HR Tip: New EEOC guidance related to COVID-19 and family members

In recent guidance (Question D.13), the EEOC said that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not require employers to accommodate workers who want to avoid exposing family members who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19.

“The ADA does not require that an employer accommodate an employee without a disability based on the disability-related needs of a family member or other person with whom she is associated. For example, an employee without a disability is not entitled under the ADA to telework as an accommodation in order to protect a family member with a disability from potential COVID-19 exposure. Of course, an employer is free to provide such flexibilities if it chooses to do so. An employer choosing to offer additional flexibilities beyond what the law requires should be careful not to engage in disparate treatment on a protected EEO basis.”

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA watch (part 2)

Heat illness prevention

new video on heat hazard recognition and prevention is available.

Cal/OSHA issued a news release reminding employers to protect outdoor workers from heat illness.

Construction safety

A virtual stand-down to prevent struck-by incidents in construction is now available to view.

Recent fines and awards

Florida

  • Jax Utilities Management Inc. was cited for exposing employees to cave-in hazards at a Jacksonville worksite. Inspected as part of the National Emphasis Program on Trenching and Excavation, the construction contractor faces $56,405 in penalties.
  • Two contractors, Prestige Estates Property Management LLC of North Miami and Jesus Balbuena of Miami, face $44,146 in penalties for failure to protect employees from fall hazards at a construction worksite in North Miami. The investigation followed an employee’s 20-foot fall from an aerial lift that led to fatal injuries.
  • Flat Glass Distributors Inc. was cited for exposing employees to unguarded machinery, failure to implement and have a written lockout/tagout program, and electrical hazards at the Jacksonville fabrication and distribution facility. Inspected as part of the National Emphasis Program on Amputations, the custom glass shaping and cutting distributor faces $121,446 in penalties.
  • Crown Roofing LLC was cited for exposing employees to fall hazards at a residential worksite in Tamarac. The Sarasota-based contractor faces penalties of $134,937. The inspection was initiated under the Regional Emphasis Program for Falls in Construction after inspectors observed employees working on roofs without fall protection.

For additional information.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: EEOC expands COVID-19 workplace guidance, delays EEO-1 deadline

Employers cannot exclude employees from working simply because they have an underlying medical condition that the Centers for Disease Control says may pose a higher risk of severe illness if they contract COVID-19. In early May, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) posted an updated and expanded technical assistance publication addressing questions arising under the Federal Equal Employment Opportunity Laws related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The publication, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws, expands on a previous publication that focused on the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

The newly added questions and answers, G.3, G.4., and G.5., provide information about the accommodation of employees with underlying medical conditions. The answer to G.4. was revised after the initial posting to clarify that the ADA does not allow exclusion of employees simply because they have an underlying medical condition that the CDC says might pose a higher risk of severe illness if the individual contracts COVID-19.

Employers must do a thorough direct threat analysis, which includes an individualized assessment based on relevant factors and a determination of whether the threat can be reduced or eliminated through a reasonable accommodation. The guidance notes that the “direct threat” requirement is a high standard. It also includes information on what an employee needs to do to request a reasonable accommodation and examples of accommodation. A worker must inform the employer that a change is needed for a reason related to a medical condition, which may be requested in conversation or writing. The employer may then ask questions or seek medical documentation.

EEO-1 filing deadline delayed

The Coronavirus pandemic has delayed the deadline for employers to file both their 2019 and 2020 EEO-1 Component 1 data to March 2021.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Ten costly mistakes when reopening and operating a business during COVID-19

These challenging times are a stress test for all companies. Survival mode is not sufficient. What’s needed is an ability to lead employees through the crisis, absorb and respond to uncertainty, agility to modify the operating model quickly, and creativity to improve the experience of customers. The Internet offers an overabundance of information – google “preparing your business to reopen after COVID-19” and there are 1,780,000,000 hits. There’s no argument – it’s a daunting task. Here are ten costly mistakes to avoid:

  1. Fail to have a written, site-specific COVID-19 Exposure Control and Response Plan

    Many states and localities require businesses to develop and implement a written, site-specific COVID-19 Exposure Control and Response Plan and both the CDC and OSHA recommend adopting one. Dustin Boss, a Certified Risk Architect and Master WorkComp Advisor with Ottawa Kent Insurance, notes that any business that operates without an Exposure Control Plan will be exposed to a number of legal or business risks. These include OSHA citations, being shut down by state or local health departments, becoming a target for a wrongful death action brought by families of employees, temporary workers, customers, vendors, and/or guests. Lawyers have already started filing wrongful death suits, including high profile cases against Tyson and Walmart.

    Moreover, there is significant reputation exposure. Recently, a worker on the production line of American Fork (Utah-based Built Brands LLC), who contracted the virus along with her disabled daughter and roommate filed suit against her employer, charging she was threatened with termination when she complained about the company’s safety procedures. The case has received national attention.

  2. Fail to follow appropriate guidance

    While most business owners are responsible for making their plans to keep employees, customers, and vendors safe when reopening and operating their establishments, there are critical guidelines to incorporate. The CDC has issued detailed guidance on reopening businesses, health care facilities and providers, schools, transit, and other industries. This guidance also provides information regarding testing and data to assist with exposure and risk concerns for those industries. Joint guidance by the CDC and the EPA to clean and disinfect surfaces is available here.

    OSHA has provided general guidance for businesses as well as industry-specific guidance, which are offered in both English and Spanish. Its most recent guidance focuses on strategies to implement social distancing in the workplace. Spanish version.

    In addition, most states have provided specific guidelines that must be incorporated into the exposure plan. The best resource is the state’s dedicated webpages for COVID-19. Recognizing that each state has its own guidance, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce established the Essential Critical Infrastructure Workplace Tracker. It provides a state-by-state glance of stay-at-home orders with links to each order, start and current end dates, and other details about each state’s guidance.

    Beyond the federal and state resources, stick with sources you know you can trust such as your trusted advisors and industry and trade organizations. Professional organizations such as the National Safety Council (NSC) and the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) offer industry-specific guidance. The North America’s Building Trades Unions and CPWR, The Center for Construction Research and Training have developed national guidance on infectious disease exposure control practices for construction sites.

    Keep an open mind, constantly evaluate, and adjust your plan as operations evolve.

  3. Fail to incorporate the full range of operations in your plan, including remote workers

    Even when the plant or office has been reconfigured to conform to physical-distancing protocols, there’s a need to figure out adaptations for bathrooms, breakrooms, entrances and exits, hallways, elevators, and any other common areas. Determine how visitors, whether customers, vendors, or delivery people, will be managed. If your workforce relies heavily on public transport, you may want to consider other options such as ride-sharing subsidies or more flexible hours to avoid rush hour.

    Stay-at-home orders were issued at such speed that employers had no time for home assessments and ergonomic training. Training and investment in proper desks or chairs for those workers who will continue to work remotely for an extended period should be part of the plan. To the extent that an employer has not created or revisited their telework policy, now is the time to do so.

  4. Fail to properly communicate the plan to employees and customers

    In the early stages of the outbreak, Dr. Fauci said, “… if it looks like you’re overreacting, you’re probably doing the right thing.” If it feels like you are overcommunicating, you are probably doing the right thing, too. The fear of the virus, coupled with the fear of losing a job, is unprecedented. Tell your employees and customers early and often what you are doing to keep them safe. If you have a phased return to work and some employees are furloughed, be sure to communicate with all of them. Keep an open dialogue with employees and be transparent. Do they feel safe?

    Be specific about what you are expecting of the workers. If face coverings are required, is the company going to provide them, when they have to be worn, how they can be cleaned, can they wear a bandana, and so on. What are the consequences if they don’t comply? Identify their responsibilities to help with prevention efforts while at work by following company instituted housekeeping, social distancing, and other best practices at the workplace.

    Of course, communication and training must adhere to social distancing protocols or be safely automated. Studying “essential businesses” that stayed open during the pandemic, McKinsey researchers found that online training and education modules to familiarize employees with the new safety and hygiene protocols before they return to work played a significant role in instilling new habits.

    Ongoing reminders, whether signage, texts, or announcements to sanitize workstations, wash hands, and maintain social distance help to reinforce positive behavior as well as build employee confidence in their safety. Also, don’t assume that employees know what to do in the event of exposure or diagnosis; constant reminders are important.

  5. Fail to properly train managers and supervisors

    Managers and supervisors are the linchpins to successfully reopen and maintain business continuity. Educate and involve them in the development of new protocols before reopening. Be realistic about what the changed working conditions mean for production and discuss expectations. Not only do the managers have to adapt to changed working conditions, but they have to understand the fundamentals of assessing the risk, recognizing the hazard of COVID-19, how to handle a suspected case and even rumors of a suspected exposure. Moreover, they will be working with many employees whose mental and emotional health has been upended by the virus. They’ll need to understand at the most granular level employee sentiment about COVID-19 and their comfort level with the company’s response.

  6. Assume your workers are ready to return to workA nationwide survey of 1000 workers in late April by Eagle Hill Consulting LLC found that 54% were worried about exposure to COVID-19 at their job and 58% said the availability of protective protections like masks, gloves, and hand sanitizer would make them feel safer. Fifty-five percent say mandating employees with symptoms stay home and 53% said making COVID-19 tests available would also lessen concerns, but only 43% support employers testing for symptoms. Seventeen percent worried the test results would affect their employment.

    The good news is that most employees (71%) say their employers will be prepared to safely bring employees back to the workplace. However, there will be some workers who may refuse to work or may upset others if forced to return. Others may want to continue to work remotely. Be prepared about how you will treat these workers in a fair and non-discriminatory way and document your response.

  7. Fail to recognize the toll on physical and mental health

    For many people, this has been the most distressing time in their lives. They’re concerned about their family, economic hardship, and health. Those with physically demanding jobs may not be in shape. Some have had difficulty sleeping or turned to substance abuse and others have been severely stressed. The impact on mental health is real. Knowing that you understand what they are going through and offering resources to those in need can help to ease anxiety.

  8. Not understanding the privacy and logistic issues of conducting tests, taking temperatures, and contact apps

    Guidance from the EEOC permits certain exceptions to the traditional rules under the ADA, but it doesn’t mean that privacy rights can be ignored. Further, the guidance does not address which tests are appropriate, who should conduct the tests, how tests should be administered, what should be done to protect workers’ privacy, the reliability or frequency of testing, how the tests will be paid for and whether employees should be paid for the time they wait in line to have their temperatures taken.

    It’s important to realize that under OSHA temperatures are medical records, which must be maintained for 30 years. Some legal experts recommend minimizing the amount of data you collect, such as recording only those that exceed the COVID-19 threshold of 100.4 degrees and are sent home. Under the ADA, the information that is recorded should be treated as a confidential medical document and not placed in an employee’s personnel file.

    Employers should also review the CDC guidance on testing and any relevant state guidance.

    Similarly, companies must also decide on whether they use contact apps to track and identify people who might have been exposed when someone tests positive. To date, the EEOC has not issued guidance, but employer-based contact tracing implicates a variety of laws, including workplace laws like the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), other federal and state employment, civil rights, privacy, and consumer protection laws.

    Before embarking on testing or tracking, it is best to seek legal counsel.

  9. Discriminate against those considered susceptible to the coronavirus

    The CDC has identified the population that is at high-risk for severe illness, including people over 65 and those with pre-existing health conditions, and recommends that employers protect such employees by encouraging options to telework and offering duties that minimize interaction. The EEOC has also issued guidance that states that if an employer is concerned about an employee’s health being jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, the employer cannot exclude the employee “solely because the worker has a disability that places him at a ‘higher risk for severe illness'” if he gets COVID-19. Such an action is not allowed unless the employee’s disability poses a “direct threat” to his health, and cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation. However, it is appropriate to reach out to employees in high-risk groups and discuss accommodations that may be possible.

    In deciding who will return to work, legal experts suggest employers should follow the same procedures they would in reductions-in-force by statistically analyzing those they are asking to return and see if it is disparately impacting protected classes. If there’s a statistical anomaly, documentation is critical. A good beginning is to look at the skill sets you’ll need in the new economy and employees who are cross-trained.

    Also, employers must pay close attention to employment laws, including exempt and non-exempt classifications, overtime calculations if performing work in two positions at different rates, and benefits for existing and furloughed workers. For workers’ compensation, employers will want to carefully document all changes to their operation and job classifications, as well as employees on paid medical leave.

  10. Lose focus on other health and safety risks

    It’s well-known that distracted workers are prone to make more mistakes and safety incidents increase. There’s little doubt that COVID-19 and concerns about job security are major distractions. Reinforce the importance of safe work practices and while social distancing may make pre-COVID-19 meetings impossible, alternative methods should be used.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

OSHA changes course again on recording of COVID-19 cases and increases onsite inspections

OSHA’s shifting guidance has employers’ heads spinning. For the third time since the onset of the pandemic, OSHA has issued guidance about recording COVID-19 cases. In March, it sent a memo reminding employers that COVID-19 diagnoses are recordable events, but in April it backtracked, significantly limiting the reporting requirements. Specifically, only cases related to health care workers, first responders, and correctional institution employees had to be recorded. All other employers were exempt except in cases in which “objective evidence” existed that a COVID-19 infection was work-related or the evidence was “reasonably available” to the employer.

New guidance announced on May 19 overrides the April guidance.Essentially, the new guidance requires an individualized work-relatedness analysis for all industries.

Effective May 26, COVID-19 cases are recordable if the illness is confirmed as COVID-19, the illness is work-related as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5 and the case involves at least one of the general recording criteria listed in 29 CFR 1904.7. The criteria include death, days away from work, medical treatment “beyond first aid,” loss of consciousness, and restricted work or transfer to another job. The revised enforcement policy directs that employers “make reasonable efforts” to investigate confirmed cases of coronavirus in the workplace to determine if they were more likely than not work-related.

Recognizing employee privacy concerns, OSHA indicates that employers are “not expected to undertake extensive medical inquiries” and may rely only “on the information reasonably available to the employer at the time it made its work-relatedness determination.” According to Conn Maciel Carey LLP, an OSHA/MSHA Workplace Safety, Labor and Employment Boutique Law Firm, it will be sufficient in most cases for employers to:

  1. Ask the employee how he believes he contracted the COVID-19 illness
  2. Discuss with the employee his work and out-of-work activities that may have led to the COVID-19 illness; and
  3. Review the employee’s work environment for potential SARS-CoV-2 exposure (which should be informed by any other instances of workers in that environment contracting COVID-19 illness).

During the investigations, employers need to consider workers’ privacy and refrain from disclosing the names of those who have tested positive for the virus to others in the workplace and should document all aspects of the investigation. OSHA notes, “If, after the reasonable and good faith inquiry described above, the employer cannot determine whether it is more likely than not that exposure in the workplace played a causal role with respect to a particular case of COVID-19, the employer does not need to record that COVID-19 illness.”

To assist employers in identifying work-relatedness, OSHA describes the types of evidence that may weigh in favor of or against work-relatedness. For instance, OSHA says, COVID-19 illnesses “are likely work-related” if:

  • Several cases develop among workers who work closely together and there is no alternative explanation;
  • The illness is contracted shortly after lengthy, close exposure to a particular customer or coworker who has a confirmed case of COVID-19 and there is no alternative explanation; and
  • Job duties include having frequent, close exposure to the general public in a locality with ongoing community transmission and there is no alternative explanation.

The guidance also indicates that an employee’s COVID-19 illness likely is NOT work-related if:

  • Only one worker in a general vicinity in the workplace contracts COVID-19;
  • Job duties do not include having frequent contact with the general public, regardless of the rate of community spread;
  • Outside the workplace, the infected employee associates closely and frequently with a non-coworker (e.g., a family member, significant other, or close friend) who has COVID-19.

As Conn Maciel Carey LLP points out, the biggest differences between the April 10 guidance and the May 19 guidance are:

  1. There is no exemption from conducting case-by-case work relatedness analyses for medium and low-risk exposure workplaces; and
  2. The new memo expands the examples of the type of objective evidence of likely work-relatedness from just a cluster of positive cases, to also include cases where someone contracts the illness after a lengthy exposure at work or has job duties that involve frequent, close exposure to the general public.

The firm also notes the importance of the term “no alternative explanation.” Where there is widespread community spread, it is important to document if an employee acknowledges such interactions away from work.

When determining whether an employer has complied with the revised policy, OSHA instructs compliance officers in a memo issued the same day to apply these considerations:

  • The reasonableness of the employer’s investigation into whether the COVID-19 case was work-related
  • The evidence available to the employer
  • The evidence that COVID-19 was contracted at work

Consistent with existing regulations, employers with no more than 10 employees and certain employers in “low-hazard industries” do not have an obligation to report COVID-19 cases unless a work-related illness results in death, in-patient hospitalization, amputation, or loss of an eye.

It is important to remember that even if a COVID-19 is recordable, it does not mean that it will be compensated by workers’ comp. OSHA recordability does not impact workers’ comp determinations and vice versa.

What employers should do now

For employers to prove a reasonable and full faith inquiry, Dustin Boss, a fellow Certified WorkComp Advisor offers this advice:

  • Implement preventive measures and methods for contact tracing as employees return to the workplace
  • Develop procedures to respect employee privacy during investigation into work-relatedness of a confirmed case of COVID-19
  • Update 2020 OSHA records and retrain staff members responsible for tracking injuries (if late, submit 2019 data which was due March 2)
  • Focus on minimizing the risk of transmission in the workplace and develop procedures to investigate the circumstances surrounding employees who test positive for COVID-19

Beyond the recording requirements, employers are exposed to the possibility of OSHA citations. As the fear of contracting the novel coronavirus permeates the workplace, thousands of employees have complained to OSHA regarding the insufficiency of their employers’ protection against COVID-19. In the same news release announcing the new enforcement guidelines, OSHA announced that it is increasing in-person inspections at all types of workplaces. “The new enforcement guidance reflects changing circumstances in which many non-critical businesses have begun to reopen in areas of lower community spread. The risk of transmission is lower in specific categories of workplaces, and personal protective equipment potentially needed for inspections is more widely available. OSHA staff will continue to prioritize COVID-19 inspections, and will utilize all enforcement tools as OSHA has historically done.”

Boss points out that enforcement of COVID-19 issues falls under the catch-all General Duty Clause that employers will provide a place of employment free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious harm to his employees. He notes that citations for COVID-19 exposure will rely on guidance the employer did not meet, including OSHA’s.

Both OSHA and the CDC recommend employers adopt exposure control plans. (see post for more detail)

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

COVID-19: Returning to workplace checklist

Employers face a daunting task as they craft new and revised policies for the “new normal” as employees start to return to work onsite. Not only do they have to comply with a myriad of constantly changing federal and state laws and guidelines, but they have to earn the trust of their employees, vendors, and customers that the workplace is safe. It’s critical to have a clear plan that is well communicated, but flexible, as this is uncharted territory. Open communication and encouraging feedback will build confidence as safe and efficient processes evolve.

The details of each employer’s plan will look different. At a minimum, it must reflect compliance with federal and state laws and guidelines. Industry groups and associations provide helpful guidance and resources and OSHA has issued guidance for specific industries. The CDC guidelines for business can be found here.

The American College of Occupational and Environmental Medicine (ACOEM) has launched Getting America Safely Back to Work that describes how OEM physicians can help employers navigate through the myriad return-to-workplace issues as well as return-to-work/fitness for duty issues for injured employees.

Automotive-seating manufacturer Lear Corp. recently published the “Safe Work Playbook,” a guide for safe practices at work during the pandemic for organizations of all sizes. It includes steps for cleaning and disinfecting equipment, staggering shifts and lunch breaks, setting up a pandemic response team, establishing onsite health screening, and creating protocols for isolating employees who come to work sick.

Here are key issues to consider:

  1. Workplace safety: a COVID-19 Infection/Exposure Control Plan
    • Administrative controls: staggered return to work, reducing number of workers onsite at one time, changing or alternating shifts minimizing or eliminating overlap, cross-training workers to accommodate more absenteeism, re-schedule lunch breaks, appointing a COVID-19 coordinator to oversee equipment disinfecting and social distancing
    • Engineering controls: reconfiguring workspaces to promote physical distancing, increasing ventilation rates, high-efficiency air filters, installing physical barriers, one-way traffic patterns throughout workplace, monitors that beep when one worker gets within six feet of another, more handwashing stations, drive-through windows for customer service
    • Pre-shift health screening: temperature checks and health/symptom questionnaires
    • Decisions about personal protective equipment, respirators, face masks, and face coverings – will they be required, who will pay for them, etc.
    • Detailed plans for enhanced disinfecting, including common touchpoints such as time clocks, doors, shared equipment, break room. Shift changes should allow the opportunity for optimal disinfection of the workplace
    • Screening and minimizing interaction with all visitors and vendors
    • Plan for safe meeting places with no more than 10 employees at any meeting
    • Protocols for isolating employees who become ill at work, stay-at-home requirements, and exposure communication to affected staff
    • Restrict access to confined or closed spaces
    • Provide adequate handwashing facilities and/or hand sanitizer that contains at least 60% alcohol
    • Define and limit travel to “essential”
  2. Recalling employees
    • Larger employers are encouraged to use a phasing-in system to limit exposure and build employee confidence
    • Know how to recall furloughed employees to qualify for loan forgiveness under the Paycheck Protection Program and how the new federal paid leave laws apply to employees returning from furlough
    • Keep separate records for payroll period that workers were furloughed for workers’ compensation purposes
    • If job responsibilities have changed, understand what needs to be done for compliance with FLSA and Workers’ Compensation
    • Notify the state unemployment agency of employees recalled
    • Determine how to handle employees who are unable or unwilling to return to work
    • Determine if light duty will be offered to injured workers to return to work and what will happen if they refuse to do so because of fear of exposure
    • Evaluate the need for extra protections for “high-risk” employees
    • Review any benefit and compensation changes that have been made
    • Have a remote pre-return training for managers and supervisors
    • On the first day of facility reopening, have staggered staff training in an area that adheres to social distancing protocol
    • Consider requiring employees to sign and acknowledge the organizations’ policies on preventing the spread of the coronavirus
  3. OSHA
    • The COVID-19 exposure control plan or response plan should provide a detailed description of everything the employer is doing to address the hazard, including an assessment of potential changes to personal protective equipment, administrative controls, workspace separation, and staggered work shifts
    • Keep adequate records of good-faith efforts to comply with standards that require annual or recurring audits, reviews, training, or assessments
    • Understand the reporting requirements for COVID-19 cases
    • Follow guidance issued for your industry
    • Do not retaliate against employees who file complaints
  4. Work from home
    • When possible, continue remoting working and flexible hours
    • Review policies to determine if they need to be strengthened or updated
    • Communicate which jobs will be permitted to continue to telework and why
    • Consider staggering work in office and at home among team members
    • Assess IT infrastructure and staff
    • Monitor productivity and be clear about expectations

Looking ahead

Employers have learned valuable lessons regarding their resiliency over the past months. It’s important to prepare for a potential second wave in the fall as well as implement a business continuity plan, including infectious disease control, if a plan does not exist.

A time of crisis is what truly defines a reputation. Your response to your employees, customers, and vendors will be the key to survival and long-term prosperity.

Additional resources and a formal checklist can be found at the Duncan Financial Group COVID-19 Resource Center Online

For additional information and resources on Coronavirus, go to the Duncan Financial Group COVID-19 Resource Center Online

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

HR Tip: New I-9 form now available

On Jan. 31, 2020, the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services published the Form I-9 Federal Register notice announcing a new version of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, that the Office of Management and Budget approved on Oct. 21, 2019. This new version contains minor changes to the form and its instructions. Changes to the instructions clarify who can act as an authorized representative on behalf of the employer and what documents are acceptable as well as other updates.

It’s a best practice to begin using the form immediately, although the notice provides employers additional time to make necessary updates and adjust their business processes. Employers may continue using the prior version of the form (Rev. 07/17/2017 N) until April 30, 2020. After that date, they can only use the new form with the 10/21/2019 version date. The version date is located in the lower left corner of the form.

The new edition of the form is available in fillable PDF format, print format and in Spanish on USCIS’ I-9 Central website. However, the Spanish form may only be executed by employers in Puerto Rico; employers in the 50 states, Washington, D.C., and other U.S. territories may use the Spanish version of the form as a translation guide only but must complete the English version of the form.

All U.S. employers are required to complete a Form I-9 for every employee hired to verify that the individual is authorized for employment in the United States under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) and for re-verifying current employees with expiring employment authorization documentation. Employers should not complete new forms for existing employees who do not require re-verification.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Legal Corner

ADA

Construction company pays $100K for firing worker with epilepsy

A Bellingham, Washington company, formerly doing business as Diamond B Constructors, Inc. and its successor, Harris Companies, will pay $100,000 and provide other relief to settle a disability discrimination lawsuit filed by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). A pipefitter, who also holds a rigger’s certification, was dispatched by her union to work on a project. When she told her supervisor that she has epilepsy, he and other supervisors determined she could not work safely at heights and terminated her. She had not requested accommodations, had no medical restrictions, and her epilepsy was well controlled by medicine.

The law requires employers to make a case-by-case assessment of an employee’s ability to perform the job when safety concerns exist. EEOC Seattle Field Director Nancy Sienko said, “Epilepsy reportedly affects 2.2 million Americans and affects each person differently. It is critical that employers not base job decisions on stereotypes, but instead carefully consider each individual’s abilities.”

FMLA

FMLA doesn’t provide protection for employees to evaluate family member’s medical condition

In Schaar v. U.S. Steel Corp., a manager in the customer quality engineering department, who lived in Michigan, was aware of problems with a top customer in Mississippi. When the matter became urgent, he was onsite in Tennessee and was ordered to travel to Mississippi to handle the problem himself. He refused because his wife had a heart condition and wasn’t feeling well and he had to return to Michigan to assess the situation. When he arrived home, he determined his wife did not require medical attention.

Returning to work the next day in Michigan, he was fired for insubordination. The manager sued under the FMLA for both interference and retaliation. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan ruled in favor of U.S. Steel on its motion for summary judgment on both claims. The manager never requested FMLA leave or a reduced work schedule to care for his wife.

Distinguishing between providing care to a family member and evaluating a family member’s condition, the court determined he was not providing care and was not entitled to FMLA leave.

Workers’ Compensation

Comp settlement bars claim for disability discrimination – California

In an unpublished decision, Kennedy v. MUFG Union Bank, a bank employee claimed she worked in a hostile work environment and took a medical leave for stress, anxiety, and depression. While she was out, the bank restructured and eliminated her position. Unlike others, she did not receive a severance package.

Her request to return on a reduced work schedule was denied because the position was eliminated, so she filed a comp claim. When it was settled, she resigned voluntarily. She then filed suit based on disability and her race. The court argued there could be no wrongful termination because she was not terminated and that the record demonstrated a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for the increased supervision.

Employer not liable for fatal accident caused by injured employee – California

While commuting to work, an employee of the City of Los Angeles struck and killed a pedestrian. A chemist who worked in the lab, the employee did not use his car for employment. He did have a neurological condition and had fallen at work, suffering a back sprain. After some time off, he was allowed to return to work with restrictions. About three weeks later he was driving to work and struck and killed a pedestrian. Initially his license was suspended, but it was reinstated and he was not charged.

Two brothers of the deceased argued the city should be held responsible because it knew of his condition and allowed him to return to work prematurely, so the “work-spawned risk endangering the public” exception to the going and coming rule applied. The court disagreed and found the chemist was on his commute to work and the accident was unrelated to his employment.

Exclusive remedy defense in civil suit allowed in spite of comp denial – Florida

In McNair v. Dorsey, an appellate ruled that the employer’s denial of liability for a comp claim did not prevent it from using the exclusive remedy defense in a civil case. The employee worked for James Armstrong’s tree service company and was working with a coworker, Dorsey, when he alleged he suffered injuries. The insurance company found that there was no compensable claim. He then voluntarily dismissed the comp claim and alleged negligence on the part of both Armstrong and Dorsey, arguing the exclusive remedy defense did not apply since his claim had been denied.

While a trial court found in favor of the employer, the appellate court noted an employer can be barred from raising a workers’ compensation exclusivity defense if the employer denies the employee’s claim “by asserting that the injury did not occur in the course and scope of his or her employment.” However, the court noted that the employer is not always foreclosed from claiming immunity to a lawsuit simply because it denied compensability in an earlier proceeding.The factfinder needs to determine if the accident occurred in the course and scope of employment and would have been covered by workers’ comp and protected by exclusive remedy.

Worker who filed comp claim after being fired can bring retaliatory discharge suit – Florida

In Salus v. Island Hospitality Florida Management Inc. a worker reported an injury and later told the employer he was having difficulty getting follow-up treatment. Two weeks later he was fired, allegedly for threatening physical harm to a co-worker, which he denied. He filed suit for retaliatory discharge. The trial court found that reporting an injury was not the same as filing a claim and granted summary judgment to the employer.

The appellate court disagreed. It noted it would not make sense to limit the statute to retaliatory acts that occurred after filing the claim because an employer could easily avoid liability by firing the employee right away. Further the employee’s actions were consistent with a workers’ comp claim that is protected. Since there was a genuine issue of material fact as to the reason for termination, summary judgement was inappropriate.

Health care providers can’t go after comp settlement – Illinois

After an injured employee filed for bankruptcy protection for minimal assets and her pending workers comp claim ($31,000), the state Supreme Court ruled that the proceeds of a workers comp settlement are exempt from claims made by medical providers who treated the injury or illness in re Hernandez. She owed a combined $138,000 to the three medical practices.

Section 21 of the statute provides that any payment, award or decision under the Workers’ Compensation Act is unequivocally free from claims to satisfy debt; however, the health care providers argued that amendments in 2005 provide an exception to the exemption. The court disagreed, noting there was “no ambiguity whatsoever in this provision.”

Employer does not have to pay for rehab after injury is resolved – Minnesota

In Ewing v. Print Craft Inc., an employee sprained his ankle and there was medical disagreement as to whether he developed complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS). His primary care provider and podiatrist found he had, but doctors at the Mayo Clinic disagreed and said the injury was resolved. He met with a rehabilitation consultant who prepared a rehabilitation plan and submitted it to the Department of Labor and Industry and also provided medical management services to address Ewing’s reported symptoms.

Although the insurance company notified her that they were requiring an IME and would not pay for any further services, the consultant continued to provide services. The IME found that the employee had suffered an ankle sprain and did not have CRPS. A compensation judge held the injury was resolved on the date provided by the Mayo Clinic. The consultant appealed and the WC Court of Appeals overturned, noting the print company needed to provide notice and show good cause to terminate the rehabilitation plan.

The Supreme Court reversed, noting an employer’s liability ends when the worker is no longer disabled.

Worker who intentionally shot self with nail gun denied comp – Nebraska

In Eddy v. Builders Supply Co. Inc., an employee said a nail gun misfired and caused a three-quarter-inch nail to become embedded in her right temple. There were no witnesses. While co-workers testified that guns had misfired in the past, the company presented evidence regarding her personal life and a possible suicide note. The compensation court found that the employee shot herself intentionally and the Supreme Court agreed.

Misrepresentations about job search nix benefits – New York

In Matter of Calabrese v. Fortini Inc., an appellate court upheld a finding that a worker had made misrepresentations about his efforts to find a new job, thereby forfeiting his entitlement to benefits. The employer’s investigator contacted several of the employers identified by the worker and found he had not submitted an application, applied for a job that did not exist, or the contact did not exist.

Although the appellate court acknowledged that this evidence was hearsay, it was sufficiently reliable and provided substantial evidence to support the Workers’ Compensation Board finding that the worker had made false representations to obtain benefits.

Award of benefits for unwitnessed and unexplained fall upheld – New York

In Matter of Docking v. Lapp Insulators LLC, a truckdriver was loading a cart when he apparently fell and was found unconscious and bleeding by co-workers. When he regained consciousness, he had no memory of what happened. Under state law, there is a presumption of compensability for accidents occurring during the course of employment, which are unwitnessed or unexplained, and he was awarded benefits by a compensation law judge.

Upon appeal, a state appellate court noted to rebut the presumption, it is the employer’s burden “to provide substantial evidence that the accident was not work-related.” While the employer presented medical testimony that the fall and resulting brain injury were caused by a preexisting cardiovascular condition, the Emergency Room doctor testified that there were no signs of heart damage or atrial fibrillation. The possibility of a preexisting, idiopathic condition was not enough to overturn the decision.

Assaulted bus driver not fully disabled by PTSD and morbid obesity – New York

In Matter of the Claim of Robert Rapaglia v. New York City Transit Authority, the Supreme Court Appellate Division affirmed a Workers Compensation Board decision that the driver had a 60% loss of earning capacity but was not fully disabled. The bus driver argued that the board failed to consider his obesity and limited education and work experience in calculating his percentage of lost wage-earning capacity.

The court noted that in rating the severity of a medical impairment due to PTSD or other causally-related psychiatric conditions, “the evaluation should include the impact of the psychiatric impairment on functional ability, including activities of daily living.” While there was conflicting medical testimony, the court found the Board had not erred in finding that he could not drive a bus, but was capable of other work, nor could it conclude that his obesity was causally related to the workplace injury.

Employer may have to pay for expensive compound cream – Pennsylvania

In Workers’ First Pharmacy Services LLC v. Bureau of Workers’ Compensation Fee Review Hearing Office (Gallagher Bassett Services), the Commonwealth Court ruled that a pharmacy did not prematurely file a fee review petition to challenge an employer’s refusal to pay for a compound cream that had been prescribed to an injured employee. The employee had injured her shoulder and the comp claim was accepted. Her physician prescribed a compound cream, which the pharmacy dispensed and billed the employer $4,870.

The employer refused to pay, and the pharmacy filed a fee review application, which the employer argued was premature because it had not been established that the cream was related to the work injury. However, the pharmacy argued that company waived its right to challenge the cream as unrelated because it did not seek a Utilization Review (UR).

After several appeals, the Commonwealth Court ruled that employers or insurers must make payments to providers for treatment within 30 days unless there is a dispute as to the reasonableness or necessity of the treatment, in which case the payer may seek a UR. The court vacated the decision and remanded for a fee review determination.

Widow and children to receive death benefits for fatal workplace stabbing – Pennsylvania

In JBS Holdings USA Inc. v. Workers’ Compensation Appeal Board, a worker was stabbed to death by a co-worker. While the company argued that the murder was related to a “personal animus” and not work-related, the court ruled there was no evidence of personal animosity. The ruling was upheld upon appeal.

Temporary worker who experienced horrific injuries fails to win tort lawsuit – Tennessee

In Henry v. CMBB LLC, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held in a 2-1 decision that the employee’s intentional tort lawsuit was barred by the exclusive remedy provision of the Tennessee Workers Compensation Act. The temporary worker was assigned to work at a manufacturing facility and operated a 200-ton metal press, which contains a light curtain that prevents it from cycling when it detects a worker nearby. An operator had reported that the curtain was not working properly and one was on order, but the press remained in service.

The temp worker was operating the press when the machine cycled, crushing her arms, both of which were amputated below the elbow. She and her husband filed a lawsuit arguing the company intended to injure her because it was well aware of the danger but continued to operate the machine. The courts, however, noted that even if the employer was aware of the potential for injury, it does not mean the employer intended to injure the worker. Precedent has held that even egregious safety violations fail to show actual intent to injure and the exclusive remedy provision prevails. In Tennessee, the intentional tort exception is quite narrow.

Two years apart, injuries can stem from same accident – Virginia

In Merck & Co. v. Vincent, a worker injured his neck and arm in 2009. In 2011, he became dizzy and fell as a result of pain medication, seriously injuring his knee. The Court of Appeals upheld the Workers’ Compensation Commission ruling that the injuries arose from “the same accident” for purposes of determining whether he was permanently and totally disabled. The Virginia statute provides for an award of permanent total disability benefits to a worker who has suffered the functional loss of two limbs “in the same accident.”

The court noted the “compensable consequence” doctrine, which says that if an injury arises out of and in the course of employment, “every natural consequence that flows from the injury likewise arises out of the employment unless it is the result of an independent intervening cause attributable to claimant’s own intentional conduct.”

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

 

HR Tip: Retaliation continues to top EEOC workplace discrimination charges

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 72,675 charges of workplace discrimination in fiscal year 2019, which ended Sept. 30, 2019. Retaliation continues to be the most frequently filed charge filed with the agency, followed by disability, race and sex. The agency also received 7,514 sexual harassment charges – 10.3 percent of all charges, slightly down from FY 2018. Specifically, the charge numbers show the following breakdowns by bases alleged, in descending order:

  • Retaliation: 39,110 (53.8 percent of all charges filed)
  • Disability: 24,238 (33.4 percent)
  • Race: 23,976 (33.0 percent)
  • Sex: 23,532 (32.4 percent)
  • Age: 15,573 (21.4 percent)
  • National Origin: 7,009 (9.6 percent)
  • Color: 3,415 (4.7 percent)
  • Religion: 2,725 (3.7 percent)
  • Equal Pay Act: 1,117 (1.5 percent)
  • Genetic Information: 209 (0.3 percent)

These percentages add up to more than 100% because some charges allege multiple bases.

For a detailed breakdown by state.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com

Legal Corner

ADA
Lawsuit alleging wrongful termination because perceived-as disabled reinstated

In Paula E. Babb v. Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., a nurse anesthesiologist contends that Tennessee-based Maryville Anesthesiologists P.C., fired her because it thought she was visually disabled. She acknowledges an eye condition that requires her to hold written records close to her eyes, but argues it does not inhibit her ability to read.

The company, however, says she was fired because of two serious errors that put patients at risk. But an email was circulated to staff saying that she was fired because she “has been having major issues with her eyesight and as of late, it has seemed to be getting even worse.”

The Sixth Circuit finds that the email and other evidence present a triable case of regarded-as disability discrimination under the ADA and reinstates the case.

EEOC disability suit settled for $2.65 million

Crossmark, a company that provides workers to dispense free food samples to shoppers, allegedly failed to provide a reasonable accommodation by not allowing its employees to sit for more than 10 minutes every two hours. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) noted some employees were permitted to sit as needed when they performed the same job while working directly for the retailers.

The firm agreed to pay $2.65 million and designate ADA coordinators to address accommodation requests, among other provisions.

Workers’ Compensation

Tort claim for lead poisoning barred by exclusive remedy – California

In an unpublished opinion, Deville v. Bloch, the company, Exide, was ordered to suspend operations in Vernon because plant operations were causing the discharge of illegal amounts of lead into the air, water, and soil. Before the plant’s closing, a long-term worker at the hazardous waste treatment and storage plant lost consciousness while cleaning one of the facility’s furnaces. More than three years later he sued, alleging unspecified injuries caused by exposure to lead and other hazardous chemicals.

The appellate court upheld the dismissal of the claim, agreeing workers’ comp exclusive remedy applied. The allegations that Exide knew the employees faced a risk of harm from exposure to lead and other chemicals were not enough to invoke the fraudulent concealment exception to workers’ compensation exclusivity.

Workers over 70 have five-year statutory limit on PTD benefits – Florida

In Crispin v. Orlando Rehabilitation Group, the 1st District Court of Appeals ruled that a worker over the age of 70 is statutorily limited to permanent total disability benefits for a calendar period of five years after she is determined to be permanently and totally disabled. According to the court, eligibility for PTD payments ends five years to the day after the worker is determined to be permanently and totally disabled.

Undocumented worker denied medical care for injury – Florida

In Hernandez v. Food Mkt. Corp., an appellate court upheld the ruling that an undocumented worker who sustained injuries in a work-related accident can be denied benefits on the basis that he used someone else’s Social Security Number (SSN) when completing an intake form at a medical provider. By so doing, the court noted the injured worker had offered a false or misleading statement to secure workers’ compensation benefits.

Pre-existing condition does not negate continuation of medical treatment – Florida

In Premier Community Healthcare Group v. Rivera, a divided appeals court ruled that a dental assistant who was injured while preventing a patient from falling, but had a previous medical condition related to a car accident, must continue to receive benefits. The employer and insurer initially accepted compensability of injuries to the low back and neck, but later denied claims for cervical injections and physical therapy when her medical history revealed that she had a prior motor vehicle accident and previous neck symptoms.

The carrier presented two doctors who testified that the workplace injury is not the major contributing cause of the need for medical treatment of the cervical spine. However, in a divided opinion, the court upheld the JCC’s opinion the worker’s doctor was more persuasive.

JCC may not ignore opinion of expert medical advisor – Florida

In Olvera v. Hernandez Constr. of SW Fla. Inc., although an Expert Medical Advisor (EMA) indicated in his report that a worker had not reached MMI because future surgery was required, a Judge of Compensation Claims (JCC) found that the worker had reached MMI. An appellate court found that the JCC’s decision, which was made based on the EMA’s answer to one leading hypothetical question on cross-examination, was in error because the JCC cannot disregard the presumed correctness of an unequivocal EMA.

Civil suit can proceed in workplace parking lot shooting – Georgia

In Smith v. Camarena, the estate of a worker who was killed in a grocery store parking lot after finishing her shift filed a civil suit against her employer. The woman and a co-worker were approached by a masked gunman who demanded their purses. An assistant manager was driving by and called to the gunman and shots were exchanged and the woman was killed. While a trial court denied the suit based on the exclusive remedy of workers comp, the Court of Appeals said it could proceed.

Although it is undisputed that she had left work, the employer argued she was “within the period of her employment under the ingress/egress rule.” Noting the parking lot was owned by the store’s landlord and served several other stores, the appellate courts said there is a question of whether the location was part of the employer’s premises and a jury should decide if the shooting occurred in the course of employment.

TTD denied for failure to follow work restrictions – Georgia

In Burch v. STF Foods Inc., the Court of Appeals ruled that a restaurant worker, who had injured his back and had received written restrictions from the restaurant’s owner, was not entitled to temporary total disability benefits after being fired for failing to abide by the lifting restrictions. Despite the instructions, he continued to lift heavy items, received warnings, and suffered additional injuries to the back/shoulder area.

When he was fired for insubordination, he filed for workers comp and an administrative law judge (ALJ) found in his favor, finding his restrictions were related to his work injury. Upon appeal, the court found the ALJ had erred and that the worker failed to prove any loss of earning capacity was attributable to his compensable work injuries, but rather was due to subordination.

Case to watch: McDonalds’ employees in Chicago sue over workplace violence – Illinois

Seventeen Chicago-area workers filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cook County claiming that the “Experience of the Future” store renovations makes it easier for angry customers to leap over the counter and attack them. The suit claims that in the Chicago area, there are more than 20 calls every day to emergency services from McDonald’s stores and that the company ignores practices that could make the stores safer.

Drainage contractor found guilty of manslaughter in workers’ deaths – Massachusetts

Atlantic Drain Services of Blackstone had been cited by OSHA in 2007, 2012 and again in 2017 after two workers drowned when a trench collapsed. The company was fined $1.47 million in 2017. Three years later, Atlantic Drain owner Kevin Otto and his company were separately found guilty of two counts of manslaughter and one count of witness intimidation in Superior Court.

In addition to failing to use cave-in protection and placing employees in severe danger, it was alleged that the company attempted to mislead the investigation by falsifying documents, including sign-in sheets for excavation and trenching training, as well as workers’ signed acknowledgment of receiving personal safety equipment.

The owner faces up to 20 years in prison and fines up to $250,000.

City agrees to pay workers comp, a wrongful termination claim, and hold open the possibility of a future asbestos-related claim – Michigan

The East Lansing City Council has agreed to pay a former wastewater treatment plant employee $125,000 to settle a workers’ compensation claim and a wrongful termination lawsuit. He alleged he was fired because he reported health and safety violations to state agencies and because he filed a workers’ compensation claim. He also claimed respiratory damage from asbestos and a mercury spill at the facility and the city agreed he could file a claim in the future if he is diagnosed with an asbestos-related illness.

No causal connection between tinnitus and work-related fight – Missouri

In Schlereth v. Aramark Uniform Servs., a state appellate court panel affirmed a Commission decision concluding that a supervisor’s tinnitus was not caused by a work-related brawl that resulted from the supervisor’s crude characterization of a subordinate’s work. Although he did sustain obvious injuries to the face and head, he did not seek benefits until three years later after he received social security benefits.

In spite of surgery complications, worker fails to prove medical causation of sinus cavity clot – Nebraska

In Homstad v. Block 21, LLC, a worker underwent knee surgery for a work-related injury and suffered a deep venous thrombosis (DVT) in his thigh, as well as a pulmonary embolism. Later, he contended that a blood clot in his sinus cavity was causally connected to the earlier injury and surgery. The medical experts were cautious, neither confirming or denying, the causation. Thus, an appellate court upheld the Workers’ Compensation Court decision that the worker had not met the burden of proof.

Workplace fire did not conclusively cause lung disease – Nebraska

In Pennington v. SpartanNash Co., a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed a Workers Compensation Court decision that a worker with lung disease failed to show that his illness was brought on by a workplace fire. He worked as a store manager for Michigan-based food distributor SpartanNash and put out a small fire in an unused walk-in freezer. Although he did not seek medical treatment at the time, a few days later he fainted and was referred to a pulmonologist, who diagnosed pneumonitis and ordered him to stop working. His treating physician wrote a letter stating that his pneumonitis and symptoms were “more likely than not” a result of the chemical and smoke exposure, and a second physician opined that his exposure on the day of the fire more likely than not resulted in his lung disease. The company’s medical expert said the cause could not be determined with certainty.

The court found that his medical experts failed to provide sufficient support for their opinions.

Construction company operator, foreperson, and engineer indicted for manslaughter in death of laborer following wall collapse – New York

Owners and managers of WSC Group LLC, a Sunset Park construction company, have been indicted on manslaughter, negligent homicide and workers’ compensation insurance fraud some 14 months after a wall collapsed and killed a welder at an excavation site in Brooklyn.

Worker employee, not independent contractor – North Carolina

In Macias v. BSI Associates Inc., a worker was injured while working for the Carolina Chimney Crew, settled the claim, and agreed not to work for the company in the future. The following year, the owner suggested the former employee start his own company, purchase the necessary insurance, and work as an independent contractor for him. His insurance indicated zero employees and he excluded himself from coverage.

The company furnished vehicles, tools, equipment and supplies, business cards, Carolina Chimney Crew clothing, and provided specific instructions on where he was to work and what work he was to perform each day. He resumed his work in almost identical fashion as when he was an employee and a few years later fell from a scaffold and fractured his spine.

While the claim for workers’ comp was denied by the company’s insurer based on his status as an independent contractor, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed an Industrial Commission decision holding that the injured man was an employee, not an independent contractor, and, therefore, entitled to workers compensation.

Definition of employer’s premises clarified in parking lot decision – Pennsylvania

In US Airways v. Workers Compensation Appeal Board, a 6 – 0 decision of the Supreme Court’s Western District in Pittsburgh affirmed a workers compensation judge’s finding that a flight attendant was in the course and scope of her work when she was injured. The flight attendant was injured after her shift ended while riding an airport shuttle bus to an employee parking lot. The City of Philadelphia, and not the airline, owned both the shuttle bus and the employee parking lot.

With the decision, the Court stood by its earlier Epler holding that the phrase “the employer’s premises” should be construed liberally to include any area that is integral to the employer’s business operations, including any reasonable means of ingress to or egress from the workplace.

Employee of staffing agency cannot sue borrowing employer – Pennsylvania

In Burrell v. Streamlight, an employee of a staffing agency fell while assigned to Streamlight, received comp benefits from the staffing agency, and filed a negligence suit against Streamlight. Streamlight argued it was acting as his employer at the time and, therefore, was immune from civil liability.

The appellate court stressed that the issue turned upon whether the borrowing employer had the right to control not only the work to be done by the borrowed employee but the manner of performing it. It found the evidence established that Streamlight was his employer.

For Cutting-Edge Strategies on Managing Risks and Slashing Insurance Costs visit www.StopBeingFrustrated.com