COVID-19

The need to migrate ceremonies online has created a tsunami of copyright concerns.  What is a ceremony without the right music?  But this question pertains specifically to high school graduations for public schools, so we’ll confine it to those institutions.

Readers, I have to be real with you: a newly minted Supreme Court Case, Allen v. Cooper[1], means public high schools (which are arms of the state) are arguably immune from liability for copyright infringement.  In that case, the court invalidated the “Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (“CRCA”), which had expressly removed state’s “sovereign immunity” to a copyright suit. So on a very pragmatic level, some public schools, colleges, and universities may be adding that to their risk assessment of questions like this.

But professional educators likely don’t want to do the wrong thing simply because they are arguably immune from being punished for it.  As Justice Kagan, writing in Allen and quoting an expert witness put it: “what State, after all, would “want [] to get a reputation as a copyright pirate?”   So we’ll proceed just as the member’s question suggests: that they want to do the right thing.

With that in mind, here is my answer to the question: “[T]he students would like to have songs from “High School Musical” added to the slideshow. Is this possible?

My first bit of guidance is to check the school district’s license with either ASCAP or BMI (this is the license that covers permission to play music at a high school dance). It may be that some streaming rights got thrown into your public performance license. This isn't typical, but you never know, and if you have the right clause in your contract your problem could be solved right away (and in fact, your problem never existed).

If there isn't a contract that already gives your school permission to use the song(s) as the member describes, your school needs permission. This can be done through any number of licensing agencies.

As but one example, the music to “High School Musical” is available for licensed streaming through the Harry Fox Agency:

 

(As can be seen, your school could even decide to use the karaoke version.)

The bad news is that it’s sort of a pain to obtain the license; you have to register and there is a fee.  Further information can be found at the link here: https://secure.harryfox.com/songfile/faq.jsp#faq2.

[NOTE: since a school district is one legal entity, it is also good to check and see if the district itself has an account already.  Signing up for a service like this does not need to be done on a school-by-school basis. Of course, this brings us to school policy and procurement issues, and for that, I refer to the attorneys serving the BOCES that serves your school!]

I hope the red tape doesn’t get in the way of the students having a good ceremony.  They have been through enough this semester.

 

---

[1] You can find the full text of the case and some commentary here: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/allen-v-cooper/

Here we are in January, 2022, and frustratingly, there is no ONE right answer to this question.[1]  Between OSHA, CDC, WHO, and NYSDOH, together with state-wide and local Executive Orders and states of emergency, the answer to this question is a big, tangled web.

That said, there are THREE things I can say for certain, and they do answer this question:

1.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums that are operating in any way should be doing so per a written and routinely updated Safety Plan.[2]

2.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums operating under a Safety Plan that involves use of PPE and sanitization supplies should provide that equipment.[3]  Libraries relying on social distancing should continue to demarcate areas where it must be maintained.

3.  Regardless of what Emergency Order, law, or regulation is in effect, libraries and museums operating under a written Safety Plan that involves employer-required testing must provide those tests.[4]

Again: while different laws, regulations, and orders create these three obligations, I can say that they remain.

After that, I can only say: when updating Safety Plans (which should either be done, or ruled out, monthly, and ad hoc as guidance changes), libraries should confirm their obligations with either their lawyer or their local health department.

For libraries looking for a model, a good place to start is the HERO Act template found at  https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/09/p765-ny-hero-act-model-airborne-infectious-disease-exposure-prevention-plan-09-21_0.pdf. [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]  For municipal libraries that operate largely in conjunction with their municipal government (sharing HR policies, hazard response plans, etc.), it might be appropriate to look to their municipality's mandated[5] "Public Health Emergency Operations Plan."

I realize this doesn't eliminate the need to swim in the alphabet soup of authorities offering different, and sometimes divergent, guidance.  But by relying on your local health department to confirm obligations, hopefully a library can focus more energy on its mission to serve its community...while also demonstrably living up to its duty to safeguard its workforce.

 

 

---

[1] I can supply lots of answers, just not a one-size-fits all one.  Whether it's OSHA,  the NY HERO ACT, or currently  suspended federal mandates, 

[2] While different laws and regulations will govern the written plan, this is true for both private and quasi-governmental entities.

[3] While different laws and regulations will govern this obligation, this is true for both private and quasi-governmental entities.

[4] Examples of "employer-required testing" are:  random tests of the workforce, required routine tests for those not vaccinated, and any  other required testing built into an  Employer's Safety Plan.  Tests required by CDC, NYDOH, and local health department statements, such as the current recommendation by  the CDC for fully vaccinated, asymptomatic people to test 5-7 days after a known exposure, are not "employer-required."

[5] By New York Public Health Law Section 27-c.

I can offer a simple answer, and a complicated answer. 

Here is the simple answer: 

Per the "COVID-19 Sick Leave Law": 

• The current requirement of a public employer is 14 days of PAID leave for quarantine/absence due to COVID-19.   

• A private employer with under 10 employees must provide unpaid sick leave for the entire period of quarantine, during which time the employee can apply for Paid Family Leave benefits ("PFLA").  

• A private employer with between 11 and 99 employees, or with fewer employees, but at least $1 million in annual revenue, must provide 5 days of paid sick leave, after which the employee can apply for PFLA for whatever time they need to be out. 

• For employers with more than 100 employees, the employer must give 14 days. 

In all instances, the time out for COVID must not count against other accrued sick leave. 

And that's it. 

 

The complicated answer 

As you can see, the obligations under the Covid-19 Paid Sick Leave Law depend on the type and (if private) the size of the employer. 

So, is your library a "public employer?"   

The definition of "public employer" in this law is broader than in many other labor-related laws, so unless your library's HR and employment arrangements are 100% separate from those of the local municipality or sponsoring district, it is wise to consider this applicable (or get it in writing from your lawyer that it isn't). 

Since the library that submitted the question is offering paid sick leave for "most" employees--which means there is a different approach for different employees--it sounds like they have decided the library is not subject to Labor Law 196-b (New York's new "Sick Leave Law"), which applies to only private employers.   

This issue is not an atypical one in New York's "Library land."  Does your library use comp time instead of overtime?  That is an option available only to government employers. Does your library use the federal rather than the state minimum wage?  Only a government employer can do that.  Does your library not have to follow the Wage Theft Prevention Act?  Employers are only exempt if they are a government employer. The list goes on and on.  

[NOTE: A nice exception to this dichotomy is worker's compensation for work-related injury.  EVERYONE has to pay into worker's comp; you could say it is something New York employers all have in common]. 

The bottom line on this "complicated" answer? Make sure your library has clarity about which employment-related laws it decides that apply to it before it implements a COVID-19 Paid Leave policy based on them. And when in doubt, have a lawyer examine the compensation and other aspects of your library's employment arrangements to make the decision that is most consistent with its other employment-related practices. 

Thanks for a great question. And if this "public/private" employer issue has you flummoxed, here is a short poem to help out: 

 

Library Labor Law Chanty 

What law governs at my library?

What labor laws must we abide?

What legal authorities preside?

 

Sorry, there's no simple rule

Be you association, town, or school

But here's a few comforting rhymes

To get you through confusing times:

 

An oath of office is required

When a public library director's hired

Civil service law protects employees

Except at association libraries

 

Must my library pay state minimum wage?

YES (unless only the FLSA is your gauge)

Do we have to pay overtime?

Not if you're municipal AND grant comp time.

 

The new sick leave law pays workers' rent

Unless your (sorta) government

And no matter who gets COVID-19

Employees ALL get paid during quarantine.

 

What if we offer NYS retirement?

Just that doesn't make you government.

But if HR's handled by your municipality

You might just be a public agency.

 

What if there's a union contract?

That can change everything, that's a fact.

And don't forget your HR handbook

Should be based on the "type" of path you took.

 

Yes, there IS legal variety

caused by the "types" of library

But despite inconsistencies

One thing's always true: director hired by trustees.

 

And regardless of type or identity

And despite any support or interdependency

No matter what your answers to the questions three

Your library has... autonomy.

A library needs two documents to address this issue:

1.  Its template contract or "rider"[1] for performers and presenters;[2]and

2.  Its current Safety Plan.

How does the contract/rider come into play?  One of the conditions it should list is a "behavior requirement," requiring that any person performing a service at or for the library "will abide by the library's policies, and the reasonable requests of library staff."[3]

How does the Safety Plan[4]  come into play?  This is the document that likely addresses vaccination, PPE, and other safety requirements for those visiting your library.

Now, see how the two work together: the Safety Plan is a library policy; the "behavior requirement" means visitors must follow it.

When the two documents are assessed together, if it isn't crystal-clear that the library requires proof of vaccination before performance, the Safety Plan or the contract/riders--or both--can be amended to require:

To maximize the safety of in-person events, the ABC library requires all providers of in-person events to provide current proof of vaccination against COVID-19 at least seven days prior to the event.

 The ABC library will consider remote options if a prospective performer or presenter requests such a change as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA due to a disability.

How can this be done so simply?

While there are many nuances that libraries must consider prior to flatly requiring vaccination for all employees,[5] WHEN IT COMES TO CONTRACTORS PROVIDING ONE-TIME OR PERIODIC PERFORMANCES,[6] unless there are grant requirements or other obligations specifically hemming a library in, a library can be more blunt in its requirements.

While they can be a very beloved part of a library's offerings, independent contractors have less rights than employees when it comes to a library imposing the conditions on performance. This is because, whether incorporated, or working "DBA", independent contractors are free to accept and reject the terms of any particular contract--and thus have more leverage and freedom than employees.[7]  And because of that, when it comes to requiring them to provide proof of vaccination, there are a few less legal hoops to jump through than with employees (new, or otherwise).

So, after all that, what were the questions? "What about performers or presenters we hire to come into the library, especially to work with children? Are we allowed to ask/require proof of vaccination status before signing a contract?"

 

The answer is: with the right policy and contract terms[8] in place: yes.

---

[1] A document you can attach to the performer's contract or proposal, setting the terms of the work.

[2] There are any number of forms a standard contract or "rider " for a library to engage performers and presenters can take. It can be in the form of a friendly letter that outlines the terms of the arrangement, or it can be a more formal document that sounds like it was written by a lawyer. Either option is OK, so long as it addresses the fundamental questions: what is being done, how much the person is being paid to do it, and what rules and expectations protect the library from any risks related to the performance. For comments on contracts for performers (both generally and in the COVID Times), dive back into history and review the "Ask the Lawyer" at https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/125.

[3] Very standard stuff.

[4] Which at this point (August 2021) you have probably amended at least five times.

[5] See recent comments at https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/231 and https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/204.

[6] Because contracts with providers of more essential/routine services such as delivery, cleaning, and security are likely to be more complex, this guidance does not apply to those types of services...although of course a library can explore amending a contract with such a provider to require maximum allowable safety measures.

[7] That's the theory, anyway.

[8] A library should work with a lawyer to have a stock performance contract tailored to that library's identity, insurance coverage, and other unique factors.

Underlying all these highly specific questions is one Big Question: Can employers require vaccination? "Ask the Lawyer" addressed the Big Question on December 18, 2020, and that answer is perma-linked at: Staff COVID vaccinations.  For any reader who is new to this issue, or who needs a refresher, please read #186, because this answer uses that background to jump right into things.

And with that, let's jump right into things...

Question: Can we require new hires at a library to be vaccinated?

Answer: Only if the library's safety plan requires it, AND the job description of the specific position contains essential duties that cannot be performed without risk of transmission .[1]

Question: If so, how should we word this on the job application?

Answer: Here is one way:

"The essential duties of this position and the library's safety protocols require vaccination for COVID, therefore, an up-to-date COVID vaccination status is a requirement of this position."

Question: Are we allowed to ask for proof of vaccination?

Answer: Yes, but if you do, the library should have a written plan to maintain confidentially (this should be part of a Safety Plan).

Question: What if the new hire is not vaccinated because of religious reasons?

Answer: If being vaccinated is a "bona fide" occupational requirement of the position (which is what a library does by confirming that the essential duties of the position and the library's safety protocols require vaccination for COVID), a person who is not vaccinated will not become the new hire--regardless of medical or religious reasons.

As the question points out, this is a high-stakes game.  So, it is critical to work with the library's HR consultant or civil service liaison to update the job description so the front-facing work, or collaborative work, that require vaccination for that particular position is genuine.  If the "essential duties" of the position include numerous activities that could be done remotely, or in solitude, it may be that the job can be modified to accommodate either health or religious needs--both of which must be given maximum deference whenever the job requirements and the resources of the library make it possible.

Question: If the library requires those who are not vaccinated to get COVID tested weekly, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer:  I am not comfortable endorsing a Safety Plan or any type of procedure that includes a COVID testing requirement based solely on vaccination status.

Here is why:

The EEOC is currently the go-to agency for guidance on balancing privacy, disability, and employment needs when it comes to COVID.

Current EEOC guidance (posted at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws) as of August 16, 2021, states [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]:

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.” Applying this standard to the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, employers may take screening steps to determine if employees entering the workplace have COVID-19 because an individual with the virus will pose a direct threat to the health of others. Therefore an employer may choose to administer COVID-19 testing to employees before initially permitting them to enter the workplace and/or periodically to determine if their presence in the workplace poses a direct threat to others. The ADA does not interfere with employers following recommendations by the CDC or other public health authorities regarding whether, when, and for whom testing or other screening is appropriate. Testing administered by employers consistent with current CDC guidance will meet the ADA’s “business necessity” standard. [Emphasis added]

Here's where the COVID daisy-chain begins: the EEOC is basing its notion of "basic necessity" on the guidance from the CDC.

Here is the "current CDC guidance" (posted at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.html) as of August 16, 2021:

Who should get tested for current infection:

• People who have symptoms of COVID-19.
• Most people who have had close contact (within 6 feet for a total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period) with someone with confirmed COVID-19.

-Fully vaccinated people should be tested 3-5 days following a known exposure to someone with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and wear a mask in public indoor settings for 14 days or until they receive a negative test result.

-People who have tested positive for COVID-19 within the past 3 months and recovered do not need to get tested following an exposure as long as they do not develop new symptoms.

• Unvaccinated people who have taken part in activities that put them at higher risk for COVID-19 because they cannot physically distance as needed to avoid exposure, such as travel, attending large social or mass gatherings, or being in crowded or poorly-ventilated indoor settings.
• People who have been asked or referred to get tested by their healthcare provider, or state, tribal, local or territorial health department.

Nowhere on this list is "unvaccinated employees who report to work as usual." [2] A dilemma, right?

Not as I see it.

As I see it, while we can all find something to complain about in the lurching, evolving guidance from the alphabet soup of EEOC, NYSDOL, OSHA, NYSDOH, WHO and CDC, this current configuration makes perfect sense.

Why? Because this approach achieves balance.  Within these confines, libraries (along with other employers) are positioned to structure job requirements to be as safe as possible--not just for employees, but for the communities they serve.  The structure and requirements, however, must be "bona fide," meaning that personal safety, privacy, freedom of association, and respect for conscience are positioned to be honored, while ensuring they do not gain primacy to the detriment of public safety as a whole.

For these reasons, I will not answer the question as posed.  However, I will answer:

Question: If the library requires employees who trip a current CDC risk factor (showing symptoms, close contact, etc.) to get COVID tested, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer: I have found no requirement that an employer pay for a COVID test that is used as a pre-requisite for returning to work.  Of course, for employees who are sick, or on mandatory quarantine, or have been sent home by their employer for tripping a COVID factor, the protections for paid sick leave[3] that were set up earlier in the pandemic still apply.

And I will add this bonus question:

Question: If the library decides to use routine random COVID testing of all on-site employees as part of a Safety Plan, does the library have to pay for those tests?

Answer:  An employer cannot require an employee to pay for a COVID test,[4] and cannot deduct the cost of such a test from a paycheck, so if the employer sets up random testing as part of a Safety Plan, the employer must pay for it.

---

[1] Bearing in mind all the caveats set forth in Staff Covid Vaccinations.

[2] I suppose an employer could categorize an unvaccinated employee as having "taken part in activities that put them at a higher risk for COVID-19" simply by reporting to work.  But would an employer want to admit to allowing such risk to take place?

[3] Found at https://coronavirus.health.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/01/guidanceonuseofcovid-19sickleave_0.pdf

[4] Remember, an employee who is out due to symptoms, exposure, or ordered quarantine can "wait it out" and doesn't have to take a test.

The letters in the "NY HERO Act" stand for "Health and Essential Rights."[1]

What "essential rights" does it protect? 

• Section one of the HERO Act amends the New York Labor Law to create an "airborne infectious disease standard" covering all private employers.  The standard requires many things that will sound familiar: health checks, sanitization practices, and other preventative measure when there is a declared risk of airborne disease.
• Section two of the HERO Act amends the New York Labor Law to create joint employer-employee "workplace health and safety committees" (where there are 10 or more employees), so workers can collaborate and be involved in safety initiatives.

The new laws are activated only when an "infectious disease" is declared by the NY Commissioner of Health.  This means that right now, while the law is in effect, but no disease is designated, there is no need to have an active plan...but entities have to be ready to spring into action.[2]

Which brings us to the question: What types of libraries must comply?

We'll tackle the easy part first: without question, association libraries, which are private education corporations, must comply. 

For non-association libraries ("public" libraries), the language of the Act is much less clear, since the Act specifically exempts "...the state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other governmental agency or instrumentality."

That sounds simple, right?  They should be exempt.  After all, libraries are considered, in some contexts, nigh-governmental entities.

But as many know, a public library's status as "governmental" ebbs and flows.

Here are just two recent examples:

Example #1: 2020 brought an interesting development when, after months of anxious curiosity, the NY Forward "powers that be" confirmed that public libraries were always considered to be exempt from the Executive Orders shutting down private businesses (and instead, were to follow the mandates governing local municipalities).  So: a governmental entity.

Example #2: A noteworthy new case[3] from NY's second-highest court has found that for purposes of the Prevailing Wage Act (Section 230 of the NY Labor Law), a public library is NOT "the state, any of its political subdivisions, a public benefit corporation, a public authority or commission or special purpose district board appointed pursuant to law, and a board of education."[4]  In other works:  not a governmental entity.

So, when it comes to this new law, I can't point to any definite authority either way; just because one part of the Labor Law excludes libraries, doesn't mean another does.  And certainly, we have no case law yet.  That said, if I HAD to pick, I would err on the side of caution and say that public libraries, which are education corporations with their own governance structures (just as the Court commented in "Executive Cleaning"), have to comply with the HERO Act.

Since the stakes are high for non-compliance, any public library that decides the HERO Act doesn't apply to them (and that's fine to reach a different conclusion; I am not omniscient, nor do I have a crystal ball) should:

1) Get that opinion, in writing, from an attorney retained to give advice to that library specifically, and considering its unique position under the law;

AND

2) Confirm the library is in compliance with New York Labor Law 27-a, which covers workplace safety in "the state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority or any other governmental agency or instrumentality thereof."

The bottom line on this: when it comes to occupational safety, a public library can't fall into a hole between the mandates governing public and private entities: it either has to follow the rules of a "governmental instrumentality" employing people as government employees (and giving them all the protections government employees get under the law) OR it is following the rules of a private education corporation (and giving them all the protections private employees get under the law).

Since the HERO Act is really about taking all the protocols the State of New York developed in response to COVID, and ensuring they are on hand and ready for the next pandemic,[5] a library can't go wrong by having "an exposure prevention plan available, upon request, to all employees, employee representatives, collective bargaining representatives, independent contractors, the department of labor, and the department of health."[6]  By making a clear decision about what safety rules apply to your library, and developing a plan to follow them, you can not only comply with the law, but show that the library is working to keep employees safe.

 

Thank you for an important question.

---

[1] What about the "O?"  I double-checked the bills in both the State Senate and Assembly and apparently, it's just a bonus letter (I guess the "HER" act would imply only women get clean air).

[2] The NYS Department of Labor, as of July 12, 2021, states: "Currently, while employers must adopt plans as required by the law, as of the date of this writing no designation has been made and plans are not required to be in effect."

[3]  (Matter of Exec. Cleaning Servs. Corp. v NY State Dept. of Labor, 193 AD3d 13 [3d Dept 2021])

[4] Contrast this with the definition of who’s in/excluded from the HERO Act: "'Employer' shall mean any person, entity, business, corporation, partnership, limited liability company, or association employing, hiring, or paying for the labor of any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business, or service. The term shall not include the state, any political subdivision of the state, a public authority, or any other governmental agency or instrumentality."

[5] I know, my stomach turned a bit when I typed the phrase "next pandemic."  But no point putting our heads in the sand.

[6] From the requirements summarized in the NYS Department of Health guidance here: https://dol.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2021/07/p764-the-airborne-infectious-disease-exposure-prevention-standard-v4.pdf.

This question comes at a very challenging time.[1]

The question is difficult because right now, the World Health Organization is looking at the "Delta Variant" of COVID-19 and telling the world to consider continuing to use masks and social distancing while inside.[2]

New York, of course, after a 6-day scramble, started following the Center for Disease Control's May 13 "surprise" guidelines stating that vaccinated people no longer need to wear masks or social distance indoors.[3]  And as of July 1, 2021, the state announced that almost all COVID-related restrictions were lifted.[4]

Where does this leave us?

Throughout the Pandemic, when asked about how to interpret and follow law, regulations, and Executive Orders governing the state's COVID response, my watchword has been: "Safety first."

After that, I have listed what is required at that point in time, and then referred libraries and cultural institutions to resources about how they can develop a Safety Plan[5] crafted to suit their unique identity (by "unique identity" I mean things like a large library with outdated HVAC and windows that don't open, has different considerations than a small library with assurance of constant fresh air).

With so much uncertainly at this time, my tired playbook is getting tested.  But I'll use it to try and answer each of the member's questions:

Now that Open Meetings Law modifications have been lifted, are we still required to maintain physical distancing for board meetings?

If your (now optional, but if the board keeps it in place, enforceable) Safety Plan still requires physical distancing, then yes.

We have a fifteen member board which makes it difficult to spread our trustees out. I understand that we can ask trustees whether they have been vaccinated: If all are vaccinated, do we have to maintain physical distancing?

If your Safety Plan has opted to continue using the NYS May 19th guidance, and the meeting is not exceeding the occupancy threshold, no, you do not.  HOWEVER, there is nothing to stop the board from deciding that, in the interest of safety and enabling each trustee to take whatever steps they need to feel safe, they are going to allow some trustees to attend from a remote location.[6]

If some of them are not vaccinated, do we required all the trustees to wear masks?

The WHO would (currently[7]) say: yes.

The CDC and the State of NY would (currently[8]) say: no.

For what it's worth, I tend to follow the most cautious reputable source at any given time (so would say: there is ample ground for your Safety Plan to require this, while there is also ample ground for your board to revise the Safety Plan to require only the bare minimum of advised precautions).

Do we provide physical distancing for the ones who are not fully vaccinated?

If that is at all possible, I strongly support that idea.  Being able to show an institution took the time to consider the best way to keep its community safe is good from any angle: mission, legal compliance, and employee/community relations.

I would like to host a staff luncheon (I understand that is now allowable[9]) but some of my staff are not vaccinated. If it is held outside, do we have to maintain physical distancing measures? What about holding the luncheon inside?

It pains me to say it, but sometimes, the law is not the best guide as to what to do!  Legally, if your library is still using the May 19th NYS Guidance, your Safety Plan can allow for this to happen, if you follow the required prescriptions.

However, it makes sense to me to "read the room" and see if such a luncheon would be a team-building exercise, or (because some employees might not feel at ease eating in close proximity to others) risk bad feelings and alienation.  If everyone cannot attend with the same level of comfort, it might be better to come up with an alternate bonding exercise.[10]

Conclusion

I truly wish I could offer more definite guidance.  The truth is, libraries--even with the return to the strict requirements of the Open Meetings Law--have many options for how to proceed.  So as tired as it may sound, put "safety first," and all things will follow from there.

Coda

Since the Powers That Be out there move quickly, here are some snapshots of the current guidance I am referencing in this answer.

Snapshot of the current WHO Guidance:

Snapshot of NY's July 1 announcement:

 

Snapshot of New York's May 19th Guidance (now largely optional):

 

Snapshot of current (June 10) OSHA guidance:

 

 

---

[1] Has any date since March of 2020 not been in a "challenging time?"  I have a dim recollection of July of 2020 being semi-okay.

[2] https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice

[3] https://www.governor.ny.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/NYS_CDCGuidance_Summary.pdf

[4] https://www.governor.ny.gov/news/governor-cuomo-announces-covid-19-restrictions-lifted-70-adult-new-yorkers-have-received-first

[5] Whether they were required to have one, or opted to have one.

[6] For more on this, see Open Meetings Law and end of NYS' Emergency Status.

[7] As of July 2, 2021, at 11:30 AM.  Go ahead, WHO, hit me with a change-up, I can take it.

[8] As of July 2, 2021, at 11:30 AM.  Go ahead, CDC and NY Department of Health, hit me with a change-up, I can take it just as well as I could at 11:30!

[9] This answer is complicated enough, I am not going to tackle the fiscal considerations of hosting events for staff!  See 1990 Comptroller Opinion #144 (May 15, 1990)

[10] This part might be a better question for the "Ask the HR Expert" service, since my idea of bonding is listening to Supreme Court Oral argument while providing color commentary (this is why my paralegal plans our events).

First question: Yes...with the expiration of the Executive Orders on June 24th, including the Order modifying the Open Meetings law,[1] things are "back to normal."

Or, as the Committee on Open Government, the authority on the State's Open Meetings Law (OML), put it:

 

So, does this mean "trustees who still want/need to attend remotely from home must disclose their address in the meeting notice?"

Various case law and commentary about the OML has confirmed that when a public body needs to meet via teleconference, the public must be able to attend from any remote location "calling in" to the meeting, and that location should be part of the meeting notice.[2]

Or, as the COOG put it in Advisory Opinion 5535 in 2018:

"So long as the public is permitted to attend at any location at which a member participates and can observe the members wherever they may be, I believe that the members may participate and be counted for purposes of attaining a quorum and for voting, and that a meeting may validly be held." [emphasis added]

For large public bodies such as the Regents, the New York Power Authority, and other entities that must hold publicly accessible meetings, and whose board members may reside in far-flung areas of the state, the use of publicly accessible call-in sites comes with an IT team and a budget.

For a public library, whose members generally reside within that library's area of service, this "back to normal" pretty much means that you're back to meetings in person.

Of course, under the Not-for-Profit Corporation law (which, along with the Education Law, governs the conduct of library meetings), a library board of trustees is allowed to conduct meetings telephonically.[3]  When coupled with the requirements of the OML, however, that latitude is severely reigned in--since whatever space is used for the remote call-in must be accessible to the public, and included in the notice.

For this reason, unless a library trustee is very comfortable inviting the public into their home, I advise against using the "dial in from home" option.[4]

NOTE:  This answer does not consider if a trustee needs to attend remotely due to it being an accommodation under the ADA.  That is a separate and critical question; for now, I'll simply say that adherence to the OML should not rule out consideration of ADA issues.

The transparency created by Education Law 260-a's requirement that public libraries abide by the Open Meetings Law is laudable--but is also based on older notions of technology.  Now that the State of New York has lived under different rules for over a year, we might see some changes in legislation.

But for now, we're "back to normal."

I hope this is helpful.

---

[1] Allowing them to be held via teleconference so long as the meeting is accessible to the public, recorded, and transcribed.  For more comments on this, see "Ask the Lawyer" Executive Order 202 and NY Open Meetings Law and Open Meetings Law and COVID.

[2] See https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5535.html and https://docs.dos.ny.gov/coog/otext/o5575.html.

[3] See NFPCL Section 708(c) "Unless otherwise restricted by the certificate of incorporation or the by-laws, any one or more members of the board or of any committee thereof who is not physically present at a meeting of the board or a committee may participate by means of a conference telephone or similar communications equipment or by electronic video screen communication. Participation by such means shall constitute presence in person at a meeting as long as all persons participating in the meeting can hear each other at the same time and each director can participate in all matters before the board, including, without limitation, the ability to propose, object to, and vote upon a specific action to be taken by the board or committee."

[4] I recently saw a very good presentation on parliamentary procedure for library boards.  The presenter commented that disclosure of home addresses should not be made, due to safety concerns.  I absolutely agree with that caution, but must emphasize that if a trustee calls in from a remote location, with the emergency modification of the law over, the OML requires that all "locations" of the meeting (including a remote call-in site) must be disclosed.

[DISCLAIMER: This answer presumes there is no collective bargaining agreement or landlord/municipal host terms that impact the library's flexibility while revising their Safety Plan.]

Okay, with that disclaimer out of the way, here are my "short answers" to these excellent questions:

"[F]or those in shared offices, how do we handle the vaccinated/not vaccinated issue?"

Short answer:  Revise your library's current Safety Plan to specify how it has adopted the 5/19 NY Forward Guidelines (for advice on how to do that, please see my "Long Answer," below).

"Do we go with the honor system and tell those in shared offices that if they are vaccinated, they may go maskless?"  

Short answer:  I advise requiring proof (for the legal/operational rationale behind this opinion, please see my "Long Answer," below).

"I've heard that some restaurants are allowing their servers to go maskless if they show proof of their vaccination to their employer.  Would we be allowed to do something like that?"

Short answer:  Yes (for more on that, please see my "Long Answer", below!).

Long Answer

This question comes at a good time, since on June 10, 2021, the U.S. Occupational Safety & Hazard Administration ("OSHA") updated its guidance for employers on protecting workers from COVID-19.[1]  This new "6/10 OSHA Guidance" speaks to questions like these. 

But first, a quick recap. 

When the CDC came out with their "surprise" interim guidance for fully vaccinated people on May 13th, 2021 (the "5/13 CDC Guidance"), it took New York six days to incorporate it (into the "5/19 NY Guidance").

OSHA, on the other hand, took a bit more than six days.[2]  But by June 10th, here's what they had to say:

CDC's Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People explain that under most circumstances, fully vaccinated people need not take all the precautions that unvaccinated people should take. For example, CDC advises that most fully vaccinated people can resume activities without wearing masks or physically distancing, except where required by federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial laws, rules and regulations, including local business and workplace guidance.

And from there, OSHA takes it granular.[3]

The 6/10 OSHA Guidance sets out an array of factors for employers and workers to not just consider in isolation, but to think about as a continuum of risk assessment and safety measures.  The factors they list include consideration of vaccination status, and shared office space.

Because it is so critical that employers get this right, I am putting this "6/10 OSHA Guidance"[4] below.  Now that we have this resource, I strongly advise employers to refer to it when updating their Safety Plan to include the 5/19 NY Guidance.

And now, for this library's very specific set of questions about non-public, shared office space, here is the rest of my "long answer."

As you can see in OSHA's listing, the consideration of shared office space isn't simply one of vaccination and proximity.  It also involves the consideration of things such as ventilation, worker education, and individual worker vulnerabilities.

Because of this, there is no "one size fits all" answer to this library's question.  Rather, the library should review the non-public, shared workspace against the OSHA criteria, and then craft a customized plan...recognizing that the protocol for areas with up-to-date HVAC systems will be different from a work area near the stacks where there might be very little fresh air. 

This variability is the key consideration of shared non-public workspace.  Your library's safety measures may be different when the weather is cold and workers can't open a window.  Your library's Safety Plan measures may be limited if the workspace is near a rare book collection or other assets requiring precise climate control.  And on top of that (literally, as an add-on after the fact) your library will need to consider the impact that a Safety Plan's working conditions can have on individuals with disclosed, pre-existing conditions (such as allergies, heightened vulnerability to COVID, or a health condition impeding vaccination).[5]

Within all this variability (which is a LOT for any employer to handle, to say nothing of a library that is also focusing most of its energy on meeting the needs of the public), I advise requesting proof of vaccination for two reasons.  First, it positions an employer to be more confident in their adherence to the plan they develop.  Second, it positions employees to be confident that they are in a position to advocate for their own health.

Now, on the flip side, the employee relations challenge of requiring workers to provide vaccination status can be onerous.  Some people are just not comfortable revealing that type of information, and I totally get it.  BUT the EEOC and the New York State Division of Human Rights have both determined that an employer requesting proof of vaccination is not the same as an employer demanding disclosure of confidential medical information.[6]  Barring a union contract or other term forbidding the demanding proof of vaccination, employers should be confident they can require it.

That confidence can, in turn, transfer to the employees who are certain that their unmasked and nearby co-workers are vaccinated.  In my experience, nothing can erode trust like an honor system where someone is suspected of being dishonorable.   Further, that suspicion can turn into full-on blame if a worst-case scenario emerges and someone does get sick.

And while the current CDC and NY Forward guidance mean an employer won't likely be successfully sued for using the honor system as opposed to requiring proof, I wouldn't put it past one of my fellow attorneys to try.[7]  This is especially true if your library's Safety Plan or past planning has identified certain front-facing work or other tasks as "higher" risk, meaning there is an acknowledgement on the record that some work may bring increased exposure.

Okay, to sum up: you don't have to, but it's worth considering requiring proof of vaccination.   But most critically, whatever your library does, if you update your Safety Plan, factor in the new 6/10 OSHA Guidance.

Since the combination of options is extensive (New guidance? Old? Require vaccinations? Proof?) I have laid out a chart below.  Below that are some of the high points of the 6/10 OSHA Guidance, which every employer should read.

I hope this reply makes up for in helpfulness what it poses in complexity.  I wish you calm and careful planning as your library moves into this next phase.

Safety Plan -->   Employee requirement -->	No Use of NY Forward 5/19 guidance[8]	Updated to NY Forward 5/19 guidance and uses "honor system" only for employees	Updated to NY 5/19 guidance and library requires proof of vaccination for employees
Employee vaccination status not considered in Safety Plan	This means your library is still using your pre-May 19th Safety Plan; that's fine, just stick to it until it is updated.	Not possible (if using 5/19 guidance, the library must consider vaccination status).	Not possible (if using 5/19 guidance, the library must consider vaccination status).
Employee vaccination status considered in Safety Plan but vaccination is not required to perform routine duties of job	This means your library is still using your pre-May 19th Safety Plan; that's fine, just stick to it until it is updated.	If your library is using the honor system, but still structured so vaccination is not a factor in performance of routine duties, so long as the OSHA 6/10 guidance doesn't suggest otherwise, carry on!	If your library is requiring proof of vaccination to use 5/19 guidelines, but still structured so vaccination is not a factor in performance of routine duties, so long as the OSHA 6/10 guidance doesn't suggest otherwise, carry on!
Library-employer requires vaccination as part of Safety Plan and vaccination is required to perform routine duties of job.	With such rigorous requirements, assessing the Safety Plan under the OSHA 6/10/21 guidance is wise.	This combination brings some risk since it bases safety on vaccination but does not require proof, which limits the ability to assuage employee relations concerns regarding unvaccinated colleagues.	This combination provides the best documentation of maximum risk management and positions library to address employee relations concerns regarding unvaccinated colleagues.

 

OSHA

Except for workplace settings covered by OSHA's ETS and mask requirements for public transportation, most employers no longer need to take steps to protect their workers from COVID-19 exposure in any workplace, or well-defined portions of a workplace, where all employees are fully vaccinated. Employers should still take steps to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in their workplaces, or well-defined portions of workplaces. ²

Employers should engage with workers and their representatives to determine how to implement multi-layered interventions to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and mitigate the spread of COVID-19, including:

1. Grant paid time off for employees to get vaccinated. The Department of Labor and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to ensure access to COVID-19 vaccinations. CDC provides information on the benefits and safety of vaccinations. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for tax credits under the American Rescue Plan if they provide paid time off for employees who decide to receive the vaccine and to recover from any potential side effects from the vaccine.
2. Instruct any workers who are infected, unvaccinated workers who have had close contact with someone who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, and all workers with COVID-19 symptoms to stay home from work to prevent or reduce the risk of transmission of the virus that causes COVID-19. Ensure that absence policies are non-punitive. Eliminate or revise policies that encourage workers to come to work sick or when unvaccinated workers have been exposed to COVID-19. Businesses with fewer than 500 employees may be eligible for refundable tax credits under the American Rescue Plan if they provide paid time off for sick and family leave to their employees due to COVID-19 related reasons. The ARP tax credits are available to eligible employers that pay sick and family leave for qualified leave from April 1, 2021, through September 30, 2021. More information is available from the IRS.
3. Implement physical distancing for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers in all communal work areas. A key way to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers is to physically distance them from other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk people (workers or customers) – generally at least 6 feet of distance is recommended, although this is not a guarantee of safety, especially in enclosed or poorly ventilated spaces.

Employers could also limit the number of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in one place at any given time, for example by implementing flexible worksites (e.g., telework); implementing flexible work hours (e.g., rotate or stagger shifts to limit the number of such workers in the workplace at the same time); delivering services remotely (e.g., phone, video, or web); or implementing flexible meeting and travel options, all for such workers.

At fixed workstations where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are not able to remain at least 6 feet away from other people, transparent shields or other solid barriers (e.g., fire resistant plastic sheeting or flexible strip curtains) can separate these workers from other people. Barriers should block face-to-face pathways between individuals in order to prevent direct transmission of respiratory droplets, and any openings should be placed at the bottom and made as small as possible. The posture (sitting or standing) of users and the safety of the work environment should be considered when designing and installing barriers, as should the need for enhanced ventilation.

4. Provide unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers with face coverings or surgical masks, unless their work task requires a respirator or other PPE. Such workers should wear a face covering that covers the nose and mouth to contain the wearer's respiratory droplets and help protect others and potentially themselves. Face coverings should be made of at least two layers of a tightly woven breathable fabric, such as cotton, and should not have exhalation valves or vents. They should fit snugly over the nose, mouth, and chin with no large gaps on the outside of the face. CDC provides general guidance on masks.

Employers should provide face coverings to unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers at no cost. Under federal anti-discrimination laws, employers may need to provide reasonable accommodation for any workers who are unable to wear or have difficulty wearing certain types of face coverings due to a disability or who need a religious accommodation under Title VII. In workplaces with employees who are deaf or hard of hearing, employers should consider acquiring masks with clear coverings over the mouth for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers to facilitate lip-reading.

Unless otherwise provided by federal, state, or local requirements, unvaccinated workers who are outdoors may opt not to wear face coverings unless they are at-risk, for example, if they are immunocompromised. Regardless, all workers should be supported in continuing face covering use if they choose, especially in order to safely work closely with other people.

When an employer determines that PPE is necessary to protect unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers, the employer must provide PPE in accordance with relevant mandatory OSHA standards and should consider providing PPE in accordance with other industry-specific guidance. Respirators, if necessary, must be provided and used in compliance with 29 CFR 1910.134 (e.g., medical determination, fit testing, training on its correct use), including certain provisions for voluntary use when workers supply their own respirators, and other PPE must be provided and used in accordance with the applicable standards in 29 CFR 1910, Subpart I (e.g., 1910.132 and 133). There are times when PPE is not called for by OSHA standards or other industry-specific guidance, but some workers may have a legal right to PPE as a reasonable accommodation under the ADA. Employers are encouraged to proactively inform employees who have a legal right to PPE as a reasonable accommodation for their disability about how to make such a request. Other workers may want to use PPE if they are still concerned about their personal safety (e.g., if a family member is at higher-risk for severe illness, they may want to wear a face shield in addition to a face covering as an added layer of protection). Encourage and support voluntary use of PPE in these circumstances and ensure the equipment is adequate to protect the worker.

For operations where the face covering can become wet and soiled, provide unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers with replacements daily or more frequently, as needed. Face shields may be provided for use with face coverings to protect them from getting wet and soiled, but they do not provide protection by themselves. See CDC's Guide to Masks.

Employers with workers in a setting where face coverings may increase the risk of heat-related illness indoors or outdoors or cause safety concerns due to introduction of a hazard (for instance, straps getting caught in machinery) may wish to consult with an occupational safety and health professional to help determine the appropriate face covering/respirator use for their setting.

5. Educate and train workers on your COVID-19 policies and procedures using accessible formats and in language they understand. Train managers on how to implement COVID-19 policies. Communicate supportive workplace policies clearly, frequently, and via multiple methods to promote a safe and healthy workplace. Communications should be in plain language that unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers understand (including non-English languages, and American Sign Language or other accessible communication methods, if applicable) and in a manner accessible to individuals with disabilities. Training should be directed at employees, contractors, and any other individuals on site, as appropriate, and should include:
   1. Basic facts about COVID-19, including how it is spread and the importance of physical distancing (including remote work), ventilation, vaccination, use of face coverings, and hand hygiene.
   2. Workplace policies and procedures implemented to protect workers from COVID-19 hazards.

For basic facts, see About COVID-19 and What Workers Need to Know About COVID-19, above and see more on vaccinations, improving ventilation, physical distancing (including remote work), PPE, and face coverings, respectively, elsewhere in this document. Some means of tracking which workers have received this information, and when, could be utilized, by the employer, as appropriate.

In addition, ensure that workers understand their rights to a safe and healthful work environment, whom to contact with questions or concerns about workplace safety and health, and their right to raise workplace safety and health concerns free from retaliation. This information should also be provided in a language that workers understand. (See Implementing Protections from Retaliation, below.) Ensure supervisors are familiar with workplace flexibilities and other human resources policies and procedures.

6. Suggest that unvaccinated customers, visitors, or guests wear face coverings, especially in public-facing workplaces such as retail establishments, if there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in the workplace who are likely to interact with these customers, visitors, or guests. This could include posting a notice or otherwise suggesting unvaccinated people wear face coverings, even if no longer required by your jurisdiction. Individuals who are under the age of 2 or are actively consuming food or beverages on site need not wear face coverings.
7. Maintain Ventilation Systems. The virus that causes COVID-19 spreads between people more readily indoors than outdoors. Improving ventilation is a key engineering control that can be used as part of a layered strategy to reduce the concentration of viral particles in indoor air and the risk of virus transmission to unvaccinated workers in particular. Some measures to improve ventilation are discussed in CDC's Ventilation in Buildings and in the OSHA Alert: COVID-19 Guidance on Ventilation in the Workplace. These recommendations are based on ASHRAE Guidance for Building Operations During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Adequate ventilation will protect all people in a closed space. Key measures include ensuring the HVAC system(s) is operating in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and design specifications, conducting all regularly scheduled inspections and maintenance procedures, maximizing the amount of outside air supplied, installing air filters with a Minimum Efficiency Reporting Value (MERV) 13 or higher where feasible, maximizing natural ventilation in buildings without HVAC systems by opening windows or doors, when conditions allow (if that does not pose a safety risk), and considering the use of portable air cleaners with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters in spaces with high occupancy or limited ventilation.
8. Perform routine cleaning and disinfection. If someone who has been in the facility within 24 hours is suspected of having or confirmed to have COVID-19, follow the CDC cleaning and disinfection recommendations. Follow requirements in mandatory OSHA standards 29 CFR 1910.1200 and 1910.132, 133, and 138 for hazard communication and PPE appropriate for exposure to cleaning chemicals.
9. Record and report COVID-19 infections and deaths: Under mandatory OSHA rules in 29 CFR 1904, employers are responsible for recording work-related cases of COVID-19 illness on OSHA's Form 300 logs if the following requirements are met: (1) the case is a confirmed case of COVID-19; (2) the case is work-related (as defined by 29 CFR 1904.5); and (3) the case involves one or more relevant recording criteria (set forth in 29 CFR 1904.7) (e.g., medical treatment, days away from work). Employers must follow the requirements in 29 CFR 1904 when reporting COVID-19 fatalities and hospitalizations to OSHA. More information is available on OSHA's website. Employers should also report outbreaks to health departments as required and support their contact tracing efforts.

In addition, employers should be aware that Section 11(c) of the Act prohibits reprisal or discrimination against an employee for speaking out about unsafe working conditions or reporting an infection or exposure to COVID-19 to an employer. In addition, mandatory OSHA standard 29 CFR 1904.35(b) also prohibits discrimination against an employee for reporting a work-related illness.

Note on recording adverse reactions to vaccines: DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not want to give any suggestion of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination or to disincentivize employers' vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904's recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. OSHA will reevaluate the agency's position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward. Individuals may choose to submit adverse reactions to the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.

10. Implement protections from retaliation and set up an anonymous process for workers to voice concerns about COVID-19-related hazards: Section 11(c) of the OSH Act prohibits discharging or in any other way discriminating against an employee for engaging in various occupational safety and health activities. Examples of violations of Section 11(c) could include discriminating against employees for raising a reasonable concern about infection control related to COVID-19 to the employer, the employer's agent, other employees, a government agency, or to the public, such as through print, online, social, or any other media; or against an employee for voluntarily providing and safely wearing their own PPE, such as a respirator, face shield, gloves, or surgical mask.

In addition to notifying workers of their rights to a safe and healthful work environment, ensure that workers know whom to contact with questions or concerns about workplace safety and health, and that there are prohibitions against retaliation for raising workplace safety and health concerns or engaging in other protected occupational safety and health activities (see educating and training workers about COVID-19 policies and procedures, above); also consider using a hotline or other method for workers to voice concerns anonymously.

11. Follow other applicable mandatory OSHA standards: All of OSHA's standards that apply to protecting workers from infection remain in place. These mandatory OSHA standards include: requirements for PPE (29 CFR 1910, Subpart I (e.g., 1910.132 and 133)), respiratory protection (29 CFR 1910.134), sanitation (29 CFR 1910.141), protection from bloodborne pathogens: (29 CFR 1910.1030), and OSHA's requirements for employee access to medical and exposure records (29 CFR 1910.1020). Many healthcare workplaces will be covered by the mandatory OSHA COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard. More information on that standard is available on the OSHA website at [link]. Where the ETS does not apply, employers are required under the General Duty Clause, Section 5(a)(1) of the OSH Act, to provide a safe and healthful workplace free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm .

Appendix: Measures Appropriate for Higher-Risk Workplaces with Mixed-Vaccination Status Workers

Employers should take additional steps to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 for unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers in workplaces where there is heightened risk due to the following types of factors:

• Close contact– where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers are working close to one another, for example, on production or assembly lines. Such workers may also be near one another at other times, such as when clocking in or out, during breaks, or in locker/changing rooms.
• Duration of contact – where unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers often have prolonged closeness to coworkers (e.g., for 8–12 hours per shift). Continued contact with potentially infectious individuals increases the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission.
• Type of contact – unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers who may be exposed to the infectious virus through respiratory droplets in the air—for example, when unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in a manufacturing or factory setting who have the virus cough or sneeze. It is also possible that exposure could occur from contact with contaminated surfaces or objects, such as tools, workstations, or break room tables. Shared spaces such as break rooms, locker rooms, and entrances/exits to the facility may contribute to their risk.
• Other distinctive factors that may increase risk among these unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers include:
  • A common practice at some workplaces of sharing employer-provided transportation such as ride-share vans or shuttle vehicles;
  • Frequent contact with other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk individuals in community settings in areas where there is elevated community transmission; and
  • Communal housing or living quarters onboard vessels with other unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk individuals.

In these types of higher-risk workplaces – which include manufacturing, meat and poultry processing, high-volume retail and grocery, and seafood processing – this Appendix provides best practices to protect unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers. Please note that these recommendations are in addition to those in the general precautions described above, including isolation of infected or possibly infected workers, and other precautions.

In all higher-risk workplaces where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Stagger break times in these generally high-population workplaces, or provide temporary break areas and restrooms to avoid groups of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers congregating during breaks. Unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers should maintain at least 6 feet of distance from others at all times, including on breaks.
• Stagger workers' arrival and departure times to avoid congregations of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk in parking areas, locker rooms, and near time clocks.
• Provide visual cues (e.g., floor markings, signs) as a reminder to maintain physical distancing.
• Implement strategies (tailored to your workplace) to improve ventilation that protects workers as outlined in CDC's Ventilation in Buildings and in the OSHA Alert: COVID-19 Guidance on Ventilation in the Workplace.

In workplaces (or well-defined work areas) with processing or assembly lines where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Working on food processing or assembly lines can result in virus exposure because these workplaces have often been designed for a number of workers to stand next to or across from each other to maximize productivity. Proper spacing of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers (or if not possible, appropriate use of barriers) can help reduce the risks for such workers.

In retail workplaces (or well-defined work areas within retail) where there are unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers:

• Suggest masks for unvaccinated (or unknown-status) customers and other visitors.
• Consider means for physical distancing from other people who are not known to be fully vaccinated. If distancing is not possible, consider the use of barriers between work stations used by unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and the locations customers will stand, with pass-through openings at the bottom, if possible.
• Move the electronic payment terminal/credit card reader farther away from any unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers in order to increase the distance between customers and such workers, if possible.
• Shift primary stocking activities of unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers to off-peak or after hours when possible to reduce contact between unvaccinated or otherwise at-risk workers and customers.

Unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers are also at risk when traveling to and from work in employer-provided buses and vans.

• Notify unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers of this risk and, to the extent feasible, help them limit the number of such workers in one vehicle.
• Make sure all unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers sharing a vehicle are wearing appropriate face coverings.

---

[1] While not every library is covered by OSHA regulations, OSHA's standards are a "go-to" for protecting workers, and much of New York's guidance on COVID safety refers employers to their materials.

[2] Considering what's at stake, I appreciate that.

[3] "Granular:" a tired buzzword, I know. What word/phrase would I have used pre-2014?  "Particular?"  "Minutely specific?"  Look at all that CDC minutia!  Sometimes "granular" really does get the job done.

[4] Found at https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/safework as of June 14th, 2021.

[5] I once worked in a dampish half-basement that had a window that would open onto a thriving crop of ragweed.  In the winter, the mold from the damp got activated by the heating units.  Hello, allergies!

[6]https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws

[7] This is how the law changes, after all.

[8] This means no relaxing of social distancing and face-covering rules; they are at pre-May 19th levels.covid

I am expediting the answer to this question in light of the new guidance issued by the CDC on 5/13 (stating that people two weeks past their final vaccination can relax on wearing masks)[1], because I foresee more situations like this are going to arise.[2]

The short answer to the member's question is: yes, your mail carrier should provide service in a manner compliant with USPS delivery standards, while following the requirements of current executive orders and your library's safety plan.

Further, based on the delivery standards in various postal handbooks,[3]  I think you indeed may have "a leg to stand on" in pressing the matter.

That said, when it comes to contract service providers or vendors--even the USPS--refusing to abide by your library's policy and, instead, altering a long-established mode of service, the only recourse (unless there is a service contract in play[4]) is to do what you have done: take up the issue with their employer.

So, what more can the member do?

This question gave me a chance to do a little digging, and I was not surprised to see that the USPS  has been dealing with this type of issue for a year now[5].

The pandemic has thrown curveball after curveball at the USPS.  This onslaught has resulted in a series of temporary guidance and local union contract modifications being layered on top of the already complex web of regulations and union contracts governing the delivery of the US mail.

In other words, the "legs" supporting the case for safe and compliant delivery in this case might be tangled...making identifying the applicable rules tough, even for a local supervisor with the union contract at their fingertips. 

If you try to re-visit the issue with the local office, my suggestion is to approach the issue in a spirit of problem-solving, focused on how the library can get the "actual delivery" it needs, while keeping the postal carrier safe and the library compliant with its own policy.

The Postal Service, the United Postal Workers Union (the APWU[6]) and the National Association of Letter Carriers" (or "NALC") support the use of acknowledged safety measures. 

In December, 2020, the President of the NALC wrote to the union's membership[7]:

Today, over 14,000 postal employees are under quarantine from the virus. Well over 66,000 previously quarantined postal employees have been cleared and returned to work. About 5300 of the currently quarantined postal employees have tested positive for the virus, and another 1800 plus are presumed to be positive. Almost 16,000 postal employees who tested positive in the past have recovered and returned to work. Of all these numbers, about thirty percent are letter carriers. Sadly, 105 active postal employees have passed away from the virus, including 22 city letter carriers. We have been notified of 6 retired members who have passed away from the virus as well.

The heroic work you do each day delivering the nation’s mail is of great importance to our economy, to our health, and through the election season during a pandemic, to our democracy. As you continue this important work, please also continue to take every precaution regarding social distancing and face coverings. Please do all that you can to protect yourselves, your families, your coworkers, and your customers. Thank you for all that you do. God bless each of you and your families, please stay safe. [emphasis added]

So, what more can the member do here?

While acknowledging it could be a tangled web, working with a post office's local supervisor to truly confirm that the carrier cannot be required to follow your safety plan--in light of the statements by both USPS and the unions--might be a good first step.

I also want to take the opportunity to address the "5/13 development" (the new CDC guidance).

This pandemic isn't over, but we are clearly moving into a new phase...a new phase that will include the state, the various counties and municipalities, and OSHA (whose COVID guidance has been the go-to for workers across the country, including New York State), working to "catch up" with the new guidance from CDC.[8]

What can a library do right now to address this new CDC guidance?  We'll know soon enough...but (this is being finalized May 16, 2021) we don't know right now.

Until we have that new guidance, from a source you trust (confirmed by your county health department, straight from OSHA, or the NY Department of Health), here is a suggested template for addressing the new guidance:

Well, the CDC hit us with a curveball on 5/13 when it issued guidance stating that people at least 2 weeks past their final immunization shot can be without masks.

As of 5/16, the State of New York has not changed its mandates and guidance to incorporate this guideline.  In addition, OSHA, from which many draw their safety practices, has not changed its guidance yet.

Therefore: for now, the [NAME] Library's Safety Plan is unchanged.  Please continue to wear masks as before, regardless of vaccination status.  Further, please continue to use social distancing when required, and continue with our established wipe-down procedures.

We are all ready for a time when we can come to work with less restrictions.  We expect updated guidance from the State soon, and we will amend our Safety Plan when it is appropriate to do so.

Until then, please keep following the Plan, and carry on.

Thanks for all you do.

Overall, here is my suggested order of priorities for board and library employees working to provide critical services in this time of rapid change:

• Safety first (including your safety)
• Also: People first (starting with people's safety, which is both physical and emotional well-being)
• Routinely check the applicable requirements (designate a person to do this daily)
• As needed, update your Safety Plan
• When enforcing a policy, to the greatest extent possible, work with a buddy
• Boards and directors: stay nimble

We're getting there.

More soon....

 

---

[1] Stay tuned for even more on that, since on 5/16 we got word that NY will have guidance out on this by 5/18.

[2] Found on 5/14 at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html.

[3] Such as this one linked to the American Postal Workers Union site at https://apwu.org/contracts/handbook-m-41-city-delivery-carriers-duties-and-responsibilities: "131.35 Deliver mail according to the instructions or known desire of the addressee. Otherwise, deliver as addressed if the addressee has not moved."  [emphasis added]. 

[4] For instance, if the was the ILL service, we'd look at the contract, not governing regulations.

[5] The link takes you to https://www.uspsoig.gov/document/employee-safety-%E2%80%93-postal-service-covid-19-response, which as of 5/14/21, stated "To slow the virus’s spread, the Postal Service required all employees to wear face coverings where a state or local mandate was in place and social distancing could not be achieved,[and] requested customers to wear face coverings in all retail facilities...."

[6] Their guidance listing use of masks/face coverings is here: https://d1ocufyfjsc14h.cloudfront.net/sites/default/files/apwu_march_30_supervisor_guidance_changes.pdf [NOTE: This link was confirmed as no longer active and removed on 02/25/2022  as part of the routine review of "Ask the Lawyer" materials.]

[7] Full statement here: https://www.nalc.org/news/nalc-updates/body/12-3-20-statement.pdf. This message also includes a demand by the union president that then-President Trump apologize for stating that mail carriers were selling ballots sent in the mail.  2020 was a tough year for everyone, but this letter really brought home the extra burdens it brought to mail carriers.

[8] And, throughout the summer of 2021, doubtless many other developments.