In a highly unusual move, the Michigan Legislature enacted PA 339 of 2020 on Dec. 29, amending Sections 1, 5, and 12 of 2020 PA 238 Employment Rights Act, MCL 419.401, et seq, retroactively applying the amendments back to March 1, 2020.
So how can obligations be imposed on employers retroactively, effectively holding them liable for not doing what they did not know they had to do, back at the time?
On Oct. 22, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed several bipartisan House Bills intended to protect workers from the spread of COVID-19 by requiring employers to allow workers who are exposed to COVID-19 or exhibit the symptoms of COVID-19 to stay home and protecting such employees from retaliation.
In addition, the bills signed in October protect businesses from liability for people becoming sick at their business if the business complied with relevant COVID-19 related statutes, orders and rules issued by federal, state and local authorities. These protections extend to Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration (MIOSHA) liability as well as liability to the individuals.
The COVID-19 Employment Rights Act as amended, was given immediate effect as of Oct. 22, 2020 and retroactively dates back to March 1, 2020.
The amendment revises requirements for employees who are diagnosed with COVID-19, who display the principal symptoms of the disease, or who have had close contact with someone else who tests positive by prohibiting them from reporting to work until all the legal requirements are met as set forth in the new act.
The act clarifies that essential workers who are otherwise subject to quarantine but are not experiencing symptoms and have not tested positive may be required to work if they are necessary to prevent a stoppage of operations that would cause serious harm or danger to public health or safety. The exception for essential workers now includes workers who perform “essential energy services.”
In addition, it provides employers with an affirmative defense to retaliation claims from employees arising between Feb. 29, 2020 and Oct. 22, 2020, if the employer acts in compliance with all CDC guidance; local, state and federal laws; as well as all executive or agency orders.
The guidance on when employees can return to work changes periodically so employers may need to update their COVID-19 Preparedness Plans and Screening Protocol to comply with the amended act.
Add a comment
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Employment Liability
- Labor Law
- Human Resources
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
- Department of Labor (DOL)
- Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
- Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
- Employment Agreement
- Wage & Hour
- Employment Discrimination
- At Will Employment
- Minimum Wage
- National Labor Relations Act
- Noncompete Agreements
- Civil Rights
- National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
- COVID-19
- Contract Employees
- Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)
- National Labor Relations Board
- Coronavirus
- Tax Law
- Whistleblower Protection Act
- Regulatory Law
- Paid Medical Leave Act (PMLA)
- OSHA Issues
- Title VII
- Federal Trade Commission
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
- Retaliation
- Sick Leave
- Unemployment Benefits
- Workplace Harassment
- Contracts
- Transgender Issues
- Accommodations
- First Amendment
- Hostile Work Environment
- Business Risk Management
- Public Education
- ERISA
- Workers' Compensation
- Cannabis
- Department of Justice
- Medicare Issues
- LGBTQ
- Class Actions
- Sexual Harassment
- Garnishments
- Social Media
- Retail Liability
- RICO
- Emergency Information
- Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
- Department of Education (DOE)
- Title IX
- Medical Marijuana
- Right to Work
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
- Diversity
- Union Organizing & Relations
Recent Updates
- Implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act: Key Insights for Employers
- Federal Court Throws out DOL’s Attempt to Rewrite White Collar Overtime Rules
- Civil Rights Litigation Filed by Christian Employers Gets New Life Following Federal Appellate Court Ruling
- Michigan Supreme Court Clarifies Minimum Wage Decision
- Judge Strikes Down Federal Ban on Non-compete Agreements
- Michigan Employers Can Legally Resist Union Organizing Efforts
- Michigan Supreme Court Decision Reinstates Previous Versions of Wage Laws
- Union Power in Michigan: Is it Real or Imagined?
- Employers Should act Now to Address Rising DOL Salary Thresholds for Exempt Employees
- Is This the end of the Employee Non-Compete Clause?