Legal Issues and Resources to Help Businesses Address the Impact of COVID-19

LAST UPDATED: March 27, 2020

The COVID-19 (coronavirus) outbreak is impacting almost every aspect of our lives, and the legal landscape hasn’t remained untouched. There are legislative changes in the works as well as new applications of existing laws to changing circumstances. On this page, we present information and resources on a variety of legal topics relevant to our clients. We will update this page as new information becomes available and we identify additional topics of concern.

The information provided here does not constitute legal advice. You should consult with legal counsel about your particular situation before taking business and employment actions.

Employment-Related Issues

Q1. Can our business require or encourage employees to work remotely during the pandemic?

A1. Yes. The EEOC has opined that “telework is an effective infection-control strategy that is also familiar to ADA-covered employers as a reasonable accommodation.” Likewise, the Governor of Vermont has issued executive orders requiring all employers to implement work-from-home policies (unless an employer is considered to perform an “essential service”) wherever possible.

Considerations for employers who are unable to implement a remote work plan

Q2. Where can we find guidance for keeping employees safe at work?

A2: For those businesses still operating on an in-person basis, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”) has published “Guidance on Preparing Workplaces for COVID-19.” The guidance outlines steps employers can take to protect employees based on various risk groups.

Moreover, according to guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), any employee who exhibits symptoms of COVID-19 – similar to flu-like symptoms – should be sent home. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) has confirmed that sending employees home under these circumstances is allowed under the ADA, and will not be considered disability-related if an employee is exhibiting such symptoms.

Q3: Can our business test for COVID-19 in the workplace?

A3: The EEOC has issued guidance suggesting that during the COVID-19 pandemic, it will not be considered a violation of the ADA’s rules on medical exams for employers to take employees’ body temperatures, though the EEOC has cautioned that some people with COVID-19 do not have a fever.  Keep in mind that employers who require employees to submit to temperature checks should be sure that they are conducting such checks on a non-discriminatory basis (for example, not testing only employees of a particular nationality) and are being appropriately protective of employees’ privacy.  Employers also should be aware of risks to those persons conducting the temperature checks and should implement suitable safeguards.

Additionally, employers can require employees to notify their supervisor if they are experiencing symptoms associated with COVID-19. Employers also should have a policy that employees experiencing symptoms should not come to work.

At this time, it is not clear whether employers may ask employees to disclose whether they have a medical condition that could make them particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 complications.  Employers should consult with counsel when considering making such inquiries.

Q4: What if one of our employees at the workplace has contracted or been exposed to COVID-19?

A4 : Employees who have contracted COVID-19 or who is suspected to have contracted COVID-19 should be sent home for at least two (2) weeks. To the extent possible, employers should gather information from that affected employee to identify all other employees who may have had close contact with affected employee during the previous two (2) weeks. Those employees also should be sent home for at least two (2) weeks.  When sending employees home, it is important not to disclose the identity of any individual who has been infected.

The CDC has issued guidance for non-healthcare businesses that have experienced infections.

Q5: I’ve heard Congress passed a law allowing employees affected by the COVID-19 pandemic to receive paid leave. What does that law require?

A5: On March 18, 2020, the U.S. Congress passed the Families First Coronavirus Response Act (“FFCRA”), a federal law that, in part, requires employers of 500 or fewer employees to provide up to two (2) weeks (80 hours) of paid leave to employees impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.  The FFCRA also amends the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) to provide up to twelve (12) weeks of family leave for employees to care for children who are out of school or other child care for reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Importantly, the FFCRA allows employers to claim refundable tax credits against their FICA taxes up to the amounts paid for both paid sick leave and paid leave under the expanded FMLA entitlement. 

The federal Department of Labor is expected to adopt regulations implementing the new law, including a process for exempting some employers who have fewer than 50 employees. Although the regulations are not yet available, here are some basic points worth noting:

Paid Sick Leave Requirement

  • Paid sick leave is available to all employees as of the effective date of the law, which is April 1, 2020. 
  • The leave is available to employees who are unable to work for any of the following reasons:
    • The employee is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID-19.
    • The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID-19.
    • The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 and is seeking a medical diagnosis.
    • The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to a Federal, State, or local quarantine or isolation order.
    • The employee is caring for child if the school or place of care of the child has been closed, or the child’s childcare provider is unavailable due to COVID-19 precautions.
    • The employee is experiencing a “substantially similar condition” as specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
  • Full-time employees are entitled to receive up to 80 hours of paid leave, and part-time workers are entitled to receive the number of hours they work, on average, over a two-week period.
  • Leave is paid at the employee’s FLSA “regular rate” for leave taken as a result of the employee’s own condition (i.e., the first three reasons described above), and at 2/3 of the employee’s regular rate for leave taken to care for another (i.e., the last three reasons noted above).
  • Leave amounts are capped at $511 per day and $5,110 total for employees taking leave to care for themselves, and $200 per day and $2,000 total for employees taking leave to care for others. 
  • Employers cannot require an employee to use leave that is available under an existing employment policy before the employee is entitled to use the leave provided by the FFCRA.

 FMLA Amendment

  • The FFCRA amends the FMLA to allow eligible employees up to twelve (12) weeks of family leave if the employee is “unable to work (or telework) due to a need for leave to care for” a minor child “if the school or place of care has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable” due to a public health emergency related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
  • Any employee who has been on the job for at least thirty (30) days is eligible for this leave.
  • The first two (2) weeks (10 days) of the leave can be unpaid, though employees have the option to substitute accrued paid leave under existing policies during this two-week period. 
  • The remainder of the leave must be paid at a rate equal to at least two thirds (2/3) of the employee’s FLSA “regular rate,” but this is capped at $200 per day and $10,000 in the aggregate.
  • Generally, employees who take this leave must be reinstated to their prior positions, though employers with fewer than 25 employees may not have to reinstate employees to positions that no longer exist due to economic conditions or changes to other operating conditions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic that affect employment.  In such cases, employers must still make reasonable efforts to restore employees to equivalent positions, and must make reasonable efforts to contact employees if reasonably equivalent positions become available.

 UPDATE:  On March 26 and 27, 2020, the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives, respectively, passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (“CARES”) Act, which, among other things, amends the FFCRA’s paid leave provisions as follows: 

  • The CARES Act first extends coverage of the FMLA provisions to those who were laid off on or after March 1, 2020, had worked for the employer for not less than 30 of the last 60 calendar days prior to the layoff, and were rehired.
  • Second, the CARES Act includes language allowing employers to obtain an “advance” on refunding of tax credits used to support the new forms of paid leave by withholding employment tax deposits.  The IRS is expected to issue guidance on this change in the near future.

 Tax Credits

The FFCRA allows employers to claim refundable tax credits against their FICA taxes up to the amounts paid for both paid sick leave and paid leave under the expanded FMLA entitlement. 

Posting of Notice

All employers subject to the Act (i.e., those with fewer than 500 employees) are required to post a notice of employee rights under the FFCRA.  DOL has prepared a form notice, which can be downloaded, free of charge, here.  Employers must post this notice in a “conspicuous place” on their premises, or may email or direct mail notice to employees. 

Q6: Unfortunately, my business needs to consider temporarily laying off/furloughing employees. What are some things we should be thinking about in carrying out layoffs?

A6: We recognize that many employers are struggling with how to keep their businesses afloat while keeping their employees employed. Here’s information about several important things to take into consideration.

Federal and State layoff notification laws. 

Generally, if you are considering laying off fifty (50) or more employees in the following ninety (90) days, you may be required to comply with the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (“WARN”) Act or Vermont’s comparable “mini-WARN” act.  These laws generally require employers to provide employees and government agencies with advance notice of significant layoffs.  The laws also include various exceptions, however, that may apply in the present circumstances.  If you anticipate large layoffs – and particularly if those layoffs are likely to be permanent – you should consult with counsel to determine your business’ obligations under the federal and Vermont laws.  

UPDATE: On March 21, 2020, the Vermont Agency of Commerce and Community Development posted: “The Department of Labor does not intend to enforce the provisions of Vermont’s Notice of Potential Layoffs Act against businesses who are forced to lay off employees due to the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic.”  We are not currently aware of similar guidance under the federal WARN Act (which applies to layoffs of 100 employees or more).

Be aware of EEO/Discrimination issues.

In selecting employees for layoff, employers should be sure to rely on well-documented business considerations to avoid running afoul of anti-discrimination statutes such as Title VII, the ADA, the ADEA, and equivalent state laws.  Employers should review demographic information of selected employees to assess the potential for disparate impact discrimination issues. 

What if my workforce is unionized or we have employees with employment contracts?

For unionized workplaces, and for those where employees may have employment contracts, employers should be sure to take into consideration any layoff/reduction in force provisions in collective bargaining agreements or limitations on termination in employee contracts. Seek legal counsel as necessary.

How do layoffs impact an employee’s unemployment insurance benefits?

Generally, a layoff will allow an employee to become eligible for unemployment insurance (“UI”) benefits.  Some UI considerations for employers include:

  • On March 24, 2020, the Vermont Department of Labor (VT DOL) suspended all “official work search requirements” for laid-off employees, whether or not the employees have an official return to work date, “to mitigate the risk associated with work search efforts as they relate to the COVID-19 pandemic.” This means that, for the time being at least, employees laid off as a result of COVID-19 will no longer have to satisfy work search requirements to received weekly unemployment benefits (prior to the order, only employees with a return to work date falling within 10 weeks were exempted from these requirements).
  • UI may be available employees whose work hours are reduced, depending on whether their weekly pay drops below the UI weekly benefit amount. 
  • The VT DOL provides a “mass layoff” form for employers who need to lay off ten or more employees. 
  • Currently, layoffs and UI claims from employees will impact the employer’s unemployment insurance rating, though the Vermont Legislature is currently considering making COVID-19-related layoffs exempt. 

We anticipate changes to the UI compensation system as a result of federal and state relief efforts, and we will update this posting accordingly as more information becomes available.  In the meantime, the VT DOL has published FAQ’s related to COVID-19

Can we request a doctor’s note from employees returning to work after leave?

Yes, EEOC guidance provides that inquiries like this are not disability-related, and in any event would be justified under the ADA standards for disability-related inquiries.  The EEOC has noted, though, that “[a]s a practical matter . . . doctors and other health care professionals may be too busy during and immediately after a pandemic outbreak to provide fitness-for-duty documentation.  Therefore, new approaches may be necessary, such as reliance on local clinics to provide a form, a stamp, or an e-mail to certify that an individual does not have the pandemic virus.” 

Do we have to payout accrued vacation/sick leave?

Vermont law requires employers to pay all wages owed to an employee within 72 hours of termination.  If employees are laid off, this law will apply. Generally, Vermont law does not require payout of accrued, unused vacation or sick leave unless an employer’s policy provides for payout upon termination.

Can we continue to pay for employees’ health insurance while they are laid off?

Yes, though implications on UI benefits is not entirely clear.  Employees who are separated from employment should be eligible for COBRA benefits.  Employers may (but are not required) to maintain contributions to the employees’ plan under COBRA, and may even choose to pay entirely for laid off employees’ COBRA benefits.  It is not entirely clear in Vermont, however, whether such payments would constitute “disqualifying” payments for purposes of UI benefits (such that employees’ UI benefits would be reduced).  Employers should consult with counsel for detailed advice on potential issues. 

Q7: We may not need to lay off employees, but may need to impose furloughs and cut hours. What considerations should we have in mind?

A7: Wage and hour considerations.

If you are thinking of furloughing employees or reducing hours to save costs, there are a couple of things to keep in mind under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and similar Vermont wage and hour laws. 

For non-exempt (hourly) employees, you should be able to furlough or cut hours without running afoul of the FLSA so long as their regularly hourly rate exceeds the minimum wage (currently $10.78 per hour for most workers in Vermont).  Of course, if your employees are working remotely, it will be important to maintain ways to accurately track hours to ensure compliance with minimum wage and overtime requirements.

Employers will need to be particularly careful, however, in furloughing or attempting to cut the hours of FLSA exempt (salaried) employees.  The FLSA generally requires that such employees be paid their full salary for each week in which the employee performs any work.  Therefore, with very limited exception, any furloughs of exempt employees must be for entire workweeks if the employer wants to avoid paying the weekly salary.  Employers should also take steps to ensure that exempt employees do not work at all (as little as taking a single work phone call could suffice to trigger salary payment obligations for the week). 

Finally, employers generally may reduce exempt employee salaries on a prospective basis (i.e., the reduction does not occur within a pay period in which an exempt employee has performed work, and applies only going forward), so long as the employee’s salary does not fall below the minimum required by the FLSA’s “salary basis” test (currently $684 per week, which corresponds to an annual salary of $35,568).

Can employees on furlough/reduced hours collected unemployment benefits?

Maybe.  In Vermont, UI benefits are available for weeks in which an employee experiences “partial unemployment,” which is defined generally as any week in which the employee’s hours are cut to the extent that the employee receives less than the employee would receive in UI benefits if totally unemployed.  This means that in some circumstances, employees whose hours are cut would be eligible for partial unemployment benefits. Salaried employees should also be able to collect unemployment for weeks in which they are furloughed. At present, it appears that the Department of Labor is taking the position that salaried employees whose salaries have been reduced are not entitled to unemployment benefits, but we understand that the Vermont legislature may be considering legislation to make partial benefits available to exempt employees as well. 

What impact will a furlough or reduction in hours have on employee benefits?

Employers should consult their benefit plan documents for more information about the impact of contemplated furloughs or hours reductions on employee benefits plans.  Generally, for example, benefits plans may include weekly hour minimums that qualify employees to participate in such plans.

In some cases, employees may not be able to pay their share of health insurance premiums. Typically, plan coverage would cease in such circumstances, though some insurers may voluntarily continue to provide health coverage during this emergency, or an employer may be able to make an arrangement to cover employees’ share of premiums until hours/pay can be restored to pre-pandemic levels. 

Contract-Related Issues

Q8: With the COVID-19 pandemic and its impact on our daily lives, both at business and at home, our business is worried that we might not be able to meet certain contractual obligations. Does the current situation give us grounds to get out of these obligations?

A8: A business’s performance obligations could be considered “impossible” under certain circumstances. Whether the current situation would make your performance “impossible” usually involves a fact-specific analysis. Here are some things to consider:

  • Generally, a party may be excused from performing the party’s contractual obligations if it is objectively impossible to carry out the bargain. This is a high threshold.
  • On their own, neither a declaration of a State of Emergency nor a recommendation to maintain social distance from others rises to the level of impossibility; thus, these less restrictive suggestions would not be grounds to say that the contract is impossible to carry out.
  • However, a “shelter-in-place” order (also known as a “stay home” order) by local, State, or Federal governments may be grounds to say the contract is impossible to carry out.
  • Keep in mind that an “impossibility” determination most likely would apply to the deadlines of the contract instead of to the entire contract. This means that pausing the activity and delivering within a reasonable time after cause of the “impossibility” may be justified.
  • Determinations on impossibility usually require a fact-specific analysis.

It’s also possible that your contract’s force majeure provision could come into play (see below).

Q9: Our contract contains a “force majeure” clause. Can we invoke this clause in light of the COVID-19 pandemic?

A9: A “force majeure” clause addresses when the contract might be disrupted due to factors beyond the control of the parties. Generally, if either party is unable to perform due to unforeseeable circumstances or acts beyond that party’s control, then either party may choose to terminate. Here are some things to consider:

  • These provisions usually consider “acts of God” to be a force majeure event. Often contracts d o not define what constitutes an “act of God,” although sometimes they provide examples.
    • It’s possible that the COVID-19 pandemic could fit into the catchall “acts of God” term. 
    • Check the provision in your agreement because it could include specific information.
    • For new contracts, we recommend explicitly including “pandemics” in the Force Majeure provision.
  • A force majeure clause does not provide for automatic termination; the parties have to decide to terminate or excuse the performance.
  • Right now, it may be most effective to communicate with the other parties in your contracts.  The impact of COVID-19 is wide-ranging and almost everyone is feeling the impact, which could create an honest and open basis for discussing how to navigate contract issues arising from the COVID-19 impact.

Insurance-Coverage Related Matters

Q10: Should I contact my insurance agent if I I’m not sure if I have a viable claim?

A10: Yes. The insurance company can always deny a claim in full or in part, but the timeliness of the claim is important to retaining your rights under your policy(ies).

Q11: Does my Business Insurance cover any losses my business might sustain from either voluntarily shutting down to protect our employees or shutting down based on the Governor’s March 24th “Stay Safe, Stay Home” order suspending all non-essential in-person operations?

A11: Depending on the scope of coverage, your business’s insurance policies could help pay the cost of property damage, law suits, lost business income, and other losses more specific to the unique requirements of certain businesses.

Check to see what insurance policies your business has. Some businesses might have one policy, whereas other businesses might have a suite of coverages (possibly combined into one policy) including property, general commercial liability, and business income.

When dealing with insurance policies, the important thing is to carefully read the text of the policy itself.  Your insurance agent should be able to point you to any provisions that would be helpful in this unprecedented time, but here’s brief overview of some areas to look for:

  • Interruption Insurance.  Business Interruption Insurance allows businesses to recover revenue lost as a result of a direct loss usually due to physical or property damage.  Similarly, Contingent Business Interruption Insurance is a less prevalent form but covers indirect losses, such as when a third-party is unable to provide services or products to your company so that your company is unable to provide services of products. Coverage from such Interruption Insurance can be used to support payroll, rent, utility payments, and other expenses that continue even when the business itself has stalled.

 If your policy contains Interruption Insurance, it is important to read the policy carefully to see if the coverage extends to circumstances related to a pandemic.  For instance, insurers faced a number of claims after the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (“SARS”) outbreak in 2002-03 and have since included language in policies to exclude similar outbreaks from Interruption Insurance coverage.

See the “Resources” section for helpful information.

  • Event Cancellation Insurance. Event Cancellation Insurance can be part of a broader group of policies provided on an annual basis or can be purchased on a per event basis.  This type of coverage can include: costs incurred prior to cancellation/ postponement of an event, related contractual guarantees, loss of profits or revenue (supported by evidence), and costs for rescheduling the event. Similar to Interruption Insurance, there may be exclusions to coverage, and losses related to the COVID-19 pandemic may not be covered. Since such policies can be specific to the events they are covering, however, terms can vary from policy to policy if you have multiple Event Cancellation policies, and it is worth reaching out to your insurance agent and reading each policy carefully to determine whether the COVID-19 pandemic is a covered loss.
  • Workers’ Compensation Insurance. This type of insurance generally covers only illnesses and injuries that are “work related.” Work related usually means illnesses or injuries that are contracted or occur in the work place (so long as they are related to performance of work) or while performing activities outside the work environment in the course of performing their work.  Accordingly, an employee who comes down with COVID-19 could be covered under Workers’ Compensation Insurance if they contracted the illness in the performance of their work or in the work place.
  • Umbrella Policy or Excess Insurance. Umbrella Policies or Excess Insurance can be helpful to cover costs over the liability limits of primary policies.  To be covered under an Umbrella Policy, however, the underlying claim must be covered under the primary policy.  For example, if the Business Interruption Policy excludes disease outbreaks from coverage, the Umbrella Policy also will not cover any losses.

Q12: What if our business is unable to pay insurance premiums?

A12: On March 23, 2020, in response to Governor Scott’s executive order declaring a state of emergency in Vermont, the Department of Financial Regulation (“DFR”) requested “that all insurance companies provide their policyholders with a reasonable grace period to pay insurance premiums to avoid policies being cancelled for nonpayment of premium due to the COVID-19 public health emergency.” While this is not mandatory or enforceable, it is helpful to have the agency’s support. If your business is unable to pay your premiums in full or in part, it is a good idea to contact your insurance agent as soon as possible.

With many employees working remotely during the COVID-19 outbreak, it’s important that your business take steps to protect data containing confidential, proprietary, personal, and sensitive information.

Data Privacy and Security Related Matters

Q13: What information does our business need to protect?

A13: You should take steps to protect confidential, proprietary, personal, and sensitive information, such as:

    • confidential business information
    • financial information
    • customer information
    • trade secrets
    • marketing plans
    • protected intellectual property
    • work product
    • employee information
    • personnel records
    • medical records
    • financial records

We refer to this type of information as “Private Information.”

Q14: Why is it important to take steps to protect Private Information at this time?

A14: While it’s always important to protect Private Information, with the outbreak of COVID-19, there has been (and likely will continue to be) an increase in activity by criminal entities seeking Private Information. The US Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) have identified several ways scammers will use COVID-19 to target people:

    • Vaccine and treatment scams, where scammers advertise fake cures, vaccines, and advice on unproven treatments for COVID-19.
    • Shopping scams, where scammers create fake stores, e-commerce websites, social media accounts, and email addresses claiming to sell medical supplies currently in high demand (such as hand sanitizer, toilet paper, and surgical masks).
    • Medical scams, where scammers call and email people pretending to be doctors or hospitals that have treated a friend or relative for COVID-19 and demand payment for treatment.
    • Charity scams, where scammers ask for donations for people and groups affected by COVID-19.
    • Phishing and Malware scams, where scammers attempt to gain access to your computer or to steal your credentials.
      • Malware is malicious software (such as spyware, ransomware, or viruses) that can gain access to your computer system without you knowing. Malware can be activated when you click on email attachments or install risky software.
      • Phishing happens when a scammer sends false communications from what appears to be a trustworthy source to entice you to share sensitive data (such as passwords or credit card information).
      • For example, there have been fraudulent emails that look like they come from the World Health Organization (WHO), the Center for Disease Control (CDC), but actually were phishing emails designed to trick the recipient into downloading malware or providing personal and financial information.
    • App scams, where scammers create mobile apps designed to track the spread of COVID-19 and insert malware into the app, which compromises users’ devices and personal information.
    • Investment scams, where scammers offer online promotions on things like social media, claiming that products or services of publicly traded companies can prevent, detect, or cure COVID-19, which could cause the stock of such companies to increase in value as a result.

Additionally, significant data privacy laws recently have gone into effect in several areas (including the GDPR in Europe and the CCPA in California), and many others are in the works throughout the US. These laws require stringent handling of personal information and implementation of reasonable security measures, with consequences for noncompliance.

Q15: What security steps should our business take to protect Private Information when employees work remotely?

A15: The following security steps will help your business and your employees better protect Private Information.

  • Install security software on any devices that employees use to work remotely. Make sure to include firewalls, antivirus software, and anti-malware. If already installed, make sure they are up to date with all necessary patches.
  • Consider having a virtual private network (VPN) for your business. If you have a VPN, require your employees to use the VPN whenever they access the internet to work and access company information systems remotely.
  • Implement two-factor or multi-factor authentication (MFA).
  • Encrypt data both in transit and at rest. Make sure employee devices are set up to encrypt data in emails and attachments, as well as stored data.
  • Consider using Mobile Device Management (MDM) and Mobile Application Management (MAM). These tools can help your business manage and secure mobile devices and applications. For instance, they can help you remotely implement security measures such as data encryption and malware scans, and they can help you wipe data from any lost or stolen devices.

Q16: What security measures should we have employees take when working remotely to help protect Private Information?

A16: There are technology-based and physical security measures that employees can take to help protect Private Information when working remotely (outlined below). But simply providing them with a list of steps to take isn’t sufficient; we recommend you provide training to convey the importance of protecting Private Information, help them identify possible vulnerabilities such as scams, and instruct them how to best implement the security measures.

Inform employees about possible online scams and steps to take to avoid them:

  • Provide examples of recent COVID-19 related scams.
  • Employees should not to reveal personal or financial information online.
  • Employees should not answer calls from unknown numbers; they should hang up on robocalls and not press any numbers.
  • Employees should not answer text messages from unknown numbers.
  • Employees should not reply to emails from unknown senders.
  • Employees should not click on links, download apps, or download attachments from unknown senders.
  • Before making an online purchase, employees should research the company to determine its legitimacy.
  • Before donating to a charitable organization, employees should verify the organization’s authenticity (visit the Federal Trade Commission’s website for more information about verification).
  • Employees should not respond to communications about COVID-19 vaccinations. At this time, there are not any approved drugs or vaccines to treat the virus. Both the FDA and the FTC have sent warning letters to sellers of products claiming they treat or prevent coronavirus.
  • Employees should be wary of texts, emails, and phone calls from sources claiming they are with the government or agencies.

Consider requiring employees to take the following technology-based security measures:

    • If using the internet for work purposes in public, use the business’s VPN or a personal hotspot from a dedicated device or phone. Do not use public wi-fi.
    • Use a USB data blocker when charging up at a public phone charging station.
    • Secure home routers.
    • Make sure cell phones are up-to-date by having settings set so software updates automatically.
    • Use passwords:
      • Use passwords on all devices
      • Make sure passwords are strong
      • Change passwords regularly
      • Disable any “remember password” functions when logging into company information systems and applications from personal devices
      • Use a secure password manager
    • Enable and use two-factor and multi-factor authentication
    • Encrypt data when transmitting (including both the body of the communication and any attachments) and storing data
    • Back up data regularly

Technology-based solutions can be invaluable, but don’t overlook the importance of physical security measures. Some of these may seem like common sense, but it’s a good idea to remind employees to take the following physical security measures:

    • If working in the presence of non-employees, make sure any Private Information is not viewable by others
    • Secure home routers
    • Access work data only from work devices (and not from public or shared devices)
    • Don’t share work devices (even with family members)
    • Keep devices in secure places
    • Do not leave devices in the car
    • If using thumb drives, make sure to know where they come from (don’t use a thumb drive that an employee happens to find)
    • Use a USB data blocker when charging at a public charging station

      Top

Q17: How can we mak e sure our employees know what to do?

A17: Provide employees with written (including electronic) copies of your policies and procedures.

Consider having remote training for your employees. Training would give you the opportunity to explain why security steps are so important at this time as well as provide guidance and address questions – for instance, you could help them learn how to detect phishing attacks and other compromising communications involving remote devices and remote access to company information systems. You also could address password basics, including how to keep passwords strong and the importance of not using the same one over and over again.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Vermont Supreme Court upholds 2011 Wetlands Conditional Use Determination for Burlington’s Champlain Parkway Project

The Vermont Supreme Court has affirmed the dismissal of a challenge to a wetlands Conditional Use Determination issued to the City of Burlington for the Champlain Parkway.

The Champlain Parkway project is a proposed transportation link connecting I-189 and U.S Route 7 with Burlington’s City Center District. In addition to improving traffic circulation, alleviating capacity overburdens, and improving safety on local streets, the Project will include new shared-use paths, recreational areas, and stormwater improvements in Burlington’s south end.

The Supreme Court’s decision moves the Parkway a step closer to construction.  Dunkiel Saunders attorneys Jon Rose, Brian Dunkiel, and Karen Tyler represented the City in this case before the Vermont Superior Court (Environmental Division), and Vermont Supreme Court.

Read the decision here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

SRH Law Attorneys Presenting at VPO Annual Meeting

Partner, Justin McCabe and Attorney Jon Rose will be speaking at the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Vermont Paralegal Organization.  The meeting will take place on Thursday, May 10th at Trader Dukes in South Burlington. Our Practice Manager, Lucia White, is the current president of the VPO and will be hosting the event.

Jon will be giving a presentation on E-Discovery – Best Practices and Updates. In it he will cover basic e-discovery problems, practices, and updates to the ever-changing legal landscape. Justin’s presentation is entitled “Protecting Business IP Rights.” This will cover an overview of the different types of Intellectual Property, how to acquire and protect IP, and business contracts that traditionally have IP issues.

The Vermont Paralegal Organization is devoted to promoting the paralegal profession within the state and is an affiliate of the National Federation of Paralegal Associations (NFPA).  This year, they are offering 9 educational sessions.

For more information or to register for this event, check out the VPO website here

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Jon Rose Presenting at 139th VBA Meeting

SRH Law attorney Jon Rose will join several prominent employment and intellectual property attorneys in a panel discussion on workplace investigations at the 139th Vermont Bar Association Annual Meeting on Friday October 13th.

The two-part seminar, entitled Workplace Investigations: Intellectual Property, Whistle Blower, Fraud, Privacy, and More, will explore the complex and surprising interplay between the law governing intellectual property and employer/employee rights and responsibilities in the context of an unfolding workplace investigation. Jon’s talk will focus on ethical considerations for attorneys conducting such investigations, including client identification and conflict issues, Upjohn warnings, privilege/confidentiality issues, and document preservation obligations.

The meeting will be hosted at the Hilton in Burlington, Vermont. Details can be found in the VBA Annual Meeting online brochure. Registration can be completed here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Karen Tyler and Jon Rose presenting at Vermont Mental Health Seminar

SRH Law attorneys Karen Tyler and Jon Rose will be presenting at the 2017 PESI Vermont Mental Health & The Law seminar on Friday, June 9th.

Karen’s presentation, “Update on Federal and State Privacy & Confidentiality Laws” will cover the federal HIPAA privacy and security laws, Vermont’s Data Breach Law and laws regarding mental health privacy, and other matters.

Jon Rose will present “The Danger Zone: Issues That May Get Professionals in Hot Water,” regarding licensing and unprofessional conduct matters related to credentialing, documentation and patient charts, and other common professional responsibility issues.

Other speakers include Kristin Chandler, J.D. and Bob Wolford, LICSW.

The seminar will be located at the Hilton on Battery Street in Burlington. To learn more and register, click here. The official event brochure can be downloaded here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

2017 Vermont Guide to Health Care Law published; chapter authored by SRH Law attorneys

The Vermont Medical Society has published an updated version of the Vermont Guide to Health Care Law for 2017. SRH Law attorneys Eileen Elliott, Jon Rose, and Drew Kervick are authors of the chapter on Fraud and Abuse Compliance.

According to the VMS website, the Guide "is designed to give physicians and health care facilities a fundamental understanding of legal and regulatory requirements that affect the delivery of health care in Vermont today."

The Guide is available as a PDF on the VMS website. To view or download a copy, click here.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

SRH Law 2016 Vermont Supreme Court Review: Energy & Environmental Decisions

The following six energy and environmental cases were decided by the Vermont Supreme Court this year, each involving an appeal of an issued Act 250 or Section 248 permit. We provide a summary of each case and the Court’s holding below, as well as links to the full decision. 

Authors: Vic WestgateAlex “Sash” Lewis and Jon Rose

  1. In re Treetop Development Company Act 250 Development, 2016 VT 20

    In Treetop, the Supreme Court addressed the authority of a District Commission to retain jurisdiction over an Act 250 project.

    In 2013, District Commission No. 2 issued a Stratton Corporation affiliate an Act 250 permit for a project known as Treetop at Stratton, involving construction of twenty-five townhouses near the Stratton Mountain ski resort.  The condominium association that administered the common facilities at Treetop sued Stratton over construction defects in the project’s stormwater system, among other defects.  As part of a settlement, Stratton obtained an amended Act 250 permit from the District Commission, authorizing repairs and modifications to the stormwater system.  In the permit, the District Commission reserved the right to review Treetop’s stormwater system, and “to evaluate and impose additional conditions as needed.”

    Approximately one year later, the association sought to invoke this continuing jurisdiction to impose additional conditions with regard to Stratton’s stormwater management.  When the District Commission declined, the association appealed to the Superior Court’s Environmental Division. The Environmental Division found that the District Commission lacked the authority to enforce compliance with its own permit; that was rather the role of Natural Resources Board and Agency of Natural Resources.

    The Supreme Court affirmed the Environmental Division.  It held that the NRB and ANR have exclusive power to enforce compliance with Act 250 permits, whereas the District Commission’s authority is limited to considering permit applications and amending permits in accordance with In re Stowe Club Highlands, 166 Vt. 33 (1996).  By reserving the right to impose additional conditions, the District Commission effectively created a mechanism to continuously amend the permit, which both exceeded its authority and undermined the finality of the permit.

  2. In re Waterfront Park Act 250 Amendment, 2016 VT 39

    In this case, handled by Brian Dunkiel and Karen Tyler of Dunkiel Saunders on behalf of the City of Burlington, the Supreme Court addressed the application of Act 250 Rule 34(E), also known as Stowe Club Highlands analysis, governing the review of applications for Act 250 permit amendments.

    It arose from a 1994 Act 250 permit amendment authorizing the City of Burlington to host festivals and public events at its Waterfront Park, subject to conditions limiting the time of year, number, and maximum sound levels of events at the Park.  Over the ensuing years, significant commercial and residential development occurred around Waterfront Park, and events held there became an important element of the City’s cultural and economic life.  In 2012, the City obtained a permit amendment to lift the time of year and numerical restrictions on events at the Park, and to modify the sound limits.  A neighboring landowner, who relied on the original permit in purchasing a condominium adjacent to the Park in 2008, appealed the 2012 amendments to the Superior Court’s Environmental Division.  The Environmental Division ruled in the City’s favor.

    On appeal, the neighbor argued that the City was not entitled to amend its Act 250 permit, because it was merely relitigating the existing permit conditions, and because the Stowe Club Highlands flexibility vs. finality analysis weighed against the amendments.  The Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting both of the neighbor’s arguments.  First, the Court held that since the Park had undergone a significant transformation since 1994, the City’s amendment application was not merely an effort to relitigate the 1994 permit.  Second, the Court held that the Stowe Club Highlands factors weighed in favor of flexibility: the dramatic changes in and around the Park were beyond the City’s control; the amended sound limits incorporated guidelines unavailable in 1994; and the amendment would further the goals of the City’s 2013 municipal plan.  While the neighbor’s reliance on the 1994 permit in purchasing her condominium weighed in favor of finality, on balance, that was outweighed by the other factors.  The Court ruled that the City was entitled to seek an amendment of the Waterfront Park Act 250 permit to address the substantial changes that occurred there over time.

  3. In re Petition of Rutland Renewable Energy, LLC for a Certificate of Public Good Pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248, et al., 2016 VT 50

    In this review of a Public Service Board order, the Section 248 Certificate of Public Good (CPG) issued for the 2.3 megawatt Cold River Solar Project was challenged by the Town of Rutland and five adjoining landowners on the basis of the Project’s compliance with Section 248 criteria for (1) orderly development of the region, (2) aesthetic impact, and (3) impact on historic sites. 

    Although a split Court (3-2) ultimately upheld the Board’s decision in favor of the project on each of the three criteria, the Justices were strongly divided on the issue of whether the Board gave “due consideration” to the recommendations by the Town of Rutland, as is required under 30 V.S.A. § 248(b)(1).  The Town’s recommendations were based on Solar Siting Standards adopted by the Selectboard and in the process of being added to the Town Plan.  The majority ultimately ducked the question on the basis that the lack of evidence for a regional impact from the Project was dispositive, emphasizing that “the statutory requirement relates to orderly development of the region, not to a particular municipality within the region.”  Justice Robinson concurred with the majority on all points except the due consideration issue, writing separately to argue that purely local impacts are not irrelevant, and that the statutory language requires consideration by the Board (but not deference). The dissent disagreed that the Board had given any real weight to the Town’s recommendations.

    The Court was also split on the Board’s aesthetic analysis of the Project.  The majority made two clarifications as to what is required under the Board’s application of the Quechee Test to determine whether a project will have an undue aesthetic impact.  First, the Court stated that in considering the sensibilities of the average person, the Board “can and should consider all vantage points, including from private property.” (Emphasis added). This is a change from the Board’s case law, which has generally held that the Quechee Test is focused on public vantage points.  Second, in response to the dissent’s suggestion that the Board should have considered whether there were alternative sites in the area available for the Project, the majority rejected this as an unprecedented and unreasonable burden, noting that even if such a burden existed it would be on opponents, not on the applicant.

    Note: Due to the date the Project petition was filed with the Board, the Court did not consider the decision under the current version of the statute.

  4. In re Costco Stormwater Discharge Permit, 2016 VT 86

    In the Costco case, the Environmental Court had affirmed an Act 250 permit and wetlands permit for the expansion of an existing retail store and addition of an adjacent, six-pump gasoline station in Colchester.  In doing so, the Court issued a variety of interesting legal and evidentiary rulings, including (1) a finding that under Act 250 criterion 5 (relating to unsafe highway conditions), an applicant need not take steps to alleviate already-existing congestion so long as the permit includes conditions to alleviate the incremental congestion caused by the project; (2) reaffirmation of a previous decision that the environmental court need not remand a permit appeal to ANR to consider “insubstantial” revisions that appear not to have been considered at the agency but do not “affect new parties not participating in the proceedings”; (3) upholding that the environmental court properly considered “cumulative impacts” analysis under the Vermont Wetlands Rules and determined that the project did not require “mitigation sequencing” under those rules where a State expert had testified that the state considered such cumulative impacts in its impacts analysis; (4) that the Environment Court properly excluded as unreliable an expert’s stormwater software model that used as inputs “average rather than specific measures accurately reflecting the variability of [an] existing filter strip … an underestimation of the efficiency of the new system, and . . . only one specific year of rainfall as a guide”; and (5) a ruling that a challenger to the applicant’s wetlands permit did not effectively rebut the presumption of compliance with water pollution and waste disposal criteria created by the project’s stormwater permit through cross examination establishing that ANR had relied on nationally-established stormwater design standards in approving the project rather than performance-testing the system itself. 

  5. In re North East Materials Group LLC, 2016 VT 87

    In this procedurally-complex case, the Supreme Court addressed, for the second time, the issue of whether a rock-crushing operation on a much larger tract of land owned by Rock of Ages (ROA) in Barre was a “substantial change” to a “pre-existing development” such that the operation required Act 250 approval.  (“Pre-existing developments” are normally insulated from Act 250 review unless a “substantial change” has occurred.)  ROA argued that the rock-crushing operation was not a “substantial change” because such operations were conducted on various other portions of the tract for many years prior to Act 250’s adoption.  Thus, the issue was essentially whether the movement of rock-crushing operations from one part of the tract to another over the years constituted a “substantial change.”

    The trial court held that because rock crushing is, and has always been, a mobile operation, and that “the present relocation of ROA’s crushing to [the new site] is consistent with the intrinsically portable nature of rock crushing and with ROA’s historic pattern of mobile crushing operations.”  But the Supreme Court rejected that reasoning, noting that the “location of a particular activity or operation within a tract is often inextricably connected to its impact” and finding that the Environmental Court’s analysis would impermissibly short circuit the substantial change analysis, which requires both an examination into whether a change is “cognizable” and an analysis of the actual potential impacts of a proposed change on the Act 250 criteria.  Conducting this analysis, the Supreme Court found that a substantial change was likely, given the increased noise, traffic and dust conditions that would affect the neighbors in the area of the relocated operations.  Thus, the Supreme Court ordered the operator to seek Act 250 review before the new operations could begin.

  6. In re B&M Realty, Inc., 2016 VT 114

    This Act 250 case involved a large proposed multi-phase development for office, retail, restaurant and residential uses off Exit 1 of I-89 in Hartford, with the first phase alone encompassing more than 15 acres of construction.  Although the District Commission denied the project an Act 250 permit, the Environment Court disagreed on appeal and found that the Project complied with the Act 250 criteria.  Reversing the Environmental Court, the Supreme Court held on cross-appeal that the Project did not comply with the 2007 version of the Two-Rivers Ottauquechee Regional Plan, which it deemed applicable to the Project due to Vermont’s rule vesting rights in regulations as they exist at the time a complete permit application is filed.

    In particular, the Court felt that the Environmental Court misinterpreted the phrase “principal retail establishments,” which the Regional Plan required be located in town centers, designated downtowns, or designated growth centers.  The Environmental Court viewed the proposed development as a single “establishment,” and concluded that it was not a principal retail establishment because it did not designate more space specifically for retail use than the other uses.  Reviewing de novo, the Supreme Court interpreted “principal retail establishments” to include projects such as the proposed development, which would contain a restaurant and nearly 35,000 square feet of retail space.  Similarly, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Environmental Court on a Regional Plan provision limiting the location of “major growth or investments” and reserving land near highway interchanges for transportation related services.  Where the Environmental Court concluded that these terms either did not apply or were unenforceable, as undefined or merely aspirational policy statements, the Supreme Court found that the Regional Plan’s provisions “reinforce each other in establishing a clear and mandatory framework for development.”  In considering the provisions not just independently, but in the “broader context of the regional plan,” the Court concluded that the Plan’s provisions were such that “a reasonable person can discern what is prohibited,” and were therefore clear and enforceable.  

    Having determined that these provisions of the Regional Plan applied, and that they prohibited such development as the proposed Project in the area off Exit 1, the Supreme Court concluded the Project does not comply with Criterion 10 of Act 250 and reversed the Environmental Court’s decision.

CASES TO WATCH FOR IN 2017:

A slate of Public Service Board cases involving solar projects and at least one Act 250 case are set to be decided in 2017 after the Court heard oral arguments for all four cases on the same day in October 2016.  You can listen to the oral arguments here.

  • In re Petition of New Haven GLC Solar, LLC, Docket No. 2016-125 – The Town of New Haven appealed a Certificate of Public Good issued by the Public Service Board for a 500 kW net metered solar project, arguing there were material changes to the Project after the application was submitted.
  • In re Petition of GMPSolar-Richmond, LLC , Docket Nos. 2016-034/2016-148 – A consolidated appeal of a denied intervention motion and the Certificate of Public Good for a 2 MW solar project, filed by Allco Renewable Energy Limited, regarding its asserted interests under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act (PURPA).  Geoff Hand and Vic Westgate of SRH Law are representing appellee GMPSolar-Richmond, LLC.
  • In re North East Materials Group LLC Amended Permit, Docket No. 2016-170 – An appeal by neighbors of an asphalt plant regarding Act 250 permit conditions imposed by the Environmental Court.  Neighbors argue the conditions are insufficient to ensure compliance with Act 250 criteria.
  • Nancy Myrick v. Peck Electric Co. et al., Docket Nos. 2016-167/2016-169 – A case of first impression involving neighbors to a solar project asking the Court to expand Vermont common law to hold that visual aesthetic impacts can constitute a recoverable nuisance.

Facebooktwitterlinkedin

Important Notice: Beneficial Ownership Reporting Requirements in Effect as of Jan. 1, 2024

X