Due to the increase in the number of COVID-19 variants and pending OSHA regulations, employers are again faced with deciding whether to issue a vaccine mandate. Unsurprisingly, determining whether to implement a vaccine requirement raises a bevy of questions for employers, including whether such a mandate should be implemented and how such a mandate would be enforced.

On Thursday, September 9 the White House released “Path Out of the Pandemic: President Biden’s COVID-19 Action Plan” (the “Action Plan”). The Action Plan includes numerous potential obligations for employers and leaves significant questions unanswered.

Mika Meyers’ Labor and Employment Law team continues to monitor legal developments and considerations as vaccine mandates are implemented throughout the United States.

There is no question that the modern marketplace is changing.  More and more of the work force is leveraging their unique skills and abilities as outside contractors or small businesses than in prior decades.  In fact, many estimates indicate that as much as a third of the United States work force operates in this new “gig economy.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals recently issued its published decision in Spaulding v Swiacki (July 2021), which posted a warning sign to public officials who might consider proceeding with a public meeting, while knowing in advance that the meeting was not properly posted on the public body’s website, in accordance with the requirements of the Open Meetings Act (“OMA”). The Court’s warning sign states, in effect, that such action could result in a public official being held personally liable for statutory damages, court costs and attorney fees, even if the meeting was otherwise conducted in substantial compliance with OMA’s notice requirements.