Title for Page Lorem ipsum dolor sit

The public safety employees are at greater risk just by the nature of their professions, even without a “Stay at home” or “shelter in place” order. Still, one must examine their job title, job duties, and the timeline around when the infection occurred when evaluating these claims.

Sure. While we can’t prevent people from filing claims, there are a number of things employers can do to prevent acrimony and anger that can often lead to post-termination CT claims.

First, you can pay them for the day they came in and told they were being laid off. If possible, try to notify them by phone so they don’t have to travel into work and risk exposure. It’s little stuff like that that can really make people mad.

Secondly, be patient, polite and considerate. Attribute the immediate problems to the government orders – blame them for disrupting business operations. The local government basically invited you to do so. They are literally threatening misdemeanors and water/power shutoffs to employers who ignore their governmental orders, in the name of public safety. Make it clear that it’s the government who issued the “stay at home” order, not you.

If this is more of a layoff as in a termination due to financial circumstances, and you want these employees back, tell them that you’d like to invite them back when things improve. After all, you paid to train these people. It’s usually more efficient to have experienced employees come back than to have to retrain new people. And keep in mind that most people do want to “get back to normal.”

Remember that the labor law side of the Labor Code requires you to pay any owing wages and vacation at time of termination, so get those checks out quickly as well.

And lastly, in these layoffs of healthy employees, encourage them to file for unemployment with EDD. They paid into the system. As one applicant attorney I know always tells EDD when negotiating EDD settlement credits, he says, “It’s their (the applicants’) money. They paid into it. Why punish them for getting it? It’s literally their money.”

Now we do understand that unemployment affects the employer’s bankroll too, but it’s still cheaper than having a bunch of new work comp claims.

If an employee is not showing symptoms but there is concern about exposure to the virus, yes the employer could require them to get tested. It’s a pretty simple and easy test, as it’s just a nose or throat swab that only takes about a minute to take a sample.

However, it may not be worth it to send them for a test until more tests become available. Please note that many doctors will not authorize a test if the employee is asymptomatic or have minor symptoms. That’s due to the testing shortage.

Assuming that you can get a test, it usually takes 2-5 days to get test results back. However, the FDA did just approve a 45-minute test, but it will probably take some time to disseminate this test across the market, and there are reports that this test will only be limited to critically urgent scenarios. I’m sure the employee would like to know one way or the other as well, so they’ll probably be willing to take the test if you can get one lined up for them.

If the employer is requiring the testing, then the employer is liable for the test costs. However, they should not be charged if being tested under the employee’s group health. If the employee is charged a fee, just reimburse them.

Lastly, please be aware that there is additional liability in sending employees to get tested. They could get in a car accident on the way, or contract an illness while waiting for a test in a crowded medical clinic.