EEOC Substantially Revises Key Components of its COVID-19 Guidance
July 18, 2022
OVERVIEW: EEOC quietly revised its COVID -19 guidance on July 12, 2022. In its latest update the Commission clarifies its view on several important issues for employers, announcing that the agency will apply pre-pandemic interpretations of ADA and Sections 503 standards to COVID-19 viral screening testing of employees which had been relaxed in response to the pandemic. These changes impact how employers must respond to pandemic-related issues making it even more challenging for employers who are grappling with reopening offices in the midst of another surge.
EEOC Guidance on COVID-19 Guidance
EEOC issued technical assistance guidance to provide answers to questions that frequently arise in the workplace during a pandemic beginning in March 2020. Since that time, EEOC has periodically updated What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws in response to new and emerging legal issues.
Here are some key takeaways from EEOC’s most recent update:
Major Changes involve Testing
- Mandatory viral testing must meet the business necessity standard. EEOC had previously permitted employers to mandate COVID-19 viral testing as a screening measure, without requiring any additional showing. Due to changes in the pandemic EEOC will now apply its a pre-pandemic ADA standard that viral testing be job related and consistent with business necessity. Employer mandated viral testing will meet the “business necessity” standard, according to the revised guidance, so long as it is consistent with the guidance from the CDC, DFA or state/local public health authorities current at the time of testing. (EEOC Guidance A.6 and G.1)
- Employers are prohibited from requiring antibody testing. Employers cannot require their employees to undergo antibody testing as a condition to reenter the workplace. Based on the CDC guidance, EEOC reasons that since an antibody test may not show whether or not an employee has a current infection or is immune to infection employer mandated antibody testing cannot meet the “business necessity” standard. (EEOC Guidance A.7)
- Pre-employment screening must comply with existing ADA standards. Once an employer has made a conditional job offer it may screen job applicants for symptoms of COVID-19, so long as the employer screens all entering employees performing the same type of job. An employer may also screen all applicants at the pre-offer stage if the employer is screening everyone (employee, applicant, contractor or visitor) entering the worksite for COVID-19 before permitting entry. (EEOC Guidance C.1)
Return to Workplace Clarifications
- Pandemic may cause excusable delays employers’ reasonable accommodation process. EEOC had previously acknowledged that circumstances surrounding the pandemic may interfere with employers responding expeditiously to an employee’s request for accommodation. In the recent update, EEOC notes that evolving circumstances, including, an onslaught of reasonable accommodation requests following an employer’s announcement of a return to the office, can justify delays in reasonable accommodation process and encourages employers to find interim solutions to keep employees working. (EEOC Guidance D.17)
- Mandatory personal protective equipment & related infection control measures subject to reasonable accommodation. Employers are permitted to require workers to wear personal protective equipment and observe other infection control practices so long as they engage in the reasonable accommodation process with workers who requests reasonable accommodation due to disability or religious accommodation. (EEOC Guidance G.2)
- Examples of reasonable accommodations that may reduce direct threat. The guidance provides examples of reasonable accommodations that could be deployed during the pandemic in order to reduce the direct threat to the employee or others in the workplace including enhanced protective gowns, masks, or gloves. Additionally, employers should consider enhanced protective measures like HEPA filtration systems; erecting barriers between employee and others; telework or other modifications of work schedules. (EEOC Guidance G.5)
- Providing information about employers’ accommodation process to all employees. It is a best practice for employers to provide information on their reasonable accommodations process for disability and accommodations due to sincerely held religious beliefs prior to returning to the office (EEOC Guidance G.6) and to provide additional flexibility for older workers as the risk of severe illness from COVID-19 increases with age. (EEOC Guidance H.1)
Ability to Cancel Job Offers
- Limited circumstances in which a job offer may be lawfully rescinded. If a newly hired employee tests positive, has symptoms or has been exposed to COVID-19, an employer can rescind their job offer if they need the new employee to start immediately and that employee would be in close proximity to others, whether at the workplace or elsewhere. (EEOC Guidance C.4)
- Job offers may not be withdrawn because of concerns about increased risk. Employers may not postpone the start date or withdraw a job offer due to concerns that the individual is older, pregnant, or has an underlying medical condition that puts the individual at increased risk from COVID-19. (EEOC Guidance C.5)
EEOC Guidance Continues to Support Vaccinations
- Mandatory vaccinations are still acceptable. The guidance reiterates that employers are permitted to require that their employees be vaccinated and to require employees to provide documentation of their vaccination, subject to reasonable accommodation and confidentiality requirements. (EEOC Guidance K.1, 4, 5)
- No limit on employer incentives for voluntary vaccinations administered by unaffiliated health-care provider. Presumably in an effort to eliminate any ongoing confusion caused by the Commission’s continued delay in issuing a new Wellness rule, the guidance states clearly that there is no limit on the incentives (including both rewards and penalties) that an employer may provide to employees who voluntarily receive a COVID-19 vaccination, from a health care provider that is not affiliated with the employer. (EEOC Guidance K.16)
Next Steps
The updated Guidance requires employers to walk a fine line as they work on returning their workforces to the workplace. Feel free to reach out to any of the FortneyScott attorneys with questions.
Today, the DOL published a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) to provide enforcement guidance to the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) field staff when determining whether an independent contractor has been misclassified under FLSA. Specifically, the DOL’s Press Release states that the agency is still reviewing the 2024 final rule, Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (2024 Rules) and, therefore, WHD investigators are directed not to apply the 2024 Rule when determining employee versus independent contractor status in FLSA investigation. Instead, investigators are told to rely on the prior version of Fact Sheet 13 that was issued in July 2008 which is included in the FAB, and reinstated Opinion Letter FLSA 2019-6 with respect to any matter for which no payment has been made for back wages and/or civil money penalties as of May 1, 2025. It's important to note that the 2024 Rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation and nothing in this FAB changes the rights of employees or responsibilities of employers under the FLSA. Employers should review the FAB and the additional documentation to understand how the current Administration will enforce independent contractor misclassification. Should you have any questions, please reach out to your FortneyScott attorney.
As employers navigate evolving legal, political, and cultural dynamics in the workplace, certain core obligations remain as critical as ever. This webinar will focus on three areas of the law that deserve renewed attention in 2025 and beyond: Barrier Analysis: With many employers scaling back or eliminating formal DEI initiatives, barrier analysis has become an essential—and legally sound—tool to identify and prevent workplace discrimination. We’ll explore how employers can use barrier analyses to effectively meet compliance goals and mitigate legal risk. Pay Practices: As state-level requirements continue to expand, pay practices remain central to legal compliance. We’ll break down what employers need to do now to stay ahead of audits, meet transparency mandates, and proactively address pay disparities. Accommodations: Religious and disability-related accommodation requests are on the rise. We’ll discuss recent legal developments and best practices for managing accommodation requests consistently and lawfully.
Employment Law: What Hasn't Changed?
During this webinar, FortneyScott's experienced practitioners will: Catalogue of the Administration’s activities focused on Higher Education; Trace the trends across agencies; Discuss expanded use of Title VI; and, Provide practical guidance for all employers.
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced Catherine Eschbach as the new Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). In an email to OFCCP staff, Director Eschbach announced that under her leadership, all reform options are on the table and “most of what OFCCP has been doing is out of step, if not flat out contradictory to our country’s laws.” Her email went further to outline “OFCCP’s transition to its new scope of mission”: Verifying that federal contractors have wound down their affirmative action efforts 91 days after President Trump’s EO 14173 rescinded EO 11246. Examining federal contractors’ prior submissions to determine whether there are any indications of discrimination and whether OFCCP should undertake additional investigations. Advising the Secretary of Labor of measures to deter DEI as required by Section 4 of EO 14173. Determining statutory authority for Section 503 and VEVRAA and whether they should be housed elsewhere in Labor Department. “Rightsizing” the staff and geographic footprint of agency. Federal contractors should pay particular attention to the last bullet above. The new Director indicates that OFCCP will review prior submissions from closed audits to review for illegal DEI. If you receive any communication from OFCCP, or other federal agencies, with regard to past submissions or requesting additional information from closed audits, please contact your FortneyScott attorney immediately With this transition of enforcement for OFCCP, federal contractors need to take the necessary action and steps to ensure they understand and comply with the new obligations as outlined in EO 14173 and above. FortneyScott is assisting many of its clients in these matters. Please reach out to your FortneyScott attorney should you have any questions.
On March 19, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two technical assistance documents addressing “unlawful DEI,” a 1-page summary, What to Do if You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work , and a longer question and answer (Q&A) document, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work . In the documents, the agencies remind employees and employers that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race and sex, and that any decisions motivated, in whole or in part, by a protected characteristic are unlawful. The EEOC press release reiterates that “[t]he widespread adoption of DEI, however, does not change longstanding legal prohibitions against the use of race, sex, and other protected characteristics in employment” and the accompanying DOJ press release notes that “[u]nder Title VII, DEI initiatives, policies, programs, or practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The EEOC’s technical assistance document also states that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all workers not just to minority groups. Finally, these official documents provide employees, who question their employers’ DEI practices, with instructions on how to file charges with the EEOC. In the technical assistance document, the EEOC provides the following examples of DEI practices that could be considered to violate Title VII: “Balancing” a workforce based on protected characteristics was provided as an example of unlawful conduct; DEI training may give rise to a colorable hostile work environment claim if a reasonable person would consider it intimidating, hostile, or abusive; Opposition to DEI training may be a protected activity if the employee believes that the training violates Title VII; and, Employee resource groups (ERGs), or similar programs, may violate Title VII’s prohibition of segregating employees if they are not open to all. Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether an “operational need” for diversity can justify voluntary affirmative action efforts under Title VII, the EEOC is taking the position that a company’s “diversity interest” is not a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) justifying decisions based on protected characteristics. Should you have any questions regarding these or other developments, please contact your FortneyScott attorney. For additional information, be sure to visit FortneyScott’s website and the new Resource Page on Compliance with Trump Administration Changes, including our prior Webinars and Podcasts .
Today, the DOL published a Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) to provide enforcement guidance to the DOL’s Wage and Hour Division (WHD) field staff when determining whether an independent contractor has been misclassified under FLSA. Specifically, the DOL’s Press Release states that the agency is still reviewing the 2024 final rule, Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (2024 Rules) and, therefore, WHD investigators are directed not to apply the 2024 Rule when determining employee versus independent contractor status in FLSA investigation. Instead, investigators are told to rely on the prior version of Fact Sheet 13 that was issued in July 2008 which is included in the FAB, and reinstated Opinion Letter FLSA 2019-6 with respect to any matter for which no payment has been made for back wages and/or civil money penalties as of May 1, 2025. It's important to note that the 2024 Rule remains in effect for purposes of private litigation and nothing in this FAB changes the rights of employees or responsibilities of employers under the FLSA. Employers should review the FAB and the additional documentation to understand how the current Administration will enforce independent contractor misclassification. Should you have any questions, please reach out to your FortneyScott attorney.
As employers navigate evolving legal, political, and cultural dynamics in the workplace, certain core obligations remain as critical as ever. This webinar will focus on three areas of the law that deserve renewed attention in 2025 and beyond: Barrier Analysis: With many employers scaling back or eliminating formal DEI initiatives, barrier analysis has become an essential—and legally sound—tool to identify and prevent workplace discrimination. We’ll explore how employers can use barrier analyses to effectively meet compliance goals and mitigate legal risk. Pay Practices: As state-level requirements continue to expand, pay practices remain central to legal compliance. We’ll break down what employers need to do now to stay ahead of audits, meet transparency mandates, and proactively address pay disparities. Accommodations: Religious and disability-related accommodation requests are on the rise. We’ll discuss recent legal developments and best practices for managing accommodation requests consistently and lawfully.
Employment Law: What Hasn't Changed?
During this webinar, FortneyScott's experienced practitioners will: Catalogue of the Administration’s activities focused on Higher Education; Trace the trends across agencies; Discuss expanded use of Title VI; and, Provide practical guidance for all employers.
On March 24, 2025, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) announced Catherine Eschbach as the new Director of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP). In an email to OFCCP staff, Director Eschbach announced that under her leadership, all reform options are on the table and “most of what OFCCP has been doing is out of step, if not flat out contradictory to our country’s laws.” Her email went further to outline “OFCCP’s transition to its new scope of mission”: Verifying that federal contractors have wound down their affirmative action efforts 91 days after President Trump’s EO 14173 rescinded EO 11246. Examining federal contractors’ prior submissions to determine whether there are any indications of discrimination and whether OFCCP should undertake additional investigations. Advising the Secretary of Labor of measures to deter DEI as required by Section 4 of EO 14173. Determining statutory authority for Section 503 and VEVRAA and whether they should be housed elsewhere in Labor Department. “Rightsizing” the staff and geographic footprint of agency. Federal contractors should pay particular attention to the last bullet above. The new Director indicates that OFCCP will review prior submissions from closed audits to review for illegal DEI. If you receive any communication from OFCCP, or other federal agencies, with regard to past submissions or requesting additional information from closed audits, please contact your FortneyScott attorney immediately With this transition of enforcement for OFCCP, federal contractors need to take the necessary action and steps to ensure they understand and comply with the new obligations as outlined in EO 14173 and above. FortneyScott is assisting many of its clients in these matters. Please reach out to your FortneyScott attorney should you have any questions.
On March 19, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released two technical assistance documents addressing “unlawful DEI,” a 1-page summary, What to Do if You Experience Discrimination Related to DEI at Work , and a longer question and answer (Q&A) document, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work . In the documents, the agencies remind employees and employers that Title VII prohibits employment discrimination based on protected characteristics, such as race and sex, and that any decisions motivated, in whole or in part, by a protected characteristic are unlawful. The EEOC press release reiterates that “[t]he widespread adoption of DEI, however, does not change longstanding legal prohibitions against the use of race, sex, and other protected characteristics in employment” and the accompanying DOJ press release notes that “[u]nder Title VII, DEI initiatives, policies, programs, or practices may be unlawful if they involve an employer or other covered entity taking an employment action motivated—in whole or in part—by an employee’s or applicant’s race, sex, or another protected characteristic.” The EEOC’s technical assistance document also states that Title VII’s protections apply equally to all workers not just to minority groups. Finally, these official documents provide employees, who question their employers’ DEI practices, with instructions on how to file charges with the EEOC. In the technical assistance document, the EEOC provides the following examples of DEI practices that could be considered to violate Title VII: “Balancing” a workforce based on protected characteristics was provided as an example of unlawful conduct; DEI training may give rise to a colorable hostile work environment claim if a reasonable person would consider it intimidating, hostile, or abusive; Opposition to DEI training may be a protected activity if the employee believes that the training violates Title VII; and, Employee resource groups (ERGs), or similar programs, may violate Title VII’s prohibition of segregating employees if they are not open to all. Although the Supreme Court has not yet ruled on whether an “operational need” for diversity can justify voluntary affirmative action efforts under Title VII, the EEOC is taking the position that a company’s “diversity interest” is not a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) justifying decisions based on protected characteristics. Should you have any questions regarding these or other developments, please contact your FortneyScott attorney. For additional information, be sure to visit FortneyScott’s website and the new Resource Page on Compliance with Trump Administration Changes, including our prior Webinars and Podcasts .
Trump Administration’s Focus on Higher Education
There were several important developments impacting federal contractors’ obligations on Friday, March 14. President Trump issued a new Executive Order eliminating federal contractor minimum wage, apprenticeship and Project Labor Agreement obligations imposed by President Biden’s Executive Orders. Additionally, an appellate court stayed the nationwide injunction on the new Certification of compliance with discrimination laws related to “illegal DEI,” which now permits the Certification obligations to be included in federal contracts. The Rescinded Executive Orders President Trump rescinded EO 14026, Increasing the Minimum Wage for Federal Contractors. This now rescinded EO applied to new or renewed federal contracts in 2022 and established an annual increase of the minimum wage for workers working on federal contracts with the minimum wage increasing to $17.75 beginning January 1, 2025. Effective immediately, federal contractors should use the rate provided in a Wage Determination, and will no longer be required to increase the hourly wage rate in order to meet the federal contractor minimum wage (this applies to both Service Contract Act and Davis-Bacon Act contracts). With regard to Davis-Bacon covered contracts, the apprenticeship obligations also were ended, as EO 14119, Scaling and Expanding the Use of Registered Apprenticeships in Industries and the Federal Government and Promoting Labor-Management Forums was rescinded. This Biden EO directed federal agencies to prioritize federal contractors and grantees who participated in registered apprenticeship programs when making award and funding decisions. Despite this EO being rescinded, we still anticipate the Trump Administration and Congress are supportive of future apprenticeship programs based on the bi-partisan support for these programs during the Secretary of Labor's confirmation hearings. Another Davis-Bacon related Executive Order rescinded focused on Project Labor Agreements (PLAs) -- EO 14126, Investing in America and Investing in American Workers, which favored companies that participated in registered apprenticeship programs and offered equitable compensation practices. Under the now rescinded EO, federal agencies were to favor grant applicants that have PLAs or support voluntary union recognition. Additionally, if applicants offered benefits such as childcare and paid leave, then that would give the applicant greater weight when being considered for funding. The Reinstitution of Compliance Certification The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit granted the government's request to stay the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by the Maryland district court on March 6 relating to obligations of Federal contractors and grant recipients to certify compliance with the new prohibition on “illegal DEI.” We previously reported on the nationwide injunction, here . As a result of the Fourth Circuit stay, federal agencies now can renew efforts to require Federal contractors and grant recipients to certify compliance, subject to potential liabilities under the False Claims Act. In the future, the Fourth Circuit will address whether the certification obligations are lawful. In light of this ruling, it is important that federal contractors and grantees continue their efforts in ensuring there is no "illegal DEI."
In this content-packed webinar, our experienced practitioners address: The latest developments relating to Executive Order 14173’s new restrictions on “illegal Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI),” and updates on related judicial developments; Practical lessons learned in evaluating whether DEI programs comply with EO 14173; The EEOC’s focus on protecting Americans from discrimination and investigating DEI practices at law firms; and, New initiatives by federal agencies to investigate antisemitism at higher ed institutions.
Filter Out the Noise – What Employers Need to Know About the Trump Administration Changes
