Employers Are in a Dicey Situation as Coronavirus Spreads. Here's What Lawyers Suggest
Employers must learn all they can about employees' exposure as the coronavirus spreads, while also taking into account privacy restrictions under HIPAA.
March 16, 2020 at 05:03 PM
4 minute read
Employers face a Catch-22.
On the one hand, they could be liable for retaining employees who infect others with coronavirus.
And on the other, they must maintain the privacy of staff's medical and other health information under federal law.
So what's the best way to comply, and safeguard businesses and employees?
Here's what lawyers suggest.
HIPAA and negligent retention
Negligent retention occurs if an employer retains an employee whose actions could be harmful to the other employees. There are ways to uncover pertinent information relating to employee safety, but the potential for violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act makes it imperative to exercise caution when obtaining and acting on it.
In other words, the employer must keep staff safe, while taking into account privacy restrictions under HIPAA.
That's important because when it comes to assigning blame, the law considers what the employer knew.
For instance, if the staff member fails to disclose that he or she has an illness, or doesn't exhibit any symptoms, then the employer is likely not liable for an infection that this worker spreads to other, advises Jezabel P. Lima, a partner of Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider + Grossman in Miami, who specializes in labor and employment law.
Lima cites to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, saying an employer does not have a duty to take the temperatures of their staff. It is all based on what the employer knows or should reasonably know.
"if an employee calls out sick and they tell you, 'I had a fever and my throat is bothering me,' and they call out that day, and the next day that employee shows up to the office, now you can see where you can have a situation where you potentially have a negligent retention on your hands," Lima said.
'We're not doctors'
With the COVID-19 epidemic, attorneys say businesses have a heightened duty to determine whether to direct staff to stay at home.
"We're not doctors," Lima said. "It comes back to: Did we make an appropriate investigation?"
Part of that investigation could involve the use of a pre-aggressive confidential questioning to guide the employer's actions, advises Juan Enjamio, a partner at Hunton Andrews Kurth.
Pre-aggressive confidential questioning allows the firm to identify if a person had contact with a known coronavirus carrier, or with someone who's been exposed to the virus.
"The employer still has to be very careful to maintain the privacy of employee health information," Enjamio said. "Whatever the employer learns cannot be communicated to anyone else, except on an absolute need-to-know basis."
Beyond questioning, employers should be mindful of the latest information on the medical and legal landscape. Authoritative sources in the public health arena can help a company or corporation align its policies on the coronavirus pandemic with the latest official recommendations.
The Florida Department of Health reported 137 cases and four deaths from coronavirus in the state as of Monday. And the number of cases and deaths in the United States is rising, according to the CDC, which Sunday recommended limiting gatherings to no more than 50 people for the next eight weeks.
Attorney Enjamio advises his clients to stay abreast of the latest announcements from public health agencies. He also recommends they remain mindful of measures by local and state governments. For instance, Miami Beach and Fort Lauderdale are closing public beaches and non-essential business by 10 p.m. withing their cities, while Miami-Dade made a countywide rule that forces bars, restaurants and nightclubs to close at 11 p.m., starting Monday.
"The regulatory and legal landscape of laws being passed are changing," Enjamio said. "You have to keep up with that because it is changing rapidly."
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Brought Under NYC Gender Violence Law, Ruling Claims Barred Under State Measure
No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
5 minute readSecond DCA Greenlights USF Class Certification on COVID-19 College Tuition Refunds
3 minute readFlorida Law Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250