The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay that halted implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay that halted implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Following the court’s decision, OSHA announced new compliance deadlines. According to the agency, OSHA will not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising “reasonable, good faith efforts” to come into compliance with the standard.
How Did We Get Here?
As discussed in greater detail in a prior article, on November 4, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor published an emergency temporary standard implementing the Biden Administration’s mandate that all employers with 100 or more employees require vaccination or, as an alternative, weekly testing. The ETS also requires that these employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and recover from vaccination side effects, and mandates that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace.
The ETS applies to private employers with 100 or more employees firm- or corporate-wide. In states like New Jersey with an OSHA-approved state plan, the ETS also applies to state and local government employers.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, temporarily stayed the ETS, and ordered OSHA to “take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.” After similar legal challenges to the OSHA ETS were filed in nearly every U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the cases were consolidated and transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was selected by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation via a lottery.
What Did the Sixth Circuit Say?
On November 23, 2021, OSHA filed a motion asking the Sixth Circuit to lift the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit. By a vote of 2-1, the court lifted the stay, concluding that OSHA was within its authority in issuing the ETS.
In support, the appeals court cited OSHA’s authority to regulate infectious diseases and viruses. “Longstanding precedent addressing the plain language of the Act, OSHA’s interpretations of the statute, and examples of direct Congressional authorization following the enactment of the OSH Act all show that OSHA’s authority includes protection against infectious diseases that present a significant risk in the workplace, without regard to exposure to that same hazard in some form outside the workplace,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote. The majority also noted that “Congress expressly included funding for OSHA in the American Rescue Plan that is to be used ‘to carry out COVID-19 related worker protection activities.’”
The Sixth Circuit also found that the major questions doctrine, which provides that there must be clear congressional authorization when an agency’s regulatory action brings about an enormous and transformative expansion in the agency’s regulatory authority, was inapplicable because OSHA’s issuance of the ETS is not an enormous expansion of its regulatory authority. “OSHA has regulated workplace health and safety on a national scale since 1970, including controlling the spread of disease,” Judge Stranch wrote. “The ETS is not a novel expansion of OSHA’s power; it is an existing application of authority to a novel and dangerous worldwide pandemic.”
The Sixth Circuit also refused to question OSHA’s finding that COVID-19 constitutes an “emergency” that poses a “grave danger.” According to the court:
Based on the wealth of information in the 153-page preamble, it is difficult to imagine what more OSHA could do or rely on to justify its finding that workers face a grave danger in the workplace. It is not appropriate to second-guess that agency determination considering the substantial evidence, including many peer-reviewed scientific studies, on which it relied. Indeed, OSHA need not demonstrate scientific certainty. As long as it supports its conclusion with “a body of reputable scientific thought,” OSHA may “use conservative assumptions in interpreting the data . . . , risking error on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection.”
Finally, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the health threat to workers outweighed any burden that the vaccination and testing requirements would place on employers, citing the accommodations, variances, or the option to mask-and-test that the ETS offers. “[T]he costs of delaying implementation of the ETS are comparatively high,” Judge Stranch wrote. Fundamentally, the ETS is an important step in curtailing the transmission of a deadly virus that has killed over 800,000 people in the United States, brought our healthcare system to its knees, forced businesses to shut down for months on end, and cost hundreds of thousands of workers their jobs.”
Will There Be Further Legal Challenges?
The short answer is yes. Following the Sixth Circuit’s decision, several plaintiffs filed emergency applications for an immediate stay of the ETS with the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is assigned to hear petitions from the Sixth Circuit, must now decide how to handle the applications. His options include staying the ETS pending review of the full Court or referring the applications to the full Court for a decision.
What Should Employers Do to Comply?
Given the short compliance window, we encourage employers to move forward with compliance efforts. These efforts must include assessing each employee’s vaccination status, as well as developing written policies and procedures addressing the requirements with regard to vaccinations and testing.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Sixth Circuit Lifts Stay OSHA’s COVID-19 ETS - New Compliance Deadline Is January 10
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay that halted implementation of OSHA’s COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS).
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has lifted the stay that halted implementation of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (OSHA) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). Following the court’s decision, OSHA announced new compliance deadlines. According to the agency, OSHA will not issue citations for non-compliance with any requirements of the ETS before January 10 and will not issue citations for noncompliance with the standard’s testing requirements before February 9, so long as an employer is exercising “reasonable, good faith efforts” to come into compliance with the standard.
How Did We Get Here?
As discussed in greater detail in a prior article, on November 4, 2021, the U.S. Department of Labor published an emergency temporary standard implementing the Biden Administration’s mandate that all employers with 100 or more employees require vaccination or, as an alternative, weekly testing. The ETS also requires that these employers provide paid time for employees to get vaccinated and recover from vaccination side effects, and mandates that all unvaccinated workers wear a face mask in the workplace.
The ETS applies to private employers with 100 or more employees firm- or corporate-wide. In states like New Jersey with an OSHA-approved state plan, the ETS also applies to state and local government employers.
In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which covers Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi, temporarily stayed the ETS, and ordered OSHA to “take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.” After similar legal challenges to the OSHA ETS were filed in nearly every U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the cases were consolidated and transferred to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was selected by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation via a lottery.
What Did the Sixth Circuit Say?
On November 23, 2021, OSHA filed a motion asking the Sixth Circuit to lift the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit. By a vote of 2-1, the court lifted the stay, concluding that OSHA was within its authority in issuing the ETS.
In support, the appeals court cited OSHA’s authority to regulate infectious diseases and viruses. “Longstanding precedent addressing the plain language of the Act, OSHA’s interpretations of the statute, and examples of direct Congressional authorization following the enactment of the OSH Act all show that OSHA’s authority includes protection against infectious diseases that present a significant risk in the workplace, without regard to exposure to that same hazard in some form outside the workplace,” Judge Jane B. Stranch wrote. The majority also noted that “Congress expressly included funding for OSHA in the American Rescue Plan that is to be used ‘to carry out COVID-19 related worker protection activities.’”
The Sixth Circuit also found that the major questions doctrine, which provides that there must be clear congressional authorization when an agency’s regulatory action brings about an enormous and transformative expansion in the agency’s regulatory authority, was inapplicable because OSHA’s issuance of the ETS is not an enormous expansion of its regulatory authority. “OSHA has regulated workplace health and safety on a national scale since 1970, including controlling the spread of disease,” Judge Stranch wrote. “The ETS is not a novel expansion of OSHA’s power; it is an existing application of authority to a novel and dangerous worldwide pandemic.”
The Sixth Circuit also refused to question OSHA’s finding that COVID-19 constitutes an “emergency” that poses a “grave danger.” According to the court:
Based on the wealth of information in the 153-page preamble, it is difficult to imagine what more OSHA could do or rely on to justify its finding that workers face a grave danger in the workplace. It is not appropriate to second-guess that agency determination considering the substantial evidence, including many peer-reviewed scientific studies, on which it relied. Indeed, OSHA need not demonstrate scientific certainty. As long as it supports its conclusion with “a body of reputable scientific thought,” OSHA may “use conservative assumptions in interpreting the data . . . , risking error on the side of overprotection rather than underprotection.”
Finally, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the health threat to workers outweighed any burden that the vaccination and testing requirements would place on employers, citing the accommodations, variances, or the option to mask-and-test that the ETS offers. “[T]he costs of delaying implementation of the ETS are comparatively high,” Judge Stranch wrote. Fundamentally, the ETS is an important step in curtailing the transmission of a deadly virus that has killed over 800,000 people in the United States, brought our healthcare system to its knees, forced businesses to shut down for months on end, and cost hundreds of thousands of workers their jobs.”
Will There Be Further Legal Challenges?
The short answer is yes. Following the Sixth Circuit’s decision, several plaintiffs filed emergency applications for an immediate stay of the ETS with the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who is assigned to hear petitions from the Sixth Circuit, must now decide how to handle the applications. His options include staying the ETS pending review of the full Court or referring the applications to the full Court for a decision.
What Should Employers Do to Comply?
Given the short compliance window, we encourage employers to move forward with compliance efforts. These efforts must include assessing each employee’s vaccination status, as well as developing written policies and procedures addressing the requirements with regard to vaccinations and testing.
