Royal

Updated EEOC COVID-19 Guidance

July 21, 2022

We are halfway through 2022, and our approach to COVID-19 continues to evolve as the pandemic enters a new phase. Recently, the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission (“EEOC”) updated its guidance for employers who want to require COVID testing of employees. Prior to this updated guidance, employers could presume that the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) standard for conducting medical exams was always met for COVID-19 screening testing.


Now, according to the EEOC, employers can still require COVID-19 tests “if the employer can show it is job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The EEOC explains that a COVID-19 viral test is a medical exam under the ADA, and an employer must show that it is “job-related and consistent with business necessity.” The EEOC urged employers to consider the most recent CDC guidance, and provide a list of eight possible considerations to use in determining whether the new "business necessity" standard for COVID screening is met:


  • the level of community transmission;
  • the vaccination status of employees;
  • the accuracy and speed of processing for different types of COVID-19 viral tests;
  • the degree to which breakthrough infections are possible for employees who are "up to date" on vaccinations;
  • the ease of transmissibility of the current variant(s);
  • the possible severity of illness from the current variant(s);
  • what types of contacts employees may have with others in the workplace or elsewhere that they are required to work (e.g., working with medically vulnerable individuals); and,
  • the potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with COVID-19.


As a general rule, businesses should remember that any disability-related inquiry or medical exam of an employee, including COVID-19 testing, must be job-related and based on a business necessity. An employer must have sufficient objective evidence to determine either that an employee poses a significant risk to themselves or others, or that the employee's ability to perform essential job functions is impaired.


The updated guidance also confirms that employers can require employees who have been out sick with COVID-19 to submit a doctor’s note clearing them to return to work. The guidance adds that employers have other options that do not require confirmation from a medical professional, including following CDC guidance on quarantine and isolation.


This updated guidance is a reminder to employers that they should continue to evaluate their COVID-19 practices to ensure they are complying with the latest evolutions in state and federal law as they try to maintain a safe and productive workplace.


If you have any questions regarding the updated EEOC COVID-19 Guidance, or any related issues, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm, LLP.

Massachusetts’ Superior Court Judge Rules Recording in Workplace Admissible

February 19, 2025
The Massachusetts Superior Court found that Massachusetts’ wiretap statue does not bar employers from using allegedly illegally obtained recordings in civil proceedings. In a recent case, an employee claimed she was forced to resign. Plaintiff’s coworker recorded an argument between the Plaintiff and her supervisor without her consent and shared it with supervisors. The employee then sued for discrimination and retaliation, along with two counts for violation of the wiretap statute. Massachusetts is a two-party consent state but, in this case, it was found that the consent of only one party was needed because nothing in the Wiretap Statute bars the use of an allegedly illegally obtained communication in a civil proceeding. The court found that the provisions about the use of illegally obtained communications in evidence are limited to criminal trials. However, depending on the court, results may differ, as this recording was central to proving and/or disproving the Plaintiff’s claim, and as such, the recording was indispensable as a piece of evidence. Issues with unauthorized recordings have been arising all the time in civil proceedings because recording devices are everywhere, whether they be a cell phone, laptop or other recording device. This ruling is good for employers, as if there is an otherwise inadmissible recording that is made that disproves an employee’s claims, it can be admissible as evidence if meets the same scenario above. However, employers must be careful to use these recordings as they may be inadmissible and may not show the same thing that the employer believes in the court’s eyes. This being said, it is prudent to consult an attorney before utilizing a recording for any employment action or in legal action to avoid unwanted consequences. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.

After the DEI Executive Order

February 14, 2025
What Are the Compliance Requirements for Private Employers?
Share by: