DOL of unlawfully threatening federal employees with termination, violating information privacy statutes by instructing and disclosing confidential and private records, creating new rules without meeting “notice and comment” requirements, and abusing its discretion. As relief, Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare DOGE’s access to DOL’s systems as unlawful. Plaintiffs also request a Court order forbidding DOL from granting DOGE access to DOL’s systems, taking adverse personnel action against employees who refuse providing DOGE with unlawful access, and providing non-public DOL information to any person with a conflict of interest. This is the first complaint filed challenging DOGE’s access to sensitive government information systems.
February 7, 2025
On February 3, 2025, four plaintiffs (the National Association of Diverse Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland) jointly filed a complaint challenging EO 14151 (“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). The complaint does not challenge the revocation of 11246 yet addresses the legality of §§3-4 of EO 14173. The complaint alleges that EO 14173 is unconstitutional on various grounds and seeks a court order overturning the EO. With respect to EO 14173, the complaint alleges that §3 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By threatening FCA enforcement against federal contractors and grantees who certify that they do not operate undefined “programs promoting DEI,” plaintiffs allege that §3 chills the expression of or participation in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives. Plaintiffs also alleges that §3 violates separation of powers because it empowers the executive branch, rather than Congress, to control federal funding based on whether contractors or grantees operate “programs promoting DEI.” As for §4 of EO 14173, the complaint alleges that it likewise violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by threatening civil investigation and “deterrence” against anyone who expresses support for undefined “illegal DEI.” Furthermore, because §4 is vague with respect to terms (e.g., “illegal DEIA and DEIA policies”) and the criteria for selecting which organizations are subject to investigation or enforcement actions, plaintiffs also allege §4 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We anticipate additional plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits related to EO 14173 are forthcoming.
FortneyScott Webinar - Managing DEI Under Trump's Executive Orders
February 6, 2025
Join David Fortney, Elizabeth Bradley, and Nita Beecher as they discuss the practical implications of how employers respond to the new prohibitions on “illegal DEI,” including:
Show More
February 22, 2025
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
February 20, 2025
There have been significant changes at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) during President Trump’s first four weeks in office, as part of the widespread changes at federal agencies. To learn the latest EEOC developments, join FortneyScott’s next webinar on February 25, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern) as the latest in FortneyScott’s ongoing series of webinar s and podcasts that provide employers with the latest information on the key Trump Administration changes. Register here . In this webinar , FortneyScott’s highly experienced attorneys, including David Fortney, Leslie Silverman (former Vice Chair of EEOC), and Nita Beecher, will discuss the practical implications for employers due to the latest changes at EEOC, including: Impact of President Trump’s unprecedented personnel actions resulting in a lack of a quorum; Response of Acting Chair Andrea Lucas to President Trump’s Executive Orders; Likely focus of the EEOC under the Trump Administration; and, Impact on EEOC of the Trump Administration’s efforts to secure reversal of the Supreme Court’s seminal Humphrey’s Estate decision. Click here to register for this important and timely free webinar on Tuesday, February 25, 2025, from 12 noon to 1:00pm (Eastern).
The False Claims Act and
February 18, 2025
The False Claims Act and "Illegal DEI": What Federal Contractors Need to Know. Join Nita Beecher, Sarah Mugmon, and Adriana Joens to discuss the following questions.
February 7, 2025
On February 5, 2025, six Plaintiffs (the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO); The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE); The American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO (AFSCME); Service Employees International Union, AFL-CIO (SEIU); The Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA); and Economic Policy Institute (EPI) filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Department of Labor (DOL), Labor’s Acting Secretary Vince Micone, the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) from accessing DOL’s information systems and the sensitive data therein concerning both federal employees and private citizens. The complaint explains how DOGE, sanctioned only by Executive Order 14158 (Establishing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency), functions as a network of DOGE-related offices, teams, and roles overseen by Elon Musk within the Executive Office of the President and implanted within each federal agency. The complaint describes DOGE’s pattern as overtaking federal agencies without statutory authority, seizing their information systems, threatening career civil servants’ resistance with adverse employment action, and unilaterally dismantling or restructuring the agencies. As DOL is DOGE’s next posited target, plaintiffs seek to prevent DOGE from unlawfully accessing DOL’s sensitive information systems, including such systems maintained and managed by the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Claims Administration, the Wage and Hour Division, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These systems include medical information, financial information, and personnel information, as well as the identities of anonymous whistleblowers. Plaintiffs allege that DOGE’s actions are unconstitutional because DOGE lacks lawful authority to either direct agency actions or access statutorily restricted government systems. Rather, DOGE’s function is limited to advising and assisting the President. Plaintiff’s claims mostly arise under the Administrative Procedure Act, which protects individuals harmed by “arbitrary and capricious” final agency actions and provides court intervention when such harm occurs. Specifically, Plaintiffs accuse DOL of unlawfully threatening federal employees with termination, violating information privacy statutes by instructing and disclosing confidential and private records, creating new rules without meeting “notice and comment” requirements, and abusing its discretion. As relief, Plaintiffs asked the Court to declare DOGE’s access to DOL’s systems as unlawful. Plaintiffs also request a Court order forbidding DOL from granting DOGE access to DOL’s systems, taking adverse personnel action against employees who refuse providing DOGE with unlawful access, and providing non-public DOL information to any person with a conflict of interest. This is the first complaint filed challenging DOGE’s access to sensitive government information systems.
February 7, 2025
On February 3, 2025, four plaintiffs (the National Association of Diverse Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Maryland) jointly filed a complaint challenging EO 14151 (“Ending Radical Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) and EO 14173 (“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity”). The complaint does not challenge the revocation of 11246 yet addresses the legality of §§3-4 of EO 14173. The complaint alleges that EO 14173 is unconstitutional on various grounds and seeks a court order overturning the EO. With respect to EO 14173, the complaint alleges that §3 violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. By threatening FCA enforcement against federal contractors and grantees who certify that they do not operate undefined “programs promoting DEI,” plaintiffs allege that §3 chills the expression of or participation in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility initiatives. Plaintiffs also alleges that §3 violates separation of powers because it empowers the executive branch, rather than Congress, to control federal funding based on whether contractors or grantees operate “programs promoting DEI.” As for §4 of EO 14173, the complaint alleges that it likewise violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by threatening civil investigation and “deterrence” against anyone who expresses support for undefined “illegal DEI.” Furthermore, because §4 is vague with respect to terms (e.g., “illegal DEIA and DEIA policies”) and the criteria for selecting which organizations are subject to investigation or enforcement actions, plaintiffs also allege §4 violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. We anticipate additional plaintiffs filing similar lawsuits related to EO 14173 are forthcoming.
FortneyScott Webinar - Managing DEI Under Trump's Executive Orders
February 6, 2025
Join David Fortney, Elizabeth Bradley, and Nita Beecher as they discuss the practical implications of how employers respond to the new prohibitions on “illegal DEI,” including:
January 30, 2025
Yesterday, Fortney & Scott launched the first in a series of webinars to provide employers with valuable information about President Trump’s actions that significantly impact the workplace.
FortneyScott Webinar - Rescission of EO 11246
January 28, 2025
FortneyScott presents one of a series of webinars regarding Trump's Executives Orders, specifically, the revocation of EO 11246.
January 25, 2025
In an anticipated move, the Department of Labor halted enforcement of anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action programs (AAPs) for federal contractors, following an Order from the Acting Secretary of Labor, Vincent Micone.
David Fortney quoted in CNN article addressing President Trump's order
January 23, 2025
Former President Donald Trump has revoked a nearly 60-year-old executive order, originally signed by President Lyndon Johnson, that prohibited government contractors.
More Posts
Share by: