Corporate America seeks legal protection for when coronavirus lockdowns lift https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-liability-idUSKCN223179 Major U.S. business lobbying groups are asking Congress to pass measures that would protect companies large and small from coronavirus-related lawsuits when states start to lift pandemic restrictions and businesses begin to reopen. Their concerns have the ears of congressional Republicans, though it is far from clear if the idea has the Democratic support it would need to pass in the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) and National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) are seeking temporary, legal and regulatory safe harbor legislation to curb liabilities for employers who follow official health and safety guidelines. The Business Roundtable, which represents corporate chief executives, is also exploring ways to limit coronavirus liabilities. Businesses want to make sure that they are not held liable for policy decisions by government officials, should employees or customers contract COVID-19 once operations resume. They also want protection from litigation that could result from coronavirus-related disruptions to issues like wages and hours, leave and travel. “These are practical things to reassure businesses that they can confidently move to implement a reopening,” Neil Bradley, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce chief policy officer, said in an interview. The debate over when to ease restrictions intended to slow the spread of the COVID-19 respiratory disease, which has killed more than 40,000 Americans, has recently entered a more politically charged phase with Republican President Donald Trump voicing support for scattered street protests aimed at ending the restrictions. Public health officials warn that doing so prematurely risks sending infection rates soaring and further taxing an overwhelmed healthcare system. The idea of protecting businesses from being sued by workers or customers has already found support in some quarters on Capitol Hill. “There’s been a lot of discussion among conservative Republicans,” U.S. Representative Mike Johnson, a Republican member of Trump’s congressional task force on the economy, told Reuters. “On the Republican side, I think there would be broad support, probably near-unanimous support.” The path to bipartisan legislation remains unclear in the Senate and House. Representative Bobby Scott, Democratic chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, told Reuters that any legislation on employer liability would need to address the question of who is liable in cases of negligence. “If you just want to immunize the business and stop there,” he said, “that’s not much of a conversation.” Scott and other House Democrats introduced new legislation on Tuesday that would require employers to implement infectious disease exposure control plans to keep workers safe during the pandemic.
I would not put it past someone suing a business or restaurant once things reopen if they contract COVID. Lawyers can sue for anything really and even if seemingly frivilous you still have to hire a lawyer and spend money to defend it. I would think legally it would be impossible to prove any negligence or causation. You go to work and 2 weeks later you do not feel well and test postivie for Corona. You stay home for 2 weeks and work gives you sick leave. You decide to sue. Easy to defend because no way in hell you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt (i know not civil standard of negligence but stay with me) that you did not get COVID from any of the hundreds of other people you were in contact with OUTSIDE your office. It is akin to sleeping with 10 women in a month and then picking one to sue because you got VD but worse because with Corona you could get it from surfaces or random people you encountered briefly and never know. All employers should do is follow the guidelines and for people who sue, the defendant should be allowed to file an immediate motion to dismiss showing adherence and the plaintiff liable for all legal costs. That shoudl nip that shit in the bud real fast. No lawyer will take those cases.
Companies should be immune from suits (per legislation) but the employee should be given the option to not work. (probably without pay)
why? if companies are pushing for quarantine to be over before the guidelines CDC has established, or take shortcuts in keeping a sterile work environment, how is it any different than pushing employees to do work in violation of OSHA? At some point, it's just like any other virus out there, and companies shouldn't be held to account. But you don't get to lobby against the science to reopen quickly, and then lobby to skirt responsibility for endangering your work force.
it is a valid point but I think this idea also extends to when business open even after orders are lifted and worried about being sued. No one can open unless the government says it is ok so if the Governor says it is ok and you go to work and get COVID, the only way I can see a suit being successful is if the business ignored all the safety guidleines put in place once it opened. Even then how do you prove that it is more than likely the place you caught it if a good defense lawyer can show the other 50 places you came into contact with it possibly not to mention the 50 places the 3 people in your house came into contact with it and so on and so. No lawsuit could survive such a defense unless the business was super negligent or outright defiant against safety provisions.
If only we had a career inspector general watching this money for the American people. Would be nice. But I know you’re all shocked, shocked, shocked!!! https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...0c6cb8-78ea-11ea-9bee-c5bf9d2e3288_story.html