Court upholds state’s COVID workplace protection rules
A state appeals court has upheld California’s emergency workplace rules for COVID-19, which require employers to have prevention programs, provide protective equipment and provide paid leave to employees who have been exposed to the virus.
The regulations, issued in November 2020 by the state Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, were challenged by the Western Growers Association, other farming organizations and the California Business Roundtable, which argued they were unnecessary and overly burdensome for employers.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman refused to block the regulations last February, saying, “Lives are at stake.” Upholding his ruling, the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco said the state had ample reasons for protecting workers from exposure to the coronavirus.
By late 2020, the disease was spreading through workplaces, endangering employees as well as the general public, and demonstrating “the need for immediate action,” Justice Sandra Margulies said in the 3-0 ruling. She said the board found a particularly high risk of transmission among migrant farmworkers, living in dormitorylike facilities provided by their employers.
Margulies said the state’s previous workplace rules, in effect during the first eight months of the pandemic, did not require employers to issue protective equipment or provide essential hygiene. She said the board, appointed by the governor, acted within “its area of expertise” in determining that the protections were inadequate.
The ruling was issued Dec. 21 and certified by the court on Wednesday as a precedent binding on lower courts in California. Opponents could seek review in the state Supreme Court.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court moved in the opposite direction Thursday, voting 6-3 to block the Biden administration’s nationwide regulations ordering businesses with 100 or more employees to require their workers to be vaccinated against the coronavirus or wear masks and be tested weekly. The court said federal law did not authorize the administration to impose such requirements on companies with a total of 84 million employees.
In a separate 5-4 ruling, the justices allowed the government to enforce a vaccination requirement for most health care workers.
The California regulations, currently scheduled to stay in effect until mid-April, apply to all employees except those who were already covered by special protective rules for particularly vulnerable worksites such as hospitals, prisons and homeless shelters, and those working from home.
The board required every employer to have a written coronavirus prevention program, including training, identification of hazards, social distancing, and provision of masks and other protective equipment. Employees who have been exposed to the virus at work must be given at least 10 days off, with pay and benefits.
Upholding the paid-leave requirement, the court said it encourages employees to report any exposures they have had to the disease rather than keeping silent, “thus allowing employers to minimize possible additional exposures to other workers.”
The ruling was praised by Stacey Leyton, a lawyer for labor unions who filed arguments in support of the state’s regulations.
“As we continue to face new phases of this public health crisis, preventing workplace spread is critical to protecting workers, their family members and the community at large,” she said.