Am I required to self-report COVID-19 exposure, symptoms, or diagnosis? 

This depends on ever-changing CDC and state and local guidance. It is likely that an employer can require you to report your COVID-19 status, but cannot share your health information with others. 

Can my employer require me to not come into the workplace due to COVID-19? 

If you are experiencing COVID-19 symptoms or have a diagnosis, an employer can require you not to come into the workplace and request that you follow CDC guidance on quarantining. 

If I have to stay home because of COVID-19, will my employer still pay me? 

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act, which required certain employers to provide employees with paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19, expired on December 31, 2020. With that, employers are no longer required to provide employees with FFCRA leave, though they may do so voluntarily.

I don’t have COVID-19, but I am caring for someone who does and cannot go to work. What sick leave benefits am I entitled to? 

Under the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, certain employers were required to provide expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19. But the FFCRA expired at the end of 2020. Currently, employees are not entitled to any specified sick leave benefits related to COVID-19.  

Is my employer required to tell me if I have been exposed to COVID-19 at the workplace? 

Your employer should inform you if you have been exposed to COVID-19, but should not reveal others’ personal health information. 

If I feel like I’m in an unsafe position at work, what can I do? 

Under OSHA guidance, you should bring the unsafe condition(s) to the attention of your employer. Additionally, OSHA provides information on workplace standards related to COVID-19 and has an online portal to file safety and health complaints. 

What can I do if I speak out about my working conditions and my employer cuts my hours or terminates my employment? 

There are various laws and authorities that protect whistleblowers from retaliation, including OSHA and the National Labor Relations Act. If you believe you have unfairly experienced workplace retaliation Fill out our employment questionnaire  

If the business I work at is ordered closed, can my employer lay me off, put me on furlough, or terminate my employment? 

Unfortunately, yes. 

Am I eligible for COVID-19 unemployment benefits? How do I get them? 

• The Missouri Department of Labor outlines who is eligible for COVID-19 unemployment benefits and how to file for them. 
• In Illinois, the Department of Employment Security accepts unemployment claims here. The state also has a Pandemic Unemployment Assistance program for those denied of the state’s unemployment benefits. 

How much are unemployment benefits? 

Unemployment benefits vary state-by-state. 

• In early January 2021, both the Missouri Department of Labor and the Illinois Department of Employment Security began processing $300 Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation supplements. 
• In Missouri, weekly unemployment benefits can be up to $320. 
• In Illinois, weekly unemployment benefits can be up to $484. 

How long can I receive unemployment benefits? 

• In Missouri, unemployed workers can receive unemployment benefits for up to 33 weeks. For additional information about unemployment, visit Missouri Department of Labor’s FAQs. 
• In Illinois, unemployed workers can receive unemployment benefits for up to 39 weeks. More information about COVID-19 related unemployment issues can be found at Illinois Department of Employment Security FAQs. 

The post COVID-19 Frequently Asked Questions appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

On May 28, the EEOC issued updated guidance detailing that employers are indeed permitted to require workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Building off of previous guidance released in December, the EEOC now explains how employers should implement vaccine mandates, confirm employees’ vaccination, and set up vaccine clinics at the workplace. 

Though employers can mandate vaccinations for employees, there are exceptions, including disability and religious protections. But the employer may not inquire about an employee’s disability status as part of COVID-19 screening. And all medical information collected must remain confidential. 

Due to a disability, an employee may not receive the COVID-19 vaccine. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act, an employer must first determine if an unvaccinated employee poses a “direct threat” to other employees. If a “direct threat” status is determined, an employer must seek out reasonable accommodations that can be provided for an unvaccinated employee, such as enforcing mask wearing and social distancing in the workplace. If such reasonable accommodations are not possible, then an employer must consider other avenues, such as allowing an employee to work from home, unless doing so would pose an unreasonable burden on the employer. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees from mandatory vaccination due to religious beliefs. Similarly to disability exemptions, an employer would be expected to provide reasonable accommodations for an unvaccinated employee claiming religious beliefs prevent them from getting inoculated. The EEOC advises employers to believe employees claiming religious exemption. But, an employer can request information to support the claim if said employer has an “objective basis” that leads them to believe an employee is not telling the truth about their religious exemption.  

Regardless of the reason why an employee is requesting exemption, the EEOC says the employer should rely on the most up-to-date medical information and rates of infection before determining the “direct threat” they pose in the workplace. Importantly, the EEOC recommends employers consider “all the options” before denying an employee’s request for accommodation. 

Additionally, employers are now advised to provide accommodations to fully-vaccinated employees requesting accommodations due to vulnerabilities, such as being immunocompromised. 

The coronavirus pandemic, and its impact on employees, is complicated and ever changing. For more information about employment concerns related to COVID-19, visit our FAQs page. 

If you or someone you know has been a victim of COVID-19 employment issues, our skilled attorneys at Kennedy Hunt, P.C. may be able to help you. Fill out a questionnaire so we can understand your claim.

The post EEOC releases updated guidance on COVID-19 vaccine appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

Shortly after that, former Kennedy Hunt, P.C. attorney Heather Brouillet Navarro announced she would be running for St. Louis’ 28th ward alderwoman position.

On July 11, Navarro, a democrat, won the special election in a sweeping victory, receiving 68.85 percent of the votes, according to the St. Louis Board of Election Commissioners.

Navarro, the current Executive Director of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment, has also been a resident of the Central West End and the Skinker-DeBaliviere neighborhoods for the past 14 years.

In her neighborhood, Navarro has put a focus on building community. She helped found Central West End Families and Friends, a nonprofit group that later developed Samuel Kennedy Park, which runs along the Delmar Divide.

During her campaign, she received official support from Krewson, as well as backing from the 28th Ward Democratic Committee, among many other endorsements.

According to her campaign web page, Navarro’s priorities include service, public safety, and equitable development.

As an attorney at Kennedy Hunt, P.C., Navarro wrote on her campaign’s website, “I have practiced law as a civil rights attorney, representing parents of children with special needs, Medicaid recipients, and victims of discrimination.”

Below is a case Navarro worked on while at our law firm.

Mapaville Litigation (E.D. Mo. 2010). Our clients are parents of students with severe disabilities who attended Mapaville State School in Festus, Mo. They discovered abusive treatment of their children at Mapaville after secretly recording several classes. The audiotapes revealed verbal and physical abuse of children, teachers and aides participating in Jazzercize activities while children were ignored, students being put down for naps for lengthy periods each day, and teachers and therapists falsifying records of services to students, among other things. Six families file due process hearing requests; five lost, one family obtained partial relief, and one family (represented by our firm) was successful. Then our firm agreed to handle all these cases on appeal in the U.S. District Court. Eventually Mapaville and the Missouri Dept. of Elementary and Secondary Education agreed to settlements in each case which provided for a wide range of compensatory services over a three-year period, including independent augmentative communication evaluations, unannounced monitoring of Mapaville, and payments to our clients ranging from $10,000.00 to $200,000.00. The last Mapaville case was concluded in January 2013.

During her time as a practicing attorney, Navarro also worked on Alexander v. Baxton, et al. (S.D. Ill. 2012), as well as Hiltibran v. Levy (W.D. Mo. 2010). The selections from these cases can be found on our webpage.

Navarro will serve for at least the next two years as 28th ward alderwoman as she fills Krewson’s term. According to St. Louis Public Radio, Navarro may begin her role as alderwoman as soon as July 21.

The next formal election for alderman of the 28th ward will be held in 2019.

The post Former Attorney Wins Local Special Election appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

On February 10, St. Louis passed an addition protecting reproductive health decisions to the city’s anti-discrimination ordinance with a 17-10 vote.

The ordinance, which was sponsored by 15th Ward Alderwoman  Megan Green, prevents employers and landowners in St. Louis from discriminating against women based on their reproductive choices.

Simply put, the ordinance bans discrimination of women who are pregnant, who have had abortions, or use contraceptives such as birth control.

The debate over women’s reproductive rights is certainly not new, and religious beliefs often contribute to perspectives on these issues.

And this ordinance certainly has faced its critics.

The Lutheran Church Missouri – Synod, and Archdiocese of St. Louis are among many organizations who oppose the ordinance, citing how it forces individuals to go against their beliefs.

In just months after this ordinance was passed in St. Louis, lawmakers in Jefferson City have gone to work to strip it down.

On June 12, Gov. Eric Greitens called for a special session, causing Missouri lawmakers to return to the Capitol in attempts of both removing St. Louis’ new ordinance, and imposing greater abortion restrictions.

The next day the Missouri Senate’s Seniors, Families and Children Committee endorsed a plan to overturn the St. Louis ordinance. Two days later, Senate Bill 5 was passed.

In mid-June the Missouri House added their opinions to the future of the St. Louis ordinance, and abortions in the state as well.

Although the House’s version of the bill is considered stricter than the Senate’s, both share the same goal of preempting the St. Louis ordinance.

An official bill has yet to make it to Greiten’s desk.

Lawmakers are expected to return to Jefferson City in mid-July to alter and argue the bill.

At our practice, we specialize in both employment and housing law. If you believe you have been discriminated against in the workplace or in housing, contact our experienced attorneys.

The future of this ordinance and the protection of women based on their reproductive decisions in St. Louis, and Missouri, at this time is uncertain.

The post Reproductive Rights in Missouri appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..

The lawsuit alleges Plaintiff often worked in excess of forty hours per week,  but did not receive overtime pay.  The suit also alleges that, during her employment, Plaintiff  became aware that Defendant was committing fraud by billing for procedures he never performed and by performing unnecessary procedures on Medicaid patients to obtain increased reimbursement from private insurance plans and MO Healthnet. 

The lawsuit alleges Plaintiff was terminated after repeatedly notifying her superiors that she and other co-workers were not receiving overtime pay, and  reporting  her concerns over the unlawful billing practices.

Under the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, employees like Plaintiff are owed overtime pay. This law mandates employees to be paid at least minimum wage for all hours worked in each workweek, and also to be compensated at a rate of not less than one and a half (1 ½) times the regular rate of pay for any hours worked in excess of forty in a workweek.  Additionally, Missouri public policy protects individuals from wrongful termination for reporting unlawful practices to a supervisor or an outside agency.

In the lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid overtime wages, statutory liquidated damages, as well as lost wages and benefits, emotional distress damages, punitive damages; and attorney’s fees and court costs.

The Law Office of Thomas E. Kennedy, III, L.C. represents clients in both Missouri and Illinois.  We have experience litigating employment cases that involve wage and hour issues as well as wrongful termination. If you believe you are not being paid correctly, or you have been wrongfully terminated from your job, contact us so we can evaluate your claim.

The post Recent Filing for Overtime Pay and Wrongful Termination appeared first on Kennedy Hunt, P.C..