Today, January 10, 2022, the Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on COVID-19 for employers with 100 or more employees takes effect. Although many had anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court might rule on the legality of the OSHA ETS prior to today, the Court’s failure to do so means that covered employers should be prepared to comply. A full discussion of the ETS’s requirements is available in our previous advisory: Here We Go Again: Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay of OSHA COVID-19 ETS for Employers With 100 or More Employees. Additional guidance from MIOSHA late last week suggests that covered employers in Michigan may have an additional two-week period, until January 24, 2022, to come into full compliance.
On Friday, January 7, 2022 the Supreme Court heard expedited oral arguments regarding judicial stays facing two federal vaccine mandates concerning COVID-19: OSHA’s ETS on COVID-19 for employers with 100 or more employees and the Healthcare Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Interim Final Rule (the “CMS Rule”) covering certain health care providers.
While many had anticipated some sort of preliminary ruling or even a stay of one or both mandates by today, as of the time this advisory was published there had been no ruling on either issue from the Supreme Court.
As previously reported, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently lifted a judicial stay that had previously prevented the implementation of OSHA’s ETS for employers with 100 or more employees. OSHA responded to this ruling by issuing new compliance dates for the ETS: Covered employers were given until today, January 10, 2022, to comply with all provisions, except for the testing requirement for unvaccinated employees. The testing requirement was rescheduled to take effect on February 9, 2022.
Several petitioners filed immediate emergency appeals to the Supreme Court asking the Court to reinstitute the judicial stay, pending a full hearing and decision on the matter. The Supreme Court granted the request and held an emergency hearing this past Friday, January 7, 2022 regarding a judicial stay of the ETS.
However, as of today, January 10, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a ruling. That means the federal ETS is in effect and will proceed according to the new compliance dates announced by OSHA, pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of the case. You can find a full discussion of those requirements in our previous advisory.
In the meantime, late last week the Michigan Occupational Safety & Health Administration (MIOSHA) issued a statement indicating that OSHA was not requiring states with state plans like Michigan to adopt the ETS or an equivalent until January 24, 2022. MIOSHA stated it is closely monitoring the status of legal challenges to the OSHA ETS while preparing for its deadline to adopt. You can read MIOSHA’s full announcement on the michigan.gov website: Labor and Economic Opportunity – COVID-19 Workplace Safety. This suggests that in Michigan at least, MIOSHA may not start enforcing the requirements of the OSHA ETS until January 24. Due to the lack of clarity, however, employers are urged to come into compliance with the OSHA ETS as soon as possible.
As previously reported, on November 30, 2021 a federal judge in Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction to block the start of the CMS Rule, which applies to certain healthcare entities. The injunction from the Louisiana federal district court applied nationwide except for the ten states that were already under a preliminary injunction order issued on November 29 in Missouri.
On December 15, 2021 a three-judge panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the lower Louisiana federal court only had the authority to block the mandate in the 14 states that had actually filed suit. The following day, a federal court in Texas granted a preliminary injunction to enjoin CMS from enforcing is vaccine mandate in Texas. Thus, the CMS mandate has been blocked from enforcement in 25 states but remains in effect in the remaining 25 states, including Michigan. On December 28, 2021, the CMS updated its FAQs indicating it is moving forward with implementation of the CMS in the 25 states not subject to the Stay and modified its compliance timeline to January 27, 2022 for phase one and February 28, 2022 for phase two. See External FAQ IFC-6 Guidance Memo 12 28 21 226 (508 Compliant).
The U.S. government applied to the Supreme Court asking for a nationwide stay of the injunctions issued by the lower federal courts, pending full review by the lower Circuit courts. The Supreme Court granted the request and also held an emergency hearing on the CMS Rule this past Friday, January 7, 2022.
Again, however, we have heard nothing further from the Supreme Court. Thus, the CMS Rule remains blocked in 25 states as of today, but continues on in the other 25 states.
Justin M. Wolber also contributed to this article.
About this Author
Luis focuses his practice on labor, employment and immigration issues. Luis has a wide range of experience in traditional labor matters, including grievances, arbitrations, collective bargaining negotiations, union drives, and matters in front of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Michigan Employment Relations Commission (MERC). Luis has counseled employers on a number of workplace matters, including effective employee handbooks and policies, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures, discrimination, disability accommodation, wage-hour matters, family medical leave, and…
Maureen represents clients in all areas of labor and employment. She advises clients on labor management relations including union election proceedings, collective bargaining and contract enforcement in arbitration and before the National Labor Relations Board. Maureen defends employment-related claims including discrimination, sexual harassment, wrongful discharge, Whistleblowers’ and Fair Labor Standards Act violations in federal and state courts, administrative proceedings and arbitration hearings. She counsels clients on drafting, implementation and enforcement of workplace policies….
Stephanie advises employers on a wide variety of labor and employment matters, with an emphasis on employment litigation defense, and the identification and development of best practices in the area of human resources. She has worked extensively as labor and employment counsel for publicly-traded and privately-held companies that vary from single-site businesses to multi-state or global entities. She works with each client to ensure compliance with labor and employment-related legal requirements, develop effective human resource operations, and achieve the successful…
Beth is a partner in the labor and employment practice group, focusing employment issues and litigation. She has counseled business clients on a variety of matters affecting the workplace, including effective employee handbooks and policies, disciplinary and dispute resolution procedures, discrimination issues, disability accommodation, wage-hour matters, family medical leave, harassment prevention and litigation avoidance. When litigation is unavoidable, Beth has significant experience representing employers under the numerous state and federal statutes that govern the…
Ashleigh is an associate attorney currently working with the labor and employment group. She also works with higher education clients and provides support on a variety of litigation matters.
Ashleigh’s experience includes serving as a legal extern for the Michigan Court of Appeals Research Division. She also clerked for Michigan Appeals Court Judge Jane Beckering. Prior to law school, Ashleigh served organizations in the higher education and nonprofit sectors in various development and communications roles.
You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review’s (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC’s Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.
Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com intended to be a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional. NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us.
Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.
The National Law Review – National Law Forum LLC 4700 Gilbert Ave. Suite 47 #230 Western Springs, IL 60558 Telephone (708) 357-3317 or toll free (877) 357-3317. If you would ike to contact us via email please click here.
Menu
