I had a recent discussion in relation to an upcoming COVID-19 webinar with former Supervising Judge of Compensation, Ray. A. Farrington, who sat in Hackensack, N.J. Judge Farrington raised an important question about what employers can do when employees ignore safety rules concerning COVID-19 in respect to both workers’ compensation and employment law.
Suppose an employer has a strict
requirement that an employee must wear a mask at work to protect the employee
and others. Suppose further that one
employee repeatedly ignores the rule and eventually becomes sick with
coronavirus and then brings a workers’ compensation claim. Is there a valid defense
to the claim based on the employee’s willful failure wear his mask?
The answer is yes, if the
employer complied with the terms of N.J.S.A. 34:15-7. That provision states that the
willful failure to make use of a reasonable and proper personal protective
device furnished by the employer is grounds for denial of the workers’
compensation claim if the employer has clearly made this a requirement of the
employment and has uniformly enforced this rule. For this defense to work, the employer has to
properly document that despite repeated warnings, the employee willfully failed
to properly and effectively utilize the protective device, and that conduct led
to the work illness, in this case the virus.
A second question in this scenario is whether the employer can terminate someone who fails to utilize required protective devices. As Judge Farrington posed the question: “Can the employer have a zero tolerance policy?” For the answer we turn to Ralph Smith, Esq., Co-Chair of Capehart’s labor law department. Ralph responded, “If you are a non-union employer, firing under a zero tolerance policy for a lack of mask use would no doubt be allowed because failing to follow such a directive would be insubordination, and insubordination is subject to discipline, including possible discharge.” He added, “Progressive discipline would be unnecessary unless the employer has a policy where progression is required, though most employers carve out from progressive discipline serious workplace infractions.” Ralph added that given the risks of COVID 19, not wearing a mask could have serious health consequences for others and should be considered a serious infraction.
The answer is more nuanced if
the employer is in a unionized setting.
Ralph explained, “I would think that discipline would be an issue which
would have to be addressed with the union, it being considered a term and
condition of employment, but if you already have a CBA (Collective Bargaining
Agreement) with a progressive discipline policy, you would need to follow that
and likely would not be able to go directly to termination.” Ralph suggested
that in a union setting it would be wise to discuss the employer’s plans
involving mask usage with the union. He added, “Unions have the same safety
incentive as employers do, so I suspect the employer would not get very much
pushback on requiring mask usage and disciplining for non-use, short of
termination for a first violation.”
Finally, Ralph made an important point about reasonable accommodations. “In both union and non-union contexts, an employer might have to accommodate someone who refuses to wear a mask, or is unable to do so, because of health reasons. This is an exception even under Governor Murphy’s Executive Orders.” He added that the employer may need to address whatever the underlying disability is which precludes mask use just as the employer would for any disability. The question becomes whether the employer can make adjustments that accommodate the health problem and still maintains a safe working environment.
Thanks to Judge Farrington and Ralph Smith, Esq. for their contributions to this blog.
The post Are There Workers’ Compensation And Employment Consequences For Failure To Use Protective Devices Required Under COVID-19 Policies? appeared first on NJ Workers' Comp Blog.
