It should now be clear to business owners that a return to in-person work will require employers in Michigan, as well as much of the rest of the country, to implement a COVID-19 preparedness and response plan prior to workers returning to in-person work. These plans are mandated regardless of the type of work the business performs and require businesses to take a hard look at the many routine processes which transpire daily at the office or in the field, implement a plan to make them safer, and to document those processes. Mundane break room cleaning and capacity policies are now critically important to ensure the health and well-being of your workforce.
As Michigan’s stay-at-home orders are revised, Governor Whitmer, through Executive Order 2020-77, has continued the phased easing of restrictions on certain businesses, which now include workers:
a. who process or fulfill remote orders for goods for delivery or curbside pick-up;
b. who perform bicycle maintenance or repair;
c. in garden stores, nurseries, and lawn care, pest control, and landscaping operations;
d. in moving or storage operations;
e. who perform work that is traditionally and primarily performed outdoors, including but not limited to forestry workers, outdoor power equipment technicians, parking enforcement workers, and outdoor workers at places of outdoor recreation not otherwise closed under Executive Order 2020-69 or any order that may follow from it;
f. in the construction industry, including workers in the building trades (plumbers, electricians, HVAC technicians, and similar workers);
g. in the real-estate industry, including agents, appraisers, brokers, inspectors, surveyors, and registers of deeds;
h. who are necessary to the manufacture of goods that support workplace modification to forestall the spread of COVID-19 infections; and,
i. who are necessary to train, credential, and license first responders (e.g., police officers, fire fighters, paramedics) and health-care workers, including certified nursing assistants.
The full text of Order 2020-77 can be read here. Additionally, as of May 11, 2020, workers necessary to perform manufacturing activities will also be able to resume work at their plant locations. All employers identified in this and in previous orders must adhere to certain guidelines and restrictions on in-person activity. Chief amongst these guidelines is the requirement that all employers re-opening their businesses must have a written “COVID-19 preparedness and response plan,” and must have such a plan available at their office or headquarters. Should visitors be screened for fever? Should the office coffee machine be moth-balled? These questions and more are front-line considerations in protecting your workforce from the pandemic. Failure to take such stock and document a plan is not only careless and dangerous, but is also criminal, as failure to have a written COVID-19 preparedness and response plan is a misdemeanor.
Within three weeks of the first presumptive positive COVID-19 case in Michigan, the attorneys at Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC have been developing company specific COVID-19 preparedness and response plans for their clients. The FBMJ approach takes into account the unique sectors, workforce and work environments individual to their respective clients, and tailors a plan to meet that company’s specific needs at locations ranging from south Texas to northern Michigan. FBMJ is ready to assist businesses now free to return to in-person operations.
We also can assist with evaluating and documenting whether particular work qualifies for in-person work under exceptions to the latest Order. To those businesses not yet released to resume in-person work, that day will come, and likely sooner than you may anticipate. Infectious disease control plans, whether due to Covid-19 or otherwise are here to stay. To help your business maintain compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-77, and related orders, you may contact one of the attorneys listed below:
Rich Baron rbaron@fbmjlaw.com
Ben Fruchey bfruchey@fbmjlaw.com
Nick Tatro ntatro@fbmjlaw.com
May 2020
Executive Order 2020-77 Emphasizes the State’s Requirement for COVID-19 Specific Preparedness Plan to Protect In-Person Workers
It should now be clear to business owners that a return to in-person work will require employers in Michigan, as well as much of the rest of the country, to implement a COVID-19 preparedness and response plan prior to workers returning to in-person work. These plans are mandated regardless of
April 2020
Governor Whitmer Mandates Employers Develop COVID-19 Preparedness Plans To Perform “In-Person” Work
On April 24, 2020, Governor Gretchen Whitmer issued Executive Order 2020-59 (the “Order”), which extends the Stay-at-Home timeframe to May 15, 2020, and expands the universe of workers allowed to return to work outside the home. Key to the Order is the requirement that businesses with any employees working in-person
April 2020
FBMJ Announces the Promotion of Six Attorneys to Partners
Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, PLLC, is pleased to announce promotions of six attorneys to partners, effective April 1, 2020. “We congratulate our new partners for having earned this well-deserved professional achievement through their hard work on behalf of our clients,” said Clyde Metzger, one of the founding partners of the
April 2020
Governor Whitmer’s New Stay-At-Home Order (Executive Order 2020-42) Has Legal Requirements for Business Owners to Fulfill Before Starting In-Person Operations
In addition to the Stay-at-Home provisions and exceptions in Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 2020-42 which are outlined below, the Order requires business owners to address three legal requirements to conduct in-person operations. These are: (1) Preparation of a COVID-19 Preparedness and Response Plan consistent with OSHA guidance; (2) determine who,
March 2020
Executive Order 2020-21 (COVID-19) – What the Stay at Home Order Means for Michigan Citizens and Businesses
On March 23, 2020, Governor Whitmer issued a “stay-at-home” order titled Executive Order 2020-21 (“EO 2020-21”). The stated purpose of the Order is to assist in slowing the spread of novel Coronavirus COVID-19 and to protect the healthcare system from being overwhelmed. This article provides an overview of the Order
March 2020
Maintaining MIOSHA Compliance in the Rapidly Changing COVID-19 Environment
As the COVID-19 pandemic unfolds, business owners, managers and executives may be wondering: 1. What are the employer’s responsibilities to keep employees safe from COVID-19? 2. Do I need to report to MIOSHA that an employee has been diagnosed with COVID-19? In this article, we address these questions with a focus on helping
March 2020
Michigan Supreme Court Issues Administrative Orders Affecting Courts and Cases During the COVID-19 Crisis
The Michigan Supreme Court has issued several Administrative Orders since the outbreak of the COVID-19 crisis which impact the operations and procedures of courts and court cases across the State of Michigan. Administrative Order No. 2020-2: Limiting Activities/Assemblages in Michigan Courts On March 18, the Michigan Supreme Court (the “Court”) issued Administrative
March 2020
Essential Issues for Landlords to Consider in Response to COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic is affecting businesses across all sectors of the economy, and landlords are no exception. The most obvious challenge landlords face is the inability of tenants to pay rent due to the economic downturn, but there are other important issues that landlords must address related to their commercial
March 2020
FBMJ Takes Steps to Combat the COVID-19 Outbreak While Ensuring Continuity of Service
The COVID-19 crisis is impacting all of us in myriad ways. At Foley, Baron, Metzger & Juip, we are committed to helping our clients navigate through the challenges they are facing during these uncertain times. We are also taking steps to protect the safety of our attorneys and staff, as
March 2020
The Ol’ Expert Switcheroo: COA Holds AOM Signed by New Expert “Amendment” and Relates Back
If a plaintiff replaces an affidavit of merit (AOM) signed by an unqualified expert with one signed by a qualified expert, does the subsequent AOM constitute an “amendment” to the original AOM, such that it relates back for statute of limitations purposes? Surprisingly, yes—at least according to the Court of
