On July 6, 2021, and pursuant to the recently enacted New York State HERO Act, the New York State Department of Labor released industry templates for a Model Airborne Infectious Disease Exposure Prevention Plan and the Airborne Infectious Disease Prevention Standard. New York State employers are required to adopt and maintain their respective industry template or an equivalent—although interestingly, the plan does not go into effect and cannot be implemented unless and until the New York State Commissioner of Health designates a disease as highly contagious which presents a serious risk of harm to the public. The HERO Act is not intended to combat COVID-19, but rather any similar infectious disease in the future (i.e., does not apply to the seasonal flu). Employers have until Thursday, August 5, 2021, to adopt their industry template. After that, employers have until Saturday, September 4 (best to do by Friday, September 3, 2021) to verbally notify employees about the plan, post the plan in the workplace, and add it to their employee handbook. Nothing else needs to be done now and the plan itself lays out the employers’ duties should the Commissioner of Health make the requisite finding. Documents regarding an employee allegation of a plan violation must be maintained for two years and retaliation against complaining employees is prohibited. Finally, effective November 1, 2021, the HERO Act requires employers with 10 or more employees to allow, if requested, a workplace safety committee regarding airborne infectious diseases. Guidance regarding this is expected soon from the Department of Labor. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

As expected, following recent changes in the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) general COVID guidance, and New York achieving its 70% at least begun vaccination threshold, New York State (“NYS”) and the federal Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) have updated their COVID office regulations. Beginning now in New York, most businesses are no longer required to follow the industry specific reopening guidelines on the New York Forward website, including the guidance on capacity restrictions, social distancing, cleaning and disinfecting health screenings, and contact information for tracing. However, unvaccinated employees and others in the workplace will still need to wear masks and socially distance. Certain industries will need to continue to adhere to the COVID office regulations, including large venues, schools grade 12 and under, public transit, homeless shelters, correctional facilities and healthcare sites. Also, the NYS Departments of Labor and Health are working on industry-specific general airborne infectious disease safety standard templates pursuant to the NYS HERO Act, which may add separate requirements to the workplace. OSHA, in its newly issued emergency temporary standard, advised that most workplaces where workers are fully vaccinated no longer need to provide any COVID safeguards. To the extent known, the guidance advises that unvaccinated workers, customers, and visitors should wear masks and remain socially distant. OSHA made an exception though for health care workers whose employers must have a virus protection plan in place as to COVID-safety measures (written for those with more than 10 employees), including daily masks/PPE, ventilation, social distancing and screening of employees, patients, and visitors for COVID symptoms, and must record and report COVID cases among workers. The rules also provide health care workers with paid time off for COVID-related absences, including those getting vaccinated and recovering from any COVID shot symptoms. The health care employers with more than 10 employees also must remove COVID positive, suspected positive, or symptomatic employees from the workplace and provide them pay up to $1,400.00 a week for two weeks (or longer if they are sick). Eligible employers may voluntarily opt into the federal FFCRA to receive tax credits for such payments. Health care employees can go maskless indoors only in “well-defined areas where all employees are fully vaccinated” and where COVID-positive people are unlikely to be. The health care employer rules will be in place for six months once they become effective shortly upon publishing in the Federal Register. Health care employers will have two weeks to comply with the new rules, although OSHA has indicated it will use its “enforcement discretion” and not fine those employers who are not fully compliant but are moving towards compliance in good faith. Some Democrats have been critical of OSHA’s new guidance for exempting non-healthcare employers, and further changes are possible. As always, if you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

This article was published in The Daily Record on May 25, 2021. Life is finally beginning to feel a bit more normal as our long journey out of the pandemic is hopefully nearing an end. Just last week, Governor Cuomo adopted the CDC recommendations regarding masks, and lifted many of the capacity restrictions that have been in place for well over a year. However, many medical experts continue to say that the only way to truly put the pandemic behind us is for a significant portion of the population to get vaccinated so “herd immunity” can be achieved. Currently, a little over 50% of adults over 18 in New York have been fully vaccinated. However, polls show that anywhere from 15% to 30% of the population are either vaccine hesitant, or openly hostile to getting vaccinated. Putting politics aside, the refusal of a significant portion of the population to get vaccinated puts both public and private businesses and venues in a difficult position as they try to navigate a return to normalcy. Many states, including New York, have already made the decision to “incentivize” vaccinations to encourage more people to take the shot. Whether it is beer or a glass of wine in exchange for rolling up your sleeve or allowing access to more events and venues if you are fully vaccinated, the idea is to get as many people vaccinated by whatever means necessary. Despite such efforts, there will undoubtedly be some portion of the population that will simply refuse to be vaccinated – regardless of any incentives. As we are still in the stage of encouraging as many people as possible to get vaccinated, private businesses and government have largely avoided requiring or demanding that someone be vaccinated. However, as more employers pivot away from working remotely, the question of how to handle unvaccinated employees will come to a head. There is no national or statewide vaccine mandate, and it is highly unlikely that one will be issued. However, as far back as 1905, the United States Supreme Court in Jacobson v. Massachusetts held that states have a right to protect against an epidemic. That case involved a law mandating smallpox vaccinations, and upholding fines for those who refused to get one. While most businesses would prefer that employees voluntarily get vaccinated, do they have the right to require it? While private businesses may be hesitant to require vaccines, they generally have the right to do so. Vaccination status is not a protected class for private employers, and they would only be required to make accommodations for those individuals who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate health reasons. Similarly, more and more colleges and universities (including SUNY) have announced in order for students to return for in-person classes in the fall, they will need to show proof of vaccination. Colleges have wide discretion in taking action to protect the health and safety of its student population, and although they generally must allow for medical and religious exemptions, it is unlikely that the legal challenges to these vaccination requirements will be successful. Lawsuits have also been threatened against New York State or other municipalities that implement policies that treat vaccinated people differently than unvaccinated people. For example, Erie County Executive Mark Poloncarz has announced that the County—which owns Highmark Stadium—will require all attendees at Bills games in the fall to be fully vaccinated. The County’s position is that while individuals have a right to decide not to get the vaccination, the Constitution does not provide a right to attend a football game. It is likely that concert venues and other mass-gathering events will follow suit in some form. While being shut out of such events will undoubtedly anger many who choose not to get vaccinated, again, their legal recourses will be extremely limited as they are simply not being deprived of a protected right. Some have claimed that requiring someone to show proof of vaccination before entering an event would be a violation of HIPAA. They allege that requiring production of personal medical data as a prerequisite to gaining entry runs afoul of the statute. This argument is misplaced. Attendees would be voluntarily showing proof of vaccination, which is clearly not a HIPAA violation. Inevitably, there will be at least some legal challenges to policies, businesses or public entities that require vaccination to participate in or attend functions and activities. However, such challenges are largely going to be unsuccessful. As always, if you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Litigation Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Colin Ramsey, the author of this piece, here or at (716) 847-9103.

Employers across New York State, including office and manufacturing businesses, retailers and gyms/clubs, grappled late during the week of May 17, 2021 with the State’s adoption of the Centers for Disease Control’s (“CDC”) interim public health recommendations for fully vaccinated people. The CDC recommended that vaccinated people generally be permitted not to wear masks or socially distance by six feet, with notable exceptions for Pre K-12 schools, public transit, homeless shelters, correctional facilities, nursing homes and healthcare settings. Conversely, unvaccinated people in all settings must continue to wear masks and socially distance by six feet. The immediate issue presented was how to tell if employees, customers, members, etc. are vaccinated or not for purposes of applying the new law. For now, it appears most have settled on following the “honor system”, allowing people to decide on compliance with the law themselves. However, some businesses have decided to continue to require masks of employees, customers and/or members, while others have exercised their right to require proof of vaccination prior to allowing someone not to wear a mask on their premises. Business capacity is now only limited by the space needed in order to maintain the six feet of social distance. As per the above though, vaccinated people do not need to wear a mask or socially distance by six feet, so the business capacity is not limited by vaccinated people. For purposes of business capacity, proof of vaccination status is required to be obtained. The form of proof may be the paper vaccination card or a copy, digital application or the State’s Excelsior Pass. Business capacity will therefore still be limited to the extent people fail or refuse to provide proof of vaccination. Neither the CDC Recommendations nor the state guidance adopting them mentions or requires daily health assessments as previously required. Certainly, employers would be advised to continue to have employees who show COVID-19 symptoms to stay home and seek medical attention if need be. There is also no reason not to continue with the enhanced cleaning, hand-washing and other hygiene precautions that have been in effect during the pandemic. As always, if you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

U&K is proud to share that our Managing Partner, Anna E. Lynch, was chosen as one of The Daily Record’s Power 50 list. She is among a select group of managing attorneys, judges, law school deans, bar association directors, and more. The Daily Record chose to highlight law professionals who are working to make an impact in helping Western New York recover from the pandemic. Anna shared with The Daily Record what she enjoys about her role, facing challenges over the past year, offering advice to law students and what she looks forward to most as the pandemic restrictions ease. Years in current role: 17 What do you enjoy most about your role? As a health care attorney, I enjoy working with wonderful clients. They provide all sorts of care throughout the region. They enter their professions with the intent to help people, and it is my privilege to assist them through the legal issues they are required to navigate. As managing partner at Underberg & Kessler LLP, I enjoy working with my law partners, who challenge each other to be our best every day. To see our attorneys and staff provide legal services that help our clients succeed is very rewarding. What has been the biggest challenge you’ve dealt with over the past year? The pandemic affected the way that all businesses “do business.” The law profession was no exception. Fortunately, our firm was well positioned through our technology to transition to work from home on behalf of our clients. The real challenge was providing the personal support our employees and clients needed without being there in person for each other. What advice would you give law students who are graduating this year? Being an attorney in Upstate New York can be a very rewarding career. New law graduates should take advantage of opportunities to learn as much as they can from those with whom they will work. This is the time to listen, observe, and hone both their legal and interpersonal skills which will serve them well throughout their careers. What are you most looking forward to doing as COVID restrictions ease? While Zoom meetings have been necessary and helpful, I look forward to when we can supplement those types of meetings with in-person contact and gatherings. To learn more about Anna or to get in touch with her, click here. To learn more about our attorneys and our Firm click here, or phone us at 585.258.2800.

On May 5, 2021, Governor Cuomo signed into law the Health and Essential Rights Act (“HERO Act”), in response to COVID-19 (and possible future infectious disease) safety concerns. The HERO Act requires the New York State Department of Labor (“NYSDOL”) to issue enforceable minimum workplace health and safety standards and imposes significant new health and safety obligations on New York employers. The HERO Act adds two sections to the New York Labor Law: (1) the prevention of occupational exposure to an airborne infectious disease (effective June 4, 2021) and (2) workplace safety committees (effective November 1, 2021). Prevention of Occupational Exposure to Airborne Infectious Disease Initially, the NYSDOL is required to create model airborne infectious disease exposure prevention standards, differentiated by industry, for all worksites. All employers in New York will be required to adopt and provide to all of their “employees” (including independent contractors, part-time workers, domestic workers, home care workers, temporary and seasonal workers, and individuals working for staffing agencies, and other contractors and subcontractors working on behalf of an employer at a worksite), an airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plan to protect employees from exposure to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases in the workplace. “Worksite” is defined to mean “any physical space, including a vehicle, that has been designated as the location where work is performed.” “Employer” is defined to cover almost any entity or person that pays individuals for labor, regardless of size or number of employees. The NYSDOL model standard will establish minimum requirements for preventing exposure to airborne infectious diseases in the workplace. These standards will include requirements for employers on procedures and methods for employee health screenings; PPE; accessible workplace hand hygiene stations; regular cleaning and disinfecting of shared equipment; effective social distancing; compliance with mandatory or precautionary orders of isolation or quarantine; compliance with applicable engineering controls such as proper airflow and exhaust ventilation; and designation of one or more supervisory employees to enforce compliance. Employers are required to establish an airborne infectious disease exposure prevention plan either by adopting the model standard relevant to their industry or by establishing an alternative plan that equals or exceeds the minimum standards set forth by the model standard. Employers must provide their prevention plans to all their employees in writing in English and in the language identified by each employee as his or her primary language upon reopening after a period of closure due to airborne infectious disease, at the time of hiring, and upon the June 4, 2021 effective date of the HERO Act if the employer is permitted to operate at that time. In addition, employers must post their prevention plans in a visible and prominent location within their worksites and include the prevention plan in their employee handbooks. Employers are prohibited from discriminating, retaliating or taking adverse action against any employee for exercising their rights under this law and the NYSDOL may assess a civil penalty upon an employer or person found to have violated any provision of it. Workplace Safety Committees Effective on Nov. 1, 2021, employers must allow their employees to establish and administer workplace safety committees, if an employee requests it. Each safety committee shall be composed of employee and employer designees, provided two-thirds of the committee are non-supervisory employees (selected by non-supervisory employees). The safety committee and workplace safety designee will be authorized to raise health and safety concerns, hazards, complaints and violations to the employer to which the employer must respond; review any policy put in place in the workplace required by any provision of the Labor Law or any provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law; review the adoption of any policy in the workplace in response to any health or safety law, regulation or executive order; participate in any site visit by any governmental entity responsible for enforcing safety and health standards; review any report filed by the employer related to the health and safety of the workplace; and schedule a meeting during work hours at least once a quarter. Employers are prohibited from retaliating against any employee who participates in the activities or establishment of a safety committee for any actions taken pursuant to their participation. Employers should be ready to implement the provisions of this law as soon as they become effective (June 4 and November 1), and should be working with counsel to develop policies and procedures. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Jennifer Shoemaker, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2825.

Independent contractors are not entitled to the protections of the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) that employees are such as the minimum wage, overtime, etc. Employers often prefer to utilize independent contractors to avoid those FLSA wage expenses, as well as the costs of employee benefits. President Trump’s Department of Labor (“DOL”) had proposed to assist employers with a broader definition of independent contractor, but this week on Wednesday, May 5, 2021, President Biden’s DOL withdrew that proposed rule. President Biden’s DOL explained that it did not believe the broader draft rule was consistent with the FLSA and the case law under that applies the multifactor economic realities test. The new rule sought to focus the economic realities test on the worker’s control over the work and the opportunity for profit or loss. The current DOL Secretary stated that some workers are properly classified as independent contractors under current law but that the proposed rule would deprive FLSA protections from too large a category of workers. New York also focuses on control in determining if a worker is an independent contractor but not as broadly as the withdrawn proposed rule. The proposed rule does have at least one hope of survival: business groups have filed a lawsuit claiming that President Biden acted improperly when he initially postponed the proposed rule’s original effective date of March 8, 2021 in order to consider whether to withdraw it. The business groups allege that the Administrative Procedure Act applies and was not followed so the proposed rule took effect on March 8. There is no indication yet when that case will be decided. Assuming the proposed rule remains withdrawn, it will be interesting to see if the current DOL and/or Congress pursues implementing the ABC test for independent contractor determination, which is the most employee-friendly of the tests in common use. The ABC rule only finds an independent contractor exists if the worker is free from company control, performs work outside the company’s line of business, and operates as an independent business. President Biden discussed implementing this during his campaign. Interestingly, the COVID relief bills under both President Trump and President Biden largely avoided the distinction and provided enhanced unemployment benefits to nearly all workers. We will keep an eye on this important issue. As always, if you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

This article was published in The Daily Record on April 22, 2021. The Biden Administration announced a major infrastructure plan captioned the American Jobs Plan in March 2021 with massive $2.3 trillion expenditures and a broad definition of what counts for infrastructure. The proposal addresses bridges and roads to an extent but delves into climate change and energy re-structuring in a major way. In particular, the plan would use federal funds and policy to force the transition from fossil fuel usage to renewable energy over the next 15 years. The proposal includes an “Energy Efficiency and Clean Electricity Standard,” subject to Congressional adoption, that would set a national standard for energy production. The standard would require zero carbon emissions from power sector emissions by 2035. Significantly, President Biden’s infrastructure proposal aims to move the United States to a carbon free energy power system within 15 years. In addition, the plan calls for investing in improvements in the electrical grid to move towards clean power. Further, since transportation is a key area to be tackled in addressing pollution concerns, the plan would include significant incentives to promote development of electric vehicles, sale to United States residents, as well as buying such vehicles for government vehicle fleets. Public transportation would also be addressed with major funding for purchase of electric transit vehicles and school buses. The Biden Administration plans to promote development and distribution of clean vehicles by promoting clean vehicle production. The climate policy provisions appear to be timed to lead up to an international summit of world leaders on April 22 prior to the United Nations summit later this year. The President’s proposals are being offered in advance of the Earth Day virtual summit with world leaders where he intends to re-engage in the Paris Climate Agreement. The proposals and re-entering the Paris Climate accord are stirring opposition from Republicans in Congress. The minority plans to take a variety of steps to highlight the Biden Administration’s proposals, including hosting a variety of forums on climate change and energy policy, passing legislation to require the President to submit proposed Paris climate energy targets to Congress first, and proposing a variety of specific legislation to target aspects of energy and climate matters. Although Republican prospects for halting the Biden Administration aggressive climate policy proposals are limited based on the balance of seats in Congress and control of the White House, engagement on the issue is aimed to highlight a variety of key areas. Among other topics, the minority members of Congress hosted a forum last week on the President’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline project that we reported on in this column earlier this year. There are additional plans for more forums regarding the effects of Biden’s policies on impacted employees in the energy industry and consumers. Similarly, the Democrat members of Congress have begun holding hearings this week on components of the Biden infrastructure plan. Due to the expense of the plan, the President plans to have significant tax increases, raising the corporate tax from 21% to 28%. The Democrats in the Senate have also started discussing the concept of a “vehicle miles traveled tax” to replace the gas tax. Although the idea has not been popular in the past, the administration is willing to consider it to pay for the infrastructure plan spending. The infrastructure plan has been lauded by environmental groups but received an uncertain reception from a divided Congress. Although groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund support the plan and efforts to address climate change, the Biden Administration has not received the support of all of his party. Similarly, calls for a bi-partisan infrastructure legislation appear to be falling flat due to the expansive spending and scope of projects within the proposal. President Biden has signaled that his massive plan will need to be paid for with additional revenues. Hence, calls to spend trillions on infrastructure, however expansively it is defined, along with significant increases in the corporate tax rates are sticking points to Congressional action on the proposal. Notably, the Biden Administration appears open to passing the legislation in the Senate through reconciliation rather than normal order which requires 60 votes. This push has lead Senator Manchin from natural gas and coal rich West Virginia to oppose both the proposed corporate tax changes and passage of the legislation through reconciliation with a mere party line vote of 50 Senators. In addition, despite the support of President Biden’s party by labor unions, many mining, energy and pipeline workers are skeptical of the administration’s pitch for new green jobs to replace jobs linked to the fossil fuel and traditional energy sectors. As the President prepares for his virtual climate summit on April 22, his Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy and Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm are pushing the concept that the climate proposals will lead to a net gain in jobs for the country. While the Biden administration is selling the America Jobs Plan with a focus on investment and U.S. job creation the administration’s initial actions in office to cut the Keystone Pipeline and restrict energy development have had negative impacts on jobs in the energy sector. Nonetheless, the infrastructure plan is being touted as key to creating jobs and union opportunities. The administration has gone so far as to put out state level clean energy job sheets to show the potential for adding jobs in specific states. The American Jobs Plan and underlying climate policies warrant serious review by the public, industry, and government partners. While it is laudable to promise solutions to climate concerns, the cost and massive scope of the Biden Administration’s transformation of the U.S. energy, power and transportation sector need to be given thoughtful and measured study before setting course that will cost trillions of dollars and thousands of jobs across the country. For additional information about the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Environmental Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or George S. Van Nest , the author of this piece, here or at (716) 847-9105.

New York has long prohibited any adverse action against employees or potential employees based on their legal activities, including the use of legal consumable products while off-duty (NYS Labor Law Section 201-d). Marijuana, used in accordance with state law, is now in the lawful activity’s category as of March 31, 2021, akin to alcohol and tobacco. Thus, the mere use of marijuana by employees during off hours will generally be of no relevance whatsoever to employers. The symptoms of impairment are not defined in the laws and may be clarified by Department of Law regulations. Various exceptions to the lawful activities protection for off-duty marijuana use exist. First, federal law remains unchanged in its classification of marijuana as illegal; so, for example, the mandatory testing of truck drivers for drugs, including marijuana, and requirement that positive testers not be permitted to drive, remains unchanged. Second, employers may take disciplinary action against employees who manifest specific articulable symptoms of marijuana impairment that decrease or lessen the employees' ability to perform their job duties or would result in the employers violating their state and federal duties to provide workplaces free from recognized hazards. Employers are advised not to test for marijuana in pre-employment or random drug tests, as its use outside of work hours that does not result in impairment at work is a lawful activity. Moreover, having such knowledge may enable employees to make a lawful activities claim to avoid discipline on a separate legitimate ground. However, where there are specific articulable symptoms of impairment, a positive reasonable suspicion test would bolster the employer’s decision to discipline the employee. That discipline must be pursuant to an established workplace policy or substance abuse program. As always, if you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above, or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

Recently passed by Congress and signed by President Biden, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) provides employees who are involuntarily terminated, or whose hours are reduced voluntarily or involuntarily, with up to six months of subsidized COBRA coverage. Generally, employers will have to front the COBRA premium subsidy and will be reimbursed by the federal government through a refundable tax credit against the employer’s Medicare tax. The ARPA COBRA subsidy is available between April 1, 2021 and September 30, 2021, but may also apply to those whose employment ended as far back as November 1, 2019 as it applies to those whose initial COBRA period ends or would have ended if COBRA were elected/did not lapse during or after that six month period. The standard 18-month COBRA period for most people is not extended by this new law. Where the 18-month COBRA period ends before September 30, 2021 or starts after April 1, 2021, the subsidy will end up being less than six months. Excluded from the right to the subsidy are those terminated for gross misconduct as found by a judicial or administrative body, those who resign, those eligible for other group coverage, and those eligible for Medicare. Beyond the substance of the law, the trickiest part of the new subsidy requirement is the obligation employers will have to review their files and determine who among those terminated since November 1, 2019 may be eligible for the subsidy. Notice will need to be sent by May 30, 2021 regarding the benefit and the special enrollment period available. The federal Department of Labor (DOL) has been directed by the new law to provide model notices by April 11, 2021 for employer use and standard COBRA notices will also need to change. Employers are encouraged to consult with their accountants about the tax credit procedure and, lastly, be mindful of how the new subsidy will work with any existing COBRA funding they may do such as in severance plans or agreements or retirement programs. It is expected the DOL will issue guidance/regulations regarding the subsidy in the coming days. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.

As of April 1, New Yorkers and visitors to the State will no longer be required to quarantine after domestic travel. The New York State Department of Health still recommends that domestic travelers quarantine as an added precaution. Mandatory quarantine remains in effect though for international travelers, and all travelers (domestic and international) must continue to fill out the Traveler Health Form. International travelers will still be required to quarantine for 10 days unless a negative test is obtained within 3 days prior to departure and at least 4 days after arrival. The negative result from the second test must be received before the traveler may exit quarantine. Travelers should continue to monitor symptoms for 14 days, wash their hands, wear a mask, and immediately self-isolate if symptoms appear. This is good news for employers, whose employees traveling domestically shall be immediately eligible to return to the workplace rather than quarantining or testing out. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Jennifer Shoemaker, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2825.

Domestic travelers to New York from at least 24 hours out of state (New Yorkers or those who reside in another state) who have received their COVID-19 vaccine within 90 days of their arrival date will no longer have to quarantine or test out of quarantine. For employers, that will mean their employees in that category will be immediately eligible to return to the workplace. Travelers to New York from abroad will still need to follow the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) guidelines as to testing and quarantine. New York’s quarantine rules date to the Summer of 2020, first for certain non-contiguous states, and later for all non-contiguous states, with a mechanism to exit quarantine early with COVID-19 testing prior to and after arrival. Those rules remain for those not vaccinated within 90 days of their arrival from at least 24 hours out of state and require a 10 day quarantine unless a negative test is obtained within 3 days prior to departure and at least 4 days after arrival. The negative result from the second test must be received before the traveler may exit quarantine. Non-vaccinated travelers out of state less than 24 hours need not be tested prior to departure, and do not need to quarantine, but do need to get a COVID-19 test four days after arrival. If you have any questions regarding the issues discussed above or if you have any other Labor & Employment Law concerns, please contact the Underberg & Kessler attorney who regularly handles your legal matters or Paul Keneally, the author of this piece, here or at (585) 258-2882.