Isaac Mamaysky is a Partner in the national Employment Law and Human Resources practice of Potomac Law Group PLLC. He is also an adjunct professor of law at Albany Law School, where he teaches at the intersection of employment law, management, and human resources.
Continue reading “Can Employers Mandate the COVID Vaccine?: Assessing the Implications of Emergency Use Authorization”Tag: Employment Law
Navigating the Legal Challenges of COVID-19 Vaccine Policies in Private Employment: School Vaccination Laws Provide a Roadmap
COVID-19 created unprecedented challenges for private employers in the United States. Employers—many of whom were technologically unprepared—were forced to rapidly adapt from their on-site operations to a virtual environment supported by fully-remote employees. That, in addition to staying abreast of ever-evolving executive orders, new legislation and regulations, COVID-19 guidelines from federal and state public health officials, and straining to provide a host of flexible accommodations to employees with concerns about workplace safety and exposure to COVID-19. With several COVID-19 vaccines now available to the public, many of these challenges may soon be in the rearview. At least the hope is that continued distribution of the COVID-19 vaccine to the public at-large will bring herd-immunity and a return of normalcy to the American workplace.
Continue reading “Navigating the Legal Challenges of COVID-19 Vaccine Policies in Private Employment: School Vaccination Laws Provide a Roadmap”Not Pictured: Minnesota’s Disfavor Toward Forfeitures–Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat’l Sch. Studios, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2018)
In Capistrant v. Lifetouch National School Studios, Inc., the Minnesota Supreme Court adopted section 229 of the Restatement (Second) of Contracts (“Restatement Section 229”) to resolve an employment contract conflict that was contrary to Minnesota’s reluctance to enforce forfeitures. In its niche opinion, the majority credits Minnesota’s disfavor of forfeitures but refuses to resolve the contractual dispute as a matter of law. While the Capistrant matter remains unresolved on remand, the court’s decision to integrate Restatement Section 229 creates a precedentially consistent avenue for employees to recover relief from former corporate employers.
Continue reading “Not Pictured: Minnesota’s Disfavor Toward Forfeitures–Capistrant v. Lifetouch Nat’l Sch. Studios, Inc., 916 N.W.2d 23 (Minn. 2018)”