At the end of 2020, California approved the Division of Occupational Safety & Health’s (“Cal OSHA”) COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”).

Among the many requirements in the new ETS, Cal OSHA imposed a performance-based obligation on employers to establish and implement an effective COVID-19 Prevention Program, COVID-19 preventive measures (e.g., social distancing and mandatory use of face coverings), and COVID-19 case management (e.g., investigation, recording, and reporting). In establishing these requirements, the ETS also published prescriptive written COVID-19 Prevention Program components and procedures for handling COVID-19 cases, as well as steps to regulate multiple infections and presumed outbreaks at the workplace that are already subject to substantial state and local health department requirements. Moreover, the ETS substantially departs from other health and safety regulations by compelling worker exclusion following a potential workplace exposure to COVID-19, mandating exclusion pay in limited circumstances,  and that employees be provided COVID-19 testing. The ETS further imposes potential liability on employers if they fail to comply with the various requirements.

The ETS has created confusion and frustration among California employers already facing a multitude of federal, state, and local COVID-19 requirements, which are in a constant state of flux. The ETS also attempts to impose requirements that are administered by other responsible agencies and authorities, making employers’ obligations unclear and duplicative. For example, the ETS imposes an obligation on employers to notify state and local health departments of multiple COVID-19 cases despite this obligation already being imposed on employers under AB 685, guidance from the state health department, and standing health department orders.

Cal OSHA’s ETS also uses inconsistent language to discuss requirements (e.g., “offer” vs. “provide” in the context of required testing), imprecise language, and imposes obligations that do not make sense from either a technical or feasibility standpoint. For instance, the ETS defines a “COVID-19 test” as one that is (i) approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) or has an Emergency Use Authorization from the FDA, and (ii) is administered in accordance with the FDA approval or Emergency Use Authorization. In doing so, Cal OSHA fails to take into account that COVID-19 tests can be approved for use under other regulatory pathways and that many COVID-19 tests on the market are not approved by FDA or under an Emergency Use Authorization. Restricting testing in this way also unnecessarily complicates an already complicated requirement and makes compliance more difficult, costly, and time-intensive.

Despite numerous concerns raised in public meetings and written responses to the ETS, Cal OSHA also has not provided sufficient guidance on how to comply with the ETS, leaving many obligations on testing, worker exclusion, and COVID-19 case management unclear. Cal OSHA only just recently provided the public updated FAQs but still left numerous questions and ambiguities.

In response to the ETS’ ambiguities and overwhelming compliance burden, the Western Growers Association, the California Business Roundtable, the California Association of Winegrape Growers, the California Farm Bureau Federation, Ventura County Agricultural Association, and the Grower-Shipper Association of Central California joined together to file a lawsuit against Cal OSHA and related entities and individuals over the ETS before the Los Angeles Superior Court. The lawsuit contends that the Board violated employers’ due process rights and the state’s administrative procedure laws by failing to provide clear and adequate notice of the link between the ETS and the emergency situation necessitating the new rules. The lawsuit also claims that the ETS improperly imposes “unprecedented financial and operational costs on employers” in the state and without evidence that the new requirements will significantly or even materially improve workplace health and safety as it pertains to COVID-19. The required measures further lack clarity, such that employers are not understanding what is required of them, and do not take into account resources, feasibility, or costs. Further, the action alleges that many of the requirements in the ETS have little to no connection to workplace health and safety and instead deputize employers to monitor non-work-related COVID-19 exposure risks. The suit filed by the agricultural associations follows a lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court by retail industry groups seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from the ETS.

To date, Cal OSHA and the other entities named in the suits have not publicly responded or acknowledged either complaint.

Jackson Lewis will continue to monitor issues pertaining to COVID-19 and the workplace in California. If you have questions about the ETS or related workplace safety issues, contact a Jackson Lewis attorney to discuss.

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) kicked off the new year with a friendly reminder that covered employers must electronically submit Form 300A data for calendar year 2020 between January 2, 2021 and March 2, 2021. A paper copy of the 300A form must also be posted in for each establishment from February 1 through April 30.

By way of refresher, the recordkeeping regulation was revised in early 2019 to only require Form 300A data instead of additional records. The electronic filing requirement applies to two categories of establishments.

  • The first category includes establishments with 20 to 249 employees that are in specific industries with higher instances of injury or illness. A full list of these industries can be found here. Many industries in this category have been most hard hit by COVID-19, such as nursing care facilities, hospitals, and other healthcare providers, manufacturers, and grocery stores.
  • The second category includes establishments with 250 or more employees that are required to keep OSHA injury and illness records. In other words, establishments with 250 or more employees that are not otherwise exempted must electronically file the OSHA 300A.

In addition to these general categories, information must be provided if OSHA notifies you to do so for an individual data collection.

As explained in our previous blog post, work-related COVID-19 cases may trigger recording and reporting obligations, which would impact the 300A data. Employers should review OSHA’s Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 when determining whether a COVID-19 case is recordable or reportable.  We also recommend contacting an attorney to ensure the accuracy of recording and reporting of COVID-19 cases. Throughout the pandemic many employers have needlessly recorded and overreported cases to OSHA, subjecting themselves to burdensome and costly inspections.

Employers can find detailed instructions for filing the 300A data on OSHA’s Injury Tracking Application webpage, as well as FAQs.

President-Elect Joseph Biden has not named a nominee for Secretary of Labor yet, much less an Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health who would lead the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). But individuals with a background in organized labor may be forerunners. He has promised to be “the most pro-union president you have ever seen” and that “unions are going to have increased power” in his administration.

To read the article in its entirety, click here.

On July 15, 2020, Virginia became the first state in the nation to promulgate an Emergency Temporary Standard to address COVID-19 in workplaces. Even with vaccine deliveries on the way, Virginia has proposed a Permanent Standard for consideration by the Virginia Safety and Health Codes Board (which includes author Courtney Malveaux).

To read the article in its entirety, click here.

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has issued Executive Order Number Seventy-Two, expanding face covering requirements, reducing allowable social gatherings, and directing Virginians to remain at home after midnight. The Order also states that individuals who decline to wear a face covering due to a medical condition are not required to produce medical documentation verifying their stated condition(s) or identify their precise underlying medical condition(s). The Order took effect at 12:01 a.m. on December 14, 2020.

To view the article in its entirety, please click here.

Shortly before Thanksgiving, California’s Department of Industrial Relations Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (“Board”) adopted a general safety order that creates an emergency temporary standard specific to potential workplace COVID-19 exposures (“Rule”). The Rule was quietly approved by the Office of Administrative Law without detailed analysis on November 30th and went into effect upon approval. While this gave little time for employers to come into compliance with the new requirements, the Division of Occupational Safety & Health (“Cal OSHA”) has maintained that many of the requirements are not entirely new and align with guidance previously issued on measures to address COVID-19 hazards in connection with employers’ Injury Illness and Prevention Program. Cal OSHA has also informally conveyed that the agency will work with employers to achieve compliance with the Rule, particularly in situations where employers are making a diligent effort to comply.

To read my full article posted on Jackson Lewis’ California Workplace Law Blog, click here.

OSHA has issued guidance on personal protective equipment (“PPE”) and respiratory protection use in nursing home and long term care facilities (collectively “LTCFs”) to protect against COVID-19. In its recently issued guidance, OSHA sets forth additional detail about the strategies it believes LTCFs should consider when protecting employees from COVID-19.  As a preliminary reminder, although a guidance document issued by OSHA, this guidance document has not undergone the rigorous rulemaking process required for a regulation under the Administrative Procedures Act, and merely serves as guidance for the pertinent industry.

In the latest issued LTCF guidance OSHA follows its usual hazard assessment and hierarchy of control framework provided in the PPE Standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.134), stating that LTCFs should first conduct a risk assessment to identify which workers are at risk of exposure to any airborne hazards, which includes (per OSHA’s definition) COVID-19, as a result of their job duties. After a thorough risk assessment is completed, the LTCF must determine how to protect employees from the identified hazards pursuant to OSHA’s long-established hierarchy of controls. The LTCF must engage in engineering controls (e.g. ventilation) to reduce the hazard wherever possible. Next, the LTCF must apply administrative controls (i.e. hand hygiene, physical distancing, and cleaning and disinfection protocols). As a third step of hazard prevention, LTCFs should determine appropriate PPE and make sure it is available to each employee who needs it.

OSHA suggests that respiratory protection, such as an N-95 respirator, may be appropriate for any individual who provides patient care while working within six feet of individuals who are a suspected or confirmed positive for COVID-19. This includes while performing tasks such as bathing, dressing, and toileting, in addition to clinical care. However, for each of the examples mentioned, it is unlikely that the employer could be using a form of source control, such as requiring the patient to wear a mask, or be behind a protective barrier. As a result, respirators may not be needed in these situations when other engineering or administrative controls are being used effectively. This is further complimented by the fact that guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) requires only surgical masks for direct care of patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19, unless the care provided involves aerosol generating procedures or surgeries with risk of transmission through infectious material splashes or sprays. Any LTCF engaging in a hazard assessment should document its decision-making, following the best and most up-to-date infectious disease guidelines, industry best practices, and recommendations from the CDC, and guidance from state and local health departments.

Note that whenever an LTCF does conduct a hazard assessment and determines that filtering facepiece respirators (such as N-95s) are necessary PPE, OSHA’s respiratory protection standard (29 C.F.R. § 1910.134, the “RPP”) will apply. OSHA’s RPP regulations require a lengthy written job hazard analysis and task hazard analysis for use of respirators; a lengthy written respirator program with detailed, individualized procedures for each separate location, job, or task (depending on what the hazard analyses require); the selection of a Program Administrator, who has specific duties; medical evaluations; initial-use and then annual fit-testing; lengthy storage, cleaning, and mask-replacement procedures; and other detailed requirements.

OSHA’s guidance further details various “source control” measures, in categories recommended as follows:

  • Cloth face coverings – to be worn by patients and visitors but not by healthcare providers if protection against exposure to splashes and sprays, or respiratory protection against airborne hazards is needed. All patients and visitors should be offered a surgical mask, face mask, or cloth face covering by the LTCF if they do not provide their own, and if supplies allow.
  • Facemasks – these include KN95 respirators with ear loops instead of head straps, as well as other masks that do not provide fluid resistance.
  • FDA-cleared or authorized surgical masks – these masks, authorized for emergency use by the FDA, are regulated by OSHA under the PPE standard (at 29 CFR 1910.132) or the Bloodborne Pathogens standard (29 CFR 1910.1030). OSHA prefers that healthcare providers use these rather than face masks or cloth face coverings, as they provide source control and protection for the wearer against splashes and sprays. As they are loose-fitting and do not provide a seal for the user, these masks are not effective at protecting against potential airborne hazards.
  • Respirators (including FDA-cleared or authorized surgical N95 FFRs), which must be subject to fit-testing, medical evaluations, employee training, specific cleaning and storage procedures, and all of the other myriad requirements under OSHA’s RPP standard at 29 C.F.R. § 1910.134. OSHA also refers employers to the CDC guidelines for extending the use of N95s as necessary during the shortages presented by the pandemic, and cautions against accidental purchase of counterfeit N95s. N95 FFRs remain in short supply, as are most alternative respirators, including P100s and N99s, reusable rubber respirators, and powered air purifying respirators (“PAPRs”).

OSHA reminds employers that employees wearing N95s must be sure that any additional required PPE, such as eye or face protection, will fit with the N95 so that all pieces can safely be worn together.

If you have questions or need assistance in managing your response to OSHA’s guidance here or the pandemic in general, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

Smoke from Western wildfires caused Washington state to experience some of the worst air quality in the world this year, which increased health risks to outdoor workers. In response, the state’s Department of Labor & Industries’ Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“L&I” or “Division”) announced that it is developing new workplace health and safety rules on wildfire smoke exposure hazards, particularly in the construction and agriculture industries. Over the next several months, and following issuance of a Notice of Intent (CR-101), L&I will hold meetings to gather information from stakeholders and begin drafting an occupational health standard on wildfire smoke to be included in chapter 296-62 of the Washington Administrative Code.

While some requirements of the rule are unknown, the new rule will likely address several key issues, including:

  • Identification of potentially harmful worker exposures to wildfire smoke and related air quality conditions;
  • Communication with employees on air quality conditions, exposure risks, and required controls;
  • Employee training and instruction; and
  • Required engineering and administrative controls to address potentially harmful exposures.

Washington is the second state after California to formally engage in rulemaking to protect workers from hazards related to wildfire smoke.

This new rule will add to existing (1) Division guidance on appropriate dust masks and filtering facepiece respirators for protecting employees from exposures to poor air quality conditions caused by wildfire smoke, and (2) guidance from the state’s Department of Health about reducing exposure to wildfire smoke.

Employers in Washington who have outdoor operations should keep an eye out for Division led stakeholder meetings, requests for public comment, and draft versions of a proposed wildfire rule. Employers can get up to date information on L&I’s rulemaking page and sign-up for alerts here.

If you have questions, would like additional information, or need assistance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

On November 19, 2020, California’s Department of Industrial Relations Occupational Safety & Health Standards Board (“Board”) adopted a general safety order that, in effect, creates an emergency temporary standard specific to potential workplace coronavirus (“COVID-19”) exposures (“COVID-19 Prevention Rule” or “Rule”). While not the first state to adopt an emergency temporary standard (see our earlier posts on new requirements in Michigan, Oregon, and Virginia), California’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule is unique in that it is performance based and adds to the host of requirements imposed by the state’s public health departments. As a result, California employers need to ensure their efforts to manage COVID-19 heed both the new COVID-19 Prevention Rule and state and local public health department orders. The state’s Division of Occupational Safety & Health (“Cal OSHA”) will administer and enforce the COVID-19 Prevention Rule, which is set to be codified in Section 3205 of California’s Code of Regulations following review by the Office of Administrative Law. Once reviewed and approved by the Office of Administrative Law, the Rule will take immediate effect and impose new requirements on employers. Many of the requirements noted in the Rule are already required by Cal OSHA guidance on COVID-19 or by state and local health department orders, while other new requirements are set to go into effect on January 1, 2021.

COVID-19 Requirements for All Workplaces

Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule has provisions that apply to all workplaces and provisions that are specific to employers that provide housing and transportation or are experiencing outbreak conditions at their workplace. Covered workplaces under the Rule include all workplaces in California, except workplaces with (i) only 1 employee having no contact with others, (ii) employees who are working remotely from their homes, and (iii) employees who are covered by Cal OSHA’s Aerosol Transmissible Disease Standard. In addition, because the COVID-19 Prevention Rule does not limit, restrict, or otherwise supersede state or local health department requirements, compliance with the COVID-19 Prevention Rule alone may not satisfy all workplace COVID-19 requirements in the state. Employers with California workplaces subject to the COVID-19 Prevention Rule may, in fact, have to contend with additional or more restrictive obligations under applicable state or local health department orders on top of the Rule’s many requirements. That said, the COVID-19 Prevention Rule imposes the following minimum requirements on all covered California workplaces:

  • COVID-19 Prevention Program. Employers must establish, implement, and maintain an effective written COVID-19 Prevention Program, which includes (i) a system for communicating COVID-19 information; (ii) procedures for identifying, evaluating, and responding to possible COVID-19 hazards; (iii) procedures to investigate and respond effectively to COVID-19 cases in the workplace, including notifications for potential COVID-19 exposures; (iv) methods for correcting identified COVID-19 hazards; and (v) measures to train and instruct employees on COVID-19 hazards and corresponding controls.
  • COVID-19 Preventive Measures. Employers must implement preventive measures consisting of (i) physical distancing or separation of persons by at least six feet, unless separation is “not possible” or involves a momentary exposure while persons are in movement; (ii) requirement for employees to wear face coverings, except in limited circumstances; (iii) use of engineering and administrative preventive controls, such as physical barriers, markings, optimized ventilation, and cleaning and disinfecting procedures; (iv) provision of handwashing facilities, and (v) use of personal protective equipment (“PPE”), such as gloves, face shields, face masks, goggles, and respirators, when needed to prevent exposure to COVID-19 hazards.
  • Reporting and Recordkeeping. Employers must report information to their local health department when required or requested, report COVID-19 cases that result in a serious illness or death to Cal OSHA, maintain records relevant to COVID-19 cases, and retain COVID-19 related records in a confidential manner and consistent with Cal OSHA medical records regulations.
  • Worker Exclusions. Employers must exclude workers from the workplace who are known to have COVID-19 or who have had a COVID-19 exposure and apply set criteria for allowing workers to return. For example, employers must, without exception, exclude workers that have had an exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace for at least 14 days.
  • Management of COVID-19 Infections and Outbreaks. For workplaces identified by a health department as having an outbreak and workplaces where there are three or more COVID-19 cases within a 14-day period, employers must provide testing to employees at the workplace during working hours upon discovery of the outbreak and at least one week later. When testing is required under the Rule, employers are responsible for testing costs and may have to provide ongoing testing when considered necessary by Cal OSHA, recommended by the health department, or to manage an ongoing outbreak.
  • COVID-19 Case Investigation. Employers must immediately investigate COVID-19 cases and potential COVID-19 outbreaks to determine if workplace related factors contributed to the case or outbreak and take immediate action to address any identified COVID-19 related hazards.
  • COVID-19 Case Notifications. Employers must report COVID-19 outbreaks (three or more positive cases of COVID-19 within a 14-day period) to their local health departments within 48 hours of knowing about a COVID-19 outbreak.

Major COVID-19 Outbreaks

Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule requires that employers having a major COVID-19 outbreak take additional actions to prevent and minimize the spread of COVID-19. A major outbreak is defined in the Rule as a covered workplace that has 20 or more COVID-19 cases within a 30 day-period. If a major outbreak occurs, employers must comply with certain requirements until no new COVID-19 cases have been detected in the workplace for a 14-day period. These requirements include

  • Employer provided COVID-19 testing at least twice a week;
  • Exclusion of workers who have COVID-19 or experienced a COVID-19 exposure;
  • Ongoing COVID-19 case investigations;
  • COVID-19 hazard assessment and correction, which may require adjustments in ventilation, respiratory protection requirements, change in operations, or “other control measures deemed necessary” by Cal OSHA; and
  • Ongoing COVID-19 notification obligations.

COVID-19 Prevention in Employer-Provided Housing

Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention requires California employers take additional that provide housing or housing accommodations to their employees, with limited exceptions. At first, these employers must prioritize housing assignments to avoid having employees share a housing unit who do not usually have a common household. Employers must also implement physical distancing controls by redesigning housing spaces to maximize distance between individuals, limit capacity of common areas, and ensure separation of individuals’ beds and furniture. Employers must similarly offer residents face coverings and explain when to wear them, ensure effective cleaning and disinfecting, and implement resident screening and testing programs. Further employers must implement effective procedures for identifying when a resident develops symptoms of illness and ensure effective isolation of potentially sick individuals to prevent and minimize the potential for spread of COVID-19.

COVID-19 Prevention in Employer-Provided Transportation

Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule requires that employers who are providing transportation for employees to and from work or as part of their job duties implement prescribed precautions. Employers must specifically emphasize transportation assignments that minimize workers sharing transportation with others who do not share a common household, use physical distancing if possible, and require drivers and riders to use face coverings. Employers providing employee transportation must also ensure that effective screening procedures are in place to prevent sick drivers or riders from sharing transportation. Employers must further provide for vehicles’ high contact surfaces to be cleaned and disinfected between trips and uses as well as ensure drivers and riders have access to sanitizing supplies.

The COVID-19 Prevention Rule’s Impact to California Employers

Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule will upend California employers’ operations and workplace safety measures. Although California employers have been advised through Cal OSHA guidance to address COVID-19 hazards in their Injury Illness Prevention Programs since May, the COVID-19 Prevention Rule adds new programmatic and preventive requirements that go beyond Cal OSHA’s prior guidance. As a result, even those employers that have implemented COVID-19 preparedness and response plans adhering to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) and federal OSHA will need to develop new written program materials. The COVID-19 Prevention Rule also requires employers to comply strictly with preventive measures, unless they are “not possible.” For example, under the COVID-19 Prevention Rule, employers must implement physical distancing measures that ensure individuals remain at least 6 feet of separation or show why physical distancing is impossible. This burden to show that physical distancing is “not possible” also diverges from other occupational health and safety regulations and requirements where employers can show generally that compliance with a requirement is infeasible rather than impossible.

Along with the programmatic burdens, Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule sets up significant compliance hurdles for employers in the form of COVID-19 case management requirements, mandatory worker exclusions, and required testing. For instance, under this Rule, employers must provide employees COVID-19 testing during working hours in some cases (i.e., COVID-19 outbreak, major COVID-19 outbreak, when recommended by a local health department). To ensure compliance with other federal and state laws, as well as protection of employees’ confidential and private health information, employers will need to coordinate testing services, maintain corresponding records as confidential medical information, and establish controls to prevent improper access, use, or disclosure of employees’ private health information. Employers may also need to make arrangements for testing services before a potential outbreak to ensure the availability of testing resources, especially if testing options are limited in the area where the worksite is located.

Although some of the requirements under Cal OSHA’s COVID-19 Prevention Rule are not set to go into immediate effect, Cal OSHA can rely on its COVID-19 related guidance to enforce against employers that have not implemented COVID-19 preparedness plans or procedures. Employers also need to be diligent in implementing the programmatic and preventive measures required by the Rule because Cal OSHA has expanded enforcement authority under this Rule and following passage of AB 685 to pursue enforcement of employers violations related to COVID-19 hazards. In fact, under the COVID-19 Prevention Rule and AB 685, Cal OSHA can issue orders compelling certain actions, such as COVID-19 testing, preventive measures, or worksite closures. Cal OSHA may also issue serious violations to employers for COVID-19 related violations without providing a pre-citation notification.

Finally, California employers will need to carefully evaluate requirements under the COVID-19 Prevention Rule along with state and local health department orders and industry guidance to determine what requirements apply to their operations. Since the COVID-19 Prevention Rule does not disturb or interfere with state and local health department requirements, California employers may need to balance different requirements in different California counties and cities. This will be a challenge for employers, particularly as there may be conflicting requirements as a result of differences in health department orders, guidance, or recommended practices. Indeed, because of significant differences in safety requirements in the COVID-19 Prevention Rule, emergency temporary standards adopted in several states, frequent changes in CDC guidance, and more stringent or additional obligations imposed by health department orders, employers may be unable to establish a consistent or uniform COVID-19 response plan and procedures across all of their operations.

If you have questions, would like additional information, or need assistance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

 

 

As part of the agency’s ongoing efforts to address the COVID-19 pandemic in workplaces, OSHA continues to issue alerts and guidance designed to keep workers safe.  The most recent guidance issued by OSHA deals with ventilation in the workplace to help maintain a safe and healthy work environment.

Under the guidance, OSHA recommends that employers work with heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) professionals to look at ways to improve building ventilation as a way to address the potential hazard of exposure to COVID-19.  Enclosed spaces with poor ventilation and air flow can make it more likely for employees to be exposed to potential infection.  Studies have also shown that infected droplets can travel farther in areas that are not well ventilated.

To that end, OSHA offers the following tips to reduce the risk of exposure to the coronavirus:

  • Encourage workers to stay home if they are sick.
  • Ensure all HVAC systems are fully functional, especially those shut down or operating at reduced capacity during the pandemic.
  • Remove or redirect personal fans to prevent blowing air from one worker to another.
  • Use HVAC system filters with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) rating of 13 or higher, where feasible.
  • Increase the HVAC system’s outdoor air intake. Open windows or other sources of fresh air where possible.
  • Be sure exhaust air is not pulled back into the building from HVAC air intakes or open windows.
  • Consider using portable high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) fan/filtration systems to increase clean air, especially in higher-risk areas.
  • When changing filters, wear appropriate personal protective equipment.  ASHRAE recommends N95 respirators, eye protection (safety glasses, goggles, or face shields), and disposable gloves.
  • Make sure exhaust fans in restrooms are fully functional, operating at maximum capacity, and are set to remain on.
  • Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

OSHA continues to issue new alerts and guidance on COVID-19 and the agency is likely to make changes with how it approaches the pandemic next year with the new Biden Administration.

If you have questions, would like additional information, or need assistance, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work, or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.