ニュースレター

2020-12-16
ニュースを通して振り返る2020年
今年も残すところ、約2週間。早かったような早くなかったような不思議な年でしたが、雇用主・HR担当者の方におかれましては、コロナウィルス関連で様々な対応を迫られる非常に難しい一年だったことと思います。ですので、2020年はコロナ一色の一年と思われがちですが、実はそれ以外にもHRに関わる方が気にしておくべきニュースもたくさんありました。そこで今回はニュースを通して、HRの観点から2020年を振り返る機会にさせて頂きたいと思います。


【1月】23日、中国・武漢市は新型コロナウィルスの感染拡大を防ぐ為、公共交通機関を一時閉鎖。この時点で、日本やアメリカを含む複数の国で感染者を確認。
⇒アメリカでも感染者が確認され始めた当初は、ここまでの騒ぎに発展すると思っていなかった方も多いと思います。本記事執筆時点での全世界の累計感染者数は約7300万人、アメリカでも1700万人に迫る勢いです。感染拡大の状況を考えると、雇用主として従業員や従業員のご家族、また取引先などの方々が感染しない対策をとることはもちろんですが、感染してしまった場合の対応策についても、関連法に遵守した社内ルールを決めておくべき状況です。いつ誰が感染してもおかしくない状況が眼前にあります。


【1月】ハリウッドの元映画プロデューサーであるハーヴィー・ワインスタイン被告の性的暴行疑惑をめぐる刑事裁判で、新たに被害を訴え出た女優のアナベラ・シオラさんが証言台に立ち、被害について述べた。
⇒ワインスタイン被告に対して、80人以上の女性が被害を訴え出たことで、これまで泣き寝入りをしていた女性の「#MeToo」ムーブメントのきっかけになりました。ワインスタイン被告は今年の3月に禁錮23年の実刑判決が下され、弱い立場であった方々が被害を訴え出ることができる社会に変化してきています。イリノイ州でも今年の1月からセクシャルハラスメント防止研修の実施が義務化されるなど、セクシャルハラスメントをはじめとした各種ハラスメントの行為者はどんな地位にあれ、絶対に許容されないことが明確に示されてきています。雇用主は従業員をハラスメントから守る義務があり、従業員が安心して勤務できる職場づくりをすることがこれまで以上に求められています。


【2月】新型コロナウィルスによるアメリカ国内初の死者を確認。イランで感染が拡大している事態も受け、イランへの渡航制限を拡大。
⇒この時点で出張ポリシーの作成に着手された雇用主の方は少なかったかもしれませんが、その後の感染拡大により、各雇用主が連邦法や州法を遵守した対応を求められることとなりました。パンデミックは突然やってきます。振り返ってみると、早めのポリシー作成の重要性を再認識させられる出来事でした。


【3月】3月中旬の1週間の失業保険の申請者が約330万人に。
⇒ 前月までの失業率は3.5%でアメリカの歴史の中でも低水準に推移していましたので、感染拡大のインパクトがいかに大きいものかがわかります。また、1982年に記録したこれまでの最大記録が約70万人の失業申請だったことを考えると、未曽有の危機という言葉も決して誇張表現ではありません。この時期に改めて「レイオフ」と「ファーロー」の違いについて学ばれた方もいるかと思います。このような状況下ではどのような経営判断をするにしても、差別行為とみなされるような判断を行っていないかを検討することが重要です。例えば、レイオフやファーローの対象者の判断基準に明確な根拠はありますか?意図せずとも、結果的に年齢、性別、人種などをベースに差別を行っていると判断されないような注意が必要です。


【4月】アマゾンが数万人規模の人材を新たに雇用することを発表。一方で感染予防が不十分とのクレームも。
⇒職務レベルにもよりますが、HR担当者の役割は日常の業務を行うのみではなく、経営層とのコミュニケーションをとりながら、戦略を練っていくことも重要な役割の一つです。大変な状況ではありますが、この時期に売上を伸ばす企業も存在します。今後の人事戦略の見直しを求められた担当者の方も少なくないと思います。また、雇用主は従業員が安全に働ける職場を提供する義務もありますので、マスク着用の義務、社内の清掃、従業員の責任範囲なども明確にしておく必要があります。


【5月】ミネソタ州でジョージ・フロイドさんの暴行死事件が発生。その後の全米各地での人種差別に対する抗議活動の引き金に。
⇒ 人種差別については、これまでも度々問題になってきましたが、殺害の状況がSNSで広まったこともあり、大変な騒動になりました。現場にいた警察官4名が懲戒処分になるなど、社会的にも許されない問題ですが、社内でも人種をベースにした差別は違法行為であり、排除すべきものです。近年、Diversity & Inclusionの分野が注目を集めています。関連法を遵守するのみではなく、積極的にこの課題に取り組むことで、優秀な人材の採用、離職率の低下、企業ブランドの向上に繋げている企業も多数あります。SHRM(人材マネジメント協会)でも、多様性のある職場が享受する利益として、創造性とイノベーションが生まれやすい効果を挙げています。


【6月】米国最高裁判所で性的指向や性自認を理由にした解雇は違法との判決が下る。
⇒この判決により、LGBTQを自認する方々が保護される対象と認められました。大方の予想を覆し、6対3の大差で違法判決が下り、大きなニュースとなりました。これにより、差別を禁止した1964年公民権法第七編、通称「タイトルセブン」の対象にLGBTQを自認する方が含まれることになり、一部の州で保護されることはありましたが、連邦法でも保護の対象になりました。Apple, Google, Facebookなどの大企業を含む多くの企業もこの判決を支持し、雇用主が従業員の権利を守る責任が法的にも発生することになりました。アメリカにとって、またこれまで不当に差別を受けていた方にとっても非常に大きな判決でした。


【7月】留学生のビザ規制が撤回になり、オンライン授業でも留学生の滞在が可能に。
⇒たった1週間での方針転換となりましたが、オンライン授業の留学生は不安な気持ちで過ごしたことと思います。6月下旬には、大統領令によりH-1B、H-2B、L-1, 一部のJ-1ビザの保持者やその配偶者と扶養家族の米国入国も一時停止されました。このように非移民ビザの方針は政府の判断で、急遽、変更になることも考えられますので、雇用主・HR担当者にとっては悩みの尽きない問題です。


【8月】ミシェル・オバマ前大統領夫人が軽度のうつにかかっていることを告白。
⇒2020年の様々な状況の変化により、真夜中に目が覚めたり、不安や重苦しさを感じていると述べています。新型コロナウィルスの感染拡大、人種差別問題、大統領選候補支持者同士の争いなど、皆様の中にも心が疲弊してしまったという方もいるかもしれません。今年は、社会状況の変化から、在宅勤務をする方が増えました。管理職の方からすれば、在宅勤務でもキッチリと仕事をこなしてくれる従業員は安心できるので、作業が進んでいるか心配な従業員よりコミュニケーションの回数が減ってしまうということがあるそうです。在宅勤務のデメリットの一つである「業務とプライベートの切り替えが難しい」という問題を考えると、思わぬ従業員がストレスを抱え込んでいるかもしれませんし、管理職者の方ご自身も、コロナ対策で様々な業務に追われストレスをためているかもしれません。ご自身の体調管理にも十分お気をつけ下さい。


【9月】カリフォルニア州を中心に大規模な山火事が発生。
⇒山火事の被害で広範囲の森林が消失し、不幸にも亡くなった方々もいました。今回の山火事はカリフォルニア州を中心に発生しましたが、悪天候や自然世災害は他の地域でも形を変えて発生するものです。寒波、地震、豪雨、竜巻などの自然災害が発生した時に、まず雇用主として行うべきは従業員の安全確保です。出社や避難の判断を雇用主が求められることになりますが、対策はされていますでしょうか?また、従業員の安全を確保した後には、「従業員が勤務できない場合の給与の支払いはどうするべきか?」という問題への対応も必要となりますので、ご準備されておくことをお勧めします。


【10月】トランプ大統領が新型コロナに感染。アメリカの21州でアウトブレイクが発生。
⇒トランプ大統領のコロナ感染は衝撃的なニュースでした。また、同時期に21州でアウトブレイクが発生した為、急遽、在宅勤務に切り替えたり、従業員の勤務方法の練り直しを求められた雇用主や担当者の方もいらっしゃいました。コロナ感染の問題のみではなく、アメリカでは州により法律や方針が異なる点が雇用主やHR担当者の判断や業務を複雑にします。また、場合によっては、より小さな括りの郡や市で対応が異なるため、州レベルのルールに従って対応を行っていても、不十分なケースもあり得ます。コロナ禍ではより頻繁な情報収集と検証が求められます。


【11月】バイデン氏が米大統領選挙戦に勝利。
⇒大統領選挙の結果を巡って、進行中の訴えもありますが、政権交代が迫っています。言うまでもなく、政権交代は米国民の生活だけではなく、日系企業のアメリカ国内でのビジネス展開においても大きな影響を及ぼします。新型コロナウィルス対策、人種問題、対日政策、貿易経済問題、環境問題、LGBTQの権利、移民政策など2021年も激動の年になることが予想されます。HR実務担当者レベルでは、ビザの手配、各種トレーニングの義務化、種々のコンプライアンス遵守など何かと対応を求められることになりそうです。


【12月】新型コロナウィルスのワクチン接種が開始に。
⇒ ワクチン関係の情報は、度々ニュースになってきましたが、年内に接種を開始し、来年1月には、最優先グループ以外の市民も接種。4月までには国全体に供給できる見通しと具体的なタイムラインが明らかになってきました。前向きなニュースで、効果が出ることを望むばかりですが、誰しもがワクチン接種が可能になると、雇用主が従業員に対してワクチン接種を義務化するか否かという難しい判断を求められることになります。従業員の体温の検温など、従来は許可されていなかった行為も特例で認められていることを考えると、雇用主がある程度の強制力を持って対応できるようになるかもしれませんが、そうなるとワクチンが体に合わない方の対応はどうするのか、宗教的な理由でワクチンが接種できない方の対応はどうするのかなど、従業員の病歴や宗教など非常にセンシティブな内容と絡んでくる恐れもあります。


スペースの関係で全てのニュースをご紹介することはできませんでしたが、皆様の記憶に残っているニュースはございましたでしょうか?来年も新型コロナ関連のニュースを中心に大きなニュースが頻発することはまず間違いありません。来年も弊社でもできる限り最新のHR関連情報をお届けして参りたいと思いますので、ご不明な点やご質問などございましたら、各営業担当までお気軽にご連絡下さい。本年もお世話になりまして、誠に有難うございました。各地で再び感染が拡大しておりますので、くれぐれもご自愛頂き、良い年をお迎え下さい。


Actus Consulting Group, Inc.
Midwest-South Regional Sales Manager
Akihiro Yamada, SHRM-SCP
2020-12-14
Covid-19 Vaccines and Workplace Challenges
Nathaniel M. Glasser and Jennifer Barna, Epstein Becker Green


As Covid-19 vaccines become widely available, employers will face a critical set of challenges, ranging from whether they can—or will want to—mandate all or some employees get vaccinated, to what liability may attach to mandating vaccination, and even whether the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) could require a vaccine program.
While uncommon, mandatory vaccination policies are not new. For example, many health-care employers have implemented mandatory flu vaccination programs to protect staff and patients. The size and scope of the current pandemic, coupled with the desire to swiftly return employees to the physical workplace, however, means that more employers across various industries will likely consider mandating that their employees receive a Covid-19 vaccine once one becomes available.
Employers need to stay ahead of workplace Covid-19 vaccine issues with awareness and planning, so they can adapt their policies to meet the moment. Following are several of the most common questions employers should be prepared to answer in considering Covid-19 vaccination programs.



Can (or should) employers require employees to receive the vaccine? If so, how should employers respond to employee objections about vaccination?

For employers with represented (unionized) workforces, a mandatory vaccination program may constitute a mandatory term and condition of employment, which the employer arguably could not unilaterally impose. Thus, these employers should review their rights under the applicable collective bargaining agreements (CBA) and, if the issue is not addressed, evaluate the breadth of the management rights provision. In any event, employers should consider discussing vaccination now with any unions to reach a written memorandum of understanding (MOU).
Absent an applicable CBA restricting an employer's decision to require a vaccine, employers may unilaterally implement mandatory Covid-19 vaccination programs, provided they accommodate certain employees who raise objections under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has not provided specific guidance related to a Covid-19 vaccine, employers can look to existing EEOC guidance: Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace and the Americans with Disabilities Act (originally drafted in response to H1N1, but updated for the Covid-19 pandemic), which addresses the need for employers to make reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs.
In that guidance, the EEOC notes that, even in a pandemic, employers cannot institute a blanket vaccination requirement without making exceptions for medical conditions or religious beliefs. Employees may be entitled to an exemption from a mandatory vaccination requirement based on an ADA disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. In each case, the employer must analyze whether it can provide a reasonable accommodation.
In the case of Covid-19, a reasonable accommodation could include telework or wearing a face mask or shield and physical distancing, or something else. In Horvath v. City of Leander, 946 F.3d 787 (5th Cir. Jan. 9, 2020), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that the two accommodations the defendant city offered to the firefighter plaintiff were reasonable: transfer to a position that did not require vaccination; or wear a respirator and other equipment while on duty, submit to testing for possible disease when warranted, and monitor and record his temperature.
Employers do not need to accommodate an employee's objections to a vaccination where doing so would impose an “undue hardship,” which might be hard to show if the employee can telework. But employers with frontline workers—doctors, nurses, first responders, and potentially even retail workers—likely will have an easier time proving that a request not to be vaccinated constitutes an undue hardship. Most of the existing case law on what constitutes an undue hardship comes in the context of patient care for health-care employers, where the risk of infecting vulnerable patients is significant. Courts may be more inclined to rule against mandatory vaccination policies in the office-space context.
Employers also should be aware of potential privacy and morale issues that could arise with a vaccine mandate. According to studies, more than one-third of Americans said they would refuse a Covid-19 vaccine if offered one. These results may be due in part to the anti-vaccination movement, but may also include individuals who typically trust the safety of vaccines but have specific concerns based on their perception of the speed with which the Covid-19 vaccine is being developed. Employers need to be sensitive to such concerns and the problems that could arise if a material portion of their workforce feels unsafe receiving a vaccine shortly after it becomes available.
Relatedly, employers will be required to maintain the privacy of vaccine and accommodation records of their employees. But, some potential solutions for accommodating employees who cannot or do not want to receive the vaccine—such as continued mask wearing, or schedule or seating changes—might inevitably lead employees to guess or assume who received the vaccine and who did not. In turn, those who did receive the vaccine might raise concerns about working in close proximity to employees they presume have not been vaccinated. It will likely make sense for employers to draft appropriate policies and procedures to avoid such issues, or to address them if they arise.



If an employer requires employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine, who should pay for it?

It appears that employers who want to require their employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine may not need to wrestle with the issue of who should pay the cost. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced a comprehensive plan to ensure that all Americans will have access to the Covid-19 vaccine at no cost when it becomes available. According to the report, CMS released an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period (IFC) establishing that any Covid-19 vaccine that receives Food and Drug Administration authorization will be covered under Medicare as a preventive vaccine at no cost to beneficiaries.
The IFC also implements provisions of the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that ensure swift coverage of a Covid-19 vaccine by most private health insurance plans without cost sharing from both in- and out-of-network providers during the course of the public health emergency.



What is the potential liability if an employer requires the vaccine, and the vaccine later causes health problems?

It is hard to predict the liability if an employer implements a mandatory vaccination policy, and the vaccine later demonstrates side effects, somehow causes other harm to an employee, or simply proves to be less effective than expected. Employees injured by a Covid-19 vaccine that was mandated by a work policy may attempt to bring lawsuits against employers for, among other things, workers’ compensation, negligence, and Occupational Safety and Health Act (the Act) violations, if arguable links can be made between the vaccine injury and the employer's mandatory policy.
On the other hand, a vaccine cannot be distributed without first receiving FDA approval or emergency use authorization. At least as to negligence and claims under the Act, employers will be able to argue that they were simply following the government's safety assurance.
There will be obvious tension between an employer's desire to keep all employees safe at the workplace by mandating vaccination, and potential resultant harm to individual employees due to side effects. Certainly, employers will need to balance the advantages and risks before deciding how to proceed. To reduce risk, employers who are considering a mandate might consider limiting it to high-risk positions, departments, worksites, or locations.
In weighing the risks, employers should note that Pfizer, for instance, has reported no serious safety concerns with its vaccine. Moderna has reported that some vaccinated individuals might expect minor, short-lived unpleasant side effects—including fatigue, sore arms, muscle or joint aches, and headache. So, while these side effects may cause some employees to miss work, they likely will not result in actionable harm. Employers more likely will have to be prepared to schedule around employees who take sick days after receiving the vaccine, and to encourage and remind such employees to get the second dose of the vaccine even if they experience mild symptoms due to the first dose.



What position might OSHA take regarding employers and Covid-19 vaccinations?

OSHA has not promulgated a rule regarding airborne diseases like Covid-19. Given the above-described Title VII and ADA issues, it seems unlikely that OSHA would affirmatively require employers to offer or mandate a Covid-19 vaccine. OSHA, however, potentially could rely on the Act's general duty clause—which requires employers to furnish “a place of employment … free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees”—to cite an employer that fails to make the vaccine available to its employees.
OSHA has previously taken the position that employers can require employees to receive the flu vaccine, provided they properly inform employees of the benefits of the vaccinations. Additionally, OSHA has explained that an employee who refuses a flu vaccination because of a reasonable belief that he or she has a medical condition that creates a real danger of serious illness or death—such as serious reaction to the vaccine—may be protected under Section 11(c) of the Act, which pertains to whistleblower rights. This is yet another consideration for employers considering whether to implement a Covid-19 vaccination mandate.



What alternatives do employers have to mandating Covid-19 vaccination?

Rather than mandating vaccination, employers may consider promoting non-mandatory tools and policies, such as educating and reminding employees about the importance and benefits of vaccination, providing free and convenient access to the vaccine, and giving small incentives or rewards to employees who get the vaccine. Moreover, as rapid Covid-19 tests, which return results in approximately 15 minutes, become more widely available and less expensive, employers initially may wish to rely on mandatory rapid testing rather than vaccination. The EEOC has expressly approved of the use of mandatory Covid-19 tests in the workplace.
In the context of influenza vaccination, the CDC recommends that employers encourage vaccination through a variety of means. Employers should consider these suggestions in the context of a Covid-19 vaccine. Employers’ efforts to promote vaccination could include providing rewards or incentives to employees to get the vaccine, allowing employees time off of work to be vaccinated, posting and publishing promotional materials about the importance of vaccination, and, potentially, hosting a vaccination clinic at the office.



When should employers start discussing how to address any eventual Covid-19 vaccine workplace issues?

There is no time like the present. Many of the challenges employers have faced during the pandemic have felt like a fire drill. The Covid-19 pandemic hit the country quickly, and since that time, circumstances and laws have continued to change, sometimes with little or no notice. Employers would be wise to monitor the vaccine-related legal landscape, while developing plans for how they intend to address the vaccine with their workforce.
Even after a Covid-19 vaccine is widely available, there likely will be a period before we know the extent of its effectiveness in widely protecting public health. Therefore, many of the current requirements and best practices that employers have implemented, such as teleworking, mask wearing, and physical distancing, likely will be part of the workplace for some time to come.
Additionally, employers should monitor whether governments mandate a Covid-19 vaccine for any specific group. The New York State Bar Association, for example, recommended that New York consider mandating a Covid-19 vaccine once a scientific consensus emerges that it is safe, effective, and necessary, but only after conducting a public awareness campaign to encourage voluntary vaccination.
In the meantime, employers considering a mandatory Covid-19 vaccination program should:

• In represented workforces, determine whether such a program is permissible under any governing CBAs, and if the issue is not addressed, consider discussing it now with the union or unions to reach a MOU.
• If proceeding with such a program, keep vaccination records separate from personnel files, and be prepared to engage in the interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations as appropriate to employees who object to vaccination due to a disability or sincerely held religious belief.
• For those employees who object to vaccination on disability or religious grounds:
o Ensure that an employee's refusal to be vaccinated originates from a covered disability or sincerely held religious belief, understanding that employers’ challenges to claims of sincerely held religious beliefs have been heavily scrutinized by the courts.
o Consider the nature of the employee's position, as courts are more likely to require an alternative accommodation for employees who do not frequently interact with the public, and accommodations may take the form of telework, wearing of face coverings or face shields, or the transfer to a non-frontline position.
o Develop policies and practices to help avoid or mitigate, as much as possible, the morale and privacy issues that might be created by having some employees receive accommodations or permission to opt out of the program.
o Be aware of the possibility that employees who suffer side effects from the vaccination may seek to hold employers liable.



Conclusion
There are a wide scope of concerns facing employers as they consider Covid-19 vaccination programs, but with proper preparation and in-depth research, employers can move forward into a new era of work with a concrete plan ensuring the maximum level of safety and concern for their workforce.