OSHA withdraws vax-or-test ETS, but plows ahead with proposed rule

Not official use.

Yesterday, OSHA announced that it will withdraw its COVID-19 vaccine-or-test emergency temporary standard effective January 26, 2022. But, ETS's are generally submitted as proposed rules that will go through the administrative rulemaking process and grow up into "real" regulations. OSHA announced it "is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule."

Given the Supreme Court's ruling, I doubt OSHA will plow ahead with a rule that is identical to the ETS. For now, the vax-or-test ETS mandate is off, but a final rule is still coming together. 

DOL: Pay employees for job-mandated COVID vaccines, tests, screening during normal work hours

[Update 1/21/2022 2:05 pm: Where did it go? Looks like DOL pulled the Fact Sheet described in this post from its website (although, it still appears in the Department's Index of fact sheets)]. 

Welp, I'm sure this was supposed to coincide with the now-seemingly-dead OSHA vaccine mandate. That said, it it applies to employer mandates more broadly. I'm talking, of course, about U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #84: Compensability of Time Spent Undergoing COVID-19 Health Screenings, Testing, and Vaccinations Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it?). 

The bottom line:

[I]f an employer requires an employee to obtain a COVID-19 vaccine dose, undergo a COVID-19 test, or engage in a COVID-19 related health screening or temperature check during the employee’s normal working hours, the time that the employee spends engaged in the activity is compensable. Employees must be paid for such time during normal working hours, regardless of where the activity occurs.

Sounds simple enough, but what about mandatory activities that occur outside of normal working hours?

DOL appears to take the general position that employer-mandated COVID-19-related activities are still compensable when done outside of working hours. But, there's a carveout in a vax-or-test scenario for employees who "voluntarily" choose not to get vaccinated and get tested instead - they do not get paid for their time spent testing. Employees with a disability or religious exemption to the vaccine mandate are not voluntarily foregoing the vaccine, so they would get paid for testing.

I should also note that the DOL's position on this seems based on an argument that is very similar to OSHA's (losing) argument at the Supreme Court. Specifically, the DOL fact sheet reads:

As reflected in the OSHA Vaccination and Testing ETS, the Federal Government has determined that vaccination is the most effective and efficient control available to protect employees from becoming seriously ill and dying due to occupational exposures to COVID-19. Employers must pay employees who report to a workplace where other individuals are present and who do not work exclusively outdoors for time spent going to, waiting for, and obtaining a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine dose because it is necessary that employees be able to perform their jobs safely and effectively during the pandemic.

In the context of the OSHA ETS, the Supreme Court specifically rejected this argument that vaccines are workplace employment safety regulations. So, it is not clear if DOL would fair any better - perhaps they would because in this context it would be an employer-issued requirement.

SCOTUS: A Tale of Two Vaccine Mandates

Oh, that tricky Supreme Court - they totally faked us out! They announced that new opinions would be released at 10:00 AM, and then only released the utterly un-newsworthy opinion in Babcock v. Kijakazi (that said, it did address an obscure employment law-ish issue, holding "Civil-service pension payments based on employment as a dual status military technician are not payments based on 'service as a member of a uniformed service' under [the Social Security Amendments of 1983]"). 

But, you probably don't care about dual-status military technician social security benefits do you? You want the vax mandates! Out of nowhere, and without warning, SCOTUS dropped both vaccine mandate opinions:

OSHA Vaccine or Test Mandate

First up, a per curiam opinion in NFIB v. OSHA. As background, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) generally requiring employers with 100 or more employees to require their employees to either get vaccinated against COVID-19 or subject themselves to regular testing. The Fifth Circuit granted a stay, effectively pausing the ETS. But, through a weird statutory procedural quirk, several challenges were consolidated and then assigned via a lottery to the Sixth Circuit, which lifted the stay and cleared the way for the ETS to go into effect. This prompted several parties to seek a stay from the Supreme Court. 

Stay granted. Bottom line: SCOTUS concluded that the challengers "are likely to prevail" and stayed (paused) the ETS. The Supreme Court focused on the nature of the powers delegated to OSHA through the OSH Act - specifically, OSHA can set workplace standards for occupational safety to protect employees from work-related dangers. See where this is going?  

Although COVID– 19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.

If it's possible to distill this issue down to a sentence, it's this: "Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly." Now, this is not a final ruling on the merits, but the writing certainly appears to be on the wall. 

Justice Gorsuch (joined by Justices Thomas and Alito) penned an interesting concurring opinion mixing the major question doctrine and the nondelegation doctrine:

On the one hand, OSHA claims the power to issue a nationwide mandate on a major question but cannot trace its authority to do so to any clear congressional mandate. On the other hand, if the statutory subsection the agency cites really did endow OSHA with the power it asserts, that law would likely constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority.

Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented. So, for now the OSHA standard is on hold. OSHA has issued a statement on its website. 

CMS Healthcare Worker Vaccine Mandate

Next up, Biden v. Missouri. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a rule generally requiring healthcare workers at facilities that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding to get vaccinated (allowing for medical and religious exceptions). Slightly different background in this case as the lower courts had issued injunctions pausing the rule and the government asked SCOTUS to stay the injunctions. 

Bottom line: Stay granted - but in this case that means the injunctions are stayed. Think of it as a double negative - the injunction was negating the rule, but now the stay is negating the injunction, so the bottom line is that the rule can move forward. 

SCOTUS: Fine, we'll look at a couple of the vaccine mandates.

Justice Kavanaugh received
the petitions and referred
them to the full court.

On December 22nd, the Supreme Court issued a pair of orders (here and here) scheduling oral arguments on two vaccine mandates for January 7, 2022: (1) the OSHA vaccine or test mandate for employers with more than 100 employees; and (2) the CMS vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. 

Now, let's temper our expectations here by noting that the petitioners are seeking a stay pending a ruling by the lower courts on the actual merits. In other words, SCOTUS will not be issuing a final ruling on whether the mandates are lawful. That said, decisions on injunctive relief are often chock-full of signals as to the judges' views on the ultimate question.

Meanwhile, OSHA has already set some enforcement deadlines: 

OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance 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.

OSHA is also in the midst of taking comments to turn the emergency standard into a permanent standard. 

For employers, it's just more of the same uncertainty. The mandates are on for now, but will SCOTUS turn them off? Either way, we'll be waiting for even more litigation to unfold. 

The OSHA vaccine mandate is back on (for now)

 The Fifth Circuit stayed implementation of the OSHA vaccine mandate, but then the challenges were consolidated and the Sixth Circuit won the lottery to decide the consolidated case. On Friday, the Sixth Circuit dissolved the stay, clearing the way for OSHA to implement the mandate (enjoy the 57-page opinion here). 

So, what's next for OSHA? You can read their latest update here, but the bottom line is: 

Not official use.

OSHA will not issue citations for noncompliance 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.

Of course, the Sixth Circuit panel is not the final word. Several of the challengers have already sought Supreme Court review. SCOTUSblog has the rundown.  

OSHA vaccine mandate challenges incoming!

Not official use.

A number of legal actions have already been filed trying to strike down OSHA's vaccine mandate. The first response came from the Fifth Circuit, which issued an emergency stay citing the petitioners' belief that there are "grave statutory and constitutional issues." An unusual statutory provision (29 U.S.C. §655) allows parties "adversely impacted by [the] standard" to seek judicial review directly at the Circuit Court of Appeals where they reside. Based on commentary I've read, the multiple cases will be consolidated into one action and assigned to a circuit based on lottery. 

What does all of this mean for employers? Right now... nothing really. It's an emergency stay that will be temporary. Presumably, we'll see a consolidation and whichever court gets the case will make a ruling that matters (although even then, we have the potential for SCOTUS review). Some employers may roll the dice and hope for a favorable ruling, but I'd hate to bet on that outcome and be wrong!

To get a flavor for the arguments in the Fifth Circuit case, check out the Petitioners' Emergency Motion to Stay Enforcement Pending Review and Expedite Review. You'll note that the focus is on OSHA's authority to mandate vaccines pursuant to the statute - the focus is not on individual liberty. We'll probably see some arguments regarding individual freedom to self-determination on health and medical issues, but I doubt that kind of "substantive due process" argument will win the day. The statutory authority arguments appear to be much stronger. 

New OSHA Vaccine Mandate is Here!

 Yesterday, OSHA finally issued its COVID-19 Vaccine and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). As a reminder, the ETS also serves as a notice of proposed rulemaking to eventually become a final rule. 

I knew you were hungry, so I baked up some Lawffice Links:

• First, the actual (looong) ETS. 
• In a wily veteran employment law blogger move, I sat back and did nothing while eight (EIGHT!) Littler attorneys cranked out a nice summary so I could just link you to it. 
• Jon Hyman has a nice summary too.
• 
  In a move that is apparently designed to deprive me of billable hours, OSHA has kindly provided a Vaccination or Testing and Face Covering Sample Policy Template for employers to use.   
• Of course, what would new COVID laws and regs be without their own government FAQs page.  
• Finally, who wouldn't want to change their social media profile cover image to display information about OSHA's vaccine mandate!? Great news! They published a Social Media Tool Kit complete with images formatted for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram - and even some sample tweets. 

For now, assume this is happening. However, lawsuits are certainly coming - so stay tuned. 

Biden issues employer vaccine mandates - can he do that?

Federal vaccine mandates incoming! The AP reports this as:

President Joe Biden on Thursday ordered sweeping new federal vaccine requirements for as many as 100 million Americans — private-sector employees as well as health care workers and federal contractors — in an all-out effort to curb the surging COVID-19 delta variant.

I'm still working my way through the details, which is proving more challenging than I anticipated. 

Federal Employees

I did track down the executive order that covers federal employees. That's pretty straightforward: 

Each agency shall implement, to the extent consistent with applicable law, a program to require COVID-19 vaccination for all of its Federal employees, with exceptions only as required by law.

Federal Contractors

The executive order for federal contractors is not so simple. Pres. Biden doesn't even mention vaccines. Instead a Federal Workforce Task Force will issue Task Force Guidance by September 24, 2021. Magic 8-Ball, will there be vaccine mandates in that guidance? 8-Ball says, "it is decidedly so."

Private Employers

Unless you're the average Twitter user, you are probably aware that the president can't just unilaterally create laws - Article I of the Constitution created a legislative branch to make laws. So, how will Pres. Biden pull off a private employer vaccine mandate?

I think this document gives us the blue print: Congressional Research Service report on Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA): Emergency Temporary Standards (ETS) and COVID-19. To be clear, the doc is specific to an emergency standard for healthcare workers, but I think you can extrapolate the premise to private employers generally. 

 

The gist is that OSHA includes a General Duty Clause, which requires employers to provide a workplace that is "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to [their] employees." And, employers must abide by standards promulgated by OSHA (the Administration - I hereby renew my objection to using OSHA as the acronym for both the Act and the Administration!). 

In turn, OSHA can implement an Emergency Temporary Standard upon determining that:

• that employees are exposed to grave danger from exposure to substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful or from new hazards, and
• that such emergency standard is necessary to protect employees from such danger.

The ETS is then subjected to notice and comment (and the general rulemaking process), but remains in place until superseded by a permanent standard. The validity of the ETS may also be challenged in a U.S. Circuit Court. 

I can guarantee there will be litigation. Magic 8-Ball will a court strike down the mandate? "Reply hazy, try again." I don't purport to be an expert on the validity of OSHA standards, but my gut tells me that this seems like an overreach. We'll see though. 

OSHA updates workplace guidance on COVID-19

 OSHA updated its guidance on Protecting Workers: Guidance on Mitigating and Preventing the Spread of COVID-19 in the Workplace. The changes are summarized as:

• Focus protections on unvaccinated and otherwise at-risk workers 
• Encourage COVID-19 vaccination 
• Add links to guidance with the most up-to-date content

How exactly to "encourage" vaccination has been a hot topic lately, and a big part of my practice recently. For its part, OSHA has declared that it will not enforce teh usual recording requirements for employees experiencing side effects as a result of COVID-19 vaccination (through at least May 2022). 
 

OSHA issues new COVID-19 guidance for workplaces

As vaccines roll out, workplaces are still dealing with COVID-19 and trying to protect employee and public health. OSHA recently issued updated (and self-described "stronger") guidance on limiting the spread of COVID-19 at work. The guidance addresses a lot of the questions I'm getting from employers, but is not really earth-shattering: 

• Wear masks; 
• Distance;
• Separate and send home potentially infected people; 
• Improve ventilation;
• Use PPE;
• Good hygiene;
• Routine cleaning and disinfection. 

Employers may appreciate some of the details included in the guidance though - it's definitely worth reading if you're an employer. 

Lawffice Links: COVID-19 guidance still trickling in

The guidance just keeps comin' folks:

• EEOC updated What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws - New Q&A on pregnancy, age discrimination, accommodations, and more; 
  
• DOL OSHA FAQs on face coverings;
• Joint Statement by Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin and SBA Administrator Jovita Carranza Regarding Enactment of the Paycheck Protection Program Flexibility Act;
• Not agency guidance, but a nice article addressing agency guidance: What to Expect When You’re Expecting OSHA to Visit Your Reopened Workplace;
• If you go to OSHA.gov, you can see a COVID-19 Tip of the Day (subscribe here) - Some nice bite-sized tips, but sometimes a little obvious. For example, today's is "Replace face-to-face meetings with video conferencing." Ohhhhh, hey thanks, never thought of that!

Enjoy!

New OSHA Guidance on Social Distancing

New OSHA alert: COVID-19 Guidance on Social Distancing at Work. Some tips for maintaining proper social distancing:

• Encourage workers to stay home if they are sick. 
• Isolate any worker who begins to exhibit symptoms until they can either go home or leave to seek medical care. 
• Establish flexible worksites (e.g., telecommuting) and flexible work hours (e.g., staggered shifts), if feasible. 
• In workplaces where customers are present, mark six-foot distances with floor tape in areas where lines form, use drive-through windows or curbside pickup, and limit the number of customers allowed at one time.
• Stagger breaks and rearrange seating in common break areas to maintain physical distance between workers. 
• Move or reposition workstations to create more distance, and install plexiglass partitions. 
• Encourage workers to bring any safety and health concerns to the employers’ attention.

What are the OSHA recordkeeping requirements for COVID-19 in the workplace?

As we shift to the re-opening phase, check out this new enforcement guidance from OSHA: Updated Interim Enforcement Response Plan for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). There's a lot for employers to take in - but, I'd like to highlight the guidance regarding recordkeeping. 

Employers are responsible for recording cases of COVID-19 if all of the following requirements are met: 

• The case is a confirmed case of COVID-19, as defined by the CDC; 
• The case is work-related, as defined by 29 CFR § 1904.5; and 
• The case involves one or more of the recording criteria set forth in 29 CFR § 1904.7 (e.g., medical treatment, days away from work).
  

Now, you're probably asking what in the heck those regulatory provisions mean. You can read 29 CFR § 1904.5 here. It's complicated but the general rule is that employers "must consider an injury or illness to be work-related if an event or exposure in the work environment either caused or contributed to the resulting condition or significantly aggravated a pre-existing injury or illness."

The recording criteria under 29 CFR § 1904.7 can be found here. Again. Complicated. But, the general rule is that employers "must consider an injury or illness to meet the general recording criteria, and therefore to be recordable, if it results in any of the following: death, days away from work, restricted work or transfer to another job, medical treatment beyond first aid, or loss of consciousness [or] if it involves a significant injury or illness diagnosed by a physician or other licensed health care professional."

Finally, they have an updated guidance memorandum on this issue: Revised Enforcement Guidance for Recording Cases of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). 

New OSHA notice: COVID-19 Guidance for Retail Workers

OSHA issued a new notice: COVID-19 for Retail Workers, with the following tips:

• Encourage workers to stay home if they are sick. 
• Provide a place to wash hands or alcohol-based hand rubs containing at least 60% alcohol. 
• Maintain regular housekeeping practices, including routine cleaning and disinfecting of surfaces and equipment with Environmental Protection Agency-approved cleaning chemicals from List N or that have label claims against the coronavirus. 
• Practice sensible social distancing, maintaining six feet between co-workers and customers, where possible. For example, some worksites have already begun to demarcate six-foot distances with floor tape in checkout lines. Workplaces where social distancing is a challenge should consider innovative approaches, such as opening only every other cash register, temporarily moving workstations to create more distance, and installing plexiglass partitions. 
• Use a drive-through window or curbside pick-up. 
• Provide workers and customers with tissues and trash receptacles. 
• Train workers in proper hygiene practices and the use of workplace controls. 
• Allow workers to wear masks over their nose and mouth to prevent them from spreading the virus. 
• Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

New OSHA poster with 10 tips for reducing coronavirus risk

One day, I'll go back to regular employment law instead of an onslaught of DOL updates and guidance . . . but NOT today! DOL issued a new OSHA poster: Ten Steps All Workplaces Can Take to Reduce Risk of Exposure to Coronavirus. Here are the ten tips: 

1. Encourage workers to stay home if sick.  

2. Encourage respiratory etiquette, including covering coughs and sneezes. 

3. Provide a place to wash hands or alcohol-based hand rubs containing at least 60% alcohol.  

4. Limit worksite access to only essential workers, if possible.  

5. Establish flexible worksites (e.g., telecommuting) and flexible work hours (e.g., staggered shifts), if feasible.  

6. Discourage workers from using other workers’ phones, desks, or other work tools and equipment.  

7. Regularly clean and disinfect surfaces, equipment, and other elements of the work environment. 

8. Use Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-approved cleaning chemicals with label claims against the coronavirus. 

9. Follow the manufacturer’s instructions for use of all cleaning and disinfection products.  

10. Encourage workers to report any safety and health concerns.

Unemployment Compensation pro tip: Don't threaten to slit your manager's throat on Facebook

With amazing tips* like this, can you believe this site is free! *"Tips" for illustrative purposes only, and definitely not legal advice.

In Cummins v. UCBR, the claimant/employee had an alteracation with her supervisor at work. The supervisor acknowledged that he took the employee by the arm and led her off the floor and into an office after yelling at her for not wearing safety goggles. For context, she had apparently been warned previously about not wearing goggles, and OSHA had recently fined the company $15,000 for a safety google issue.

So, what did the employee do? You guessed it - Facebook rant!

Commentary only,
not authorized use.

Post: Today, a man put his hands on me. It’s then when [you] realize how weak they are that they can’t pick on someone of their own kind. I learned willpower, self[-]restraint and gained dignity. I wonder how he feels now.

Comment (by the employee): I would [have] sliced his throat open if it didn’t happen at work. And had no remorse.

Even though she posted off-duty, the Commonwealth Court held that the employee's Facebook comment constituted a workplace threat and therefore she was ineligible for unemployment compensation (fired for willful misconduct). In fairness to the employee, the Court could have concluded that this was just hyperbole and letting off steam and not a legitimate threat - but they didn't.

Bottom line: UC claimants are unlikely to find much sympathy for Facebook posts (or offline comm
ents) about murdering their co-workers. Pro tip: don't do it.

Kavanaugh, Seaworld, and OSHA

Welp, now we know . . . President Trump's pick to replace Justice Kennedy is Judge Kavanaugh from the D.C. Circuit. I teach employment law for Penn State's School of Labor and Employment Relations. The past several semesters, the class on OSHA has included discussion of Seaworld of Fla. v. Perez - including Judge Kavanaugh's dissent.

This case arose from a tragic fatality involving a killer whale trainer. The issue was whether SeaWorld's killer whale shows violated OSHA's "general duty clause" - which requires a workplace "free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees." The 2-judge majority held that SeaWorld had indeed violated OSHA. The hazards of killer whale performances could be abated by maintaining distance from the whales, working behind a barrier, and/or ceasing waterwork.

SCOTUS Nominee
Judge Brett Kavanaugh

Judge Kavanaugh dissented. Why? Judge Kavanaugh's basic premise was that certain sports and entertainment spectacles are inherently dangerous. Should they be regulated? In Judge Kavanaugh's words:

That policy question is not before us. My legal disagreement with the majority opinion boils down to one basic question: Who decides? Under current law, it is not the Department of Labor.

He starts with a litany of risky endeavors, inviting the question of whether they too must be shut down (or altered) under the OSHA general duty clause:

Many sports events and entertainment shows can be extremely dangerous for the participants. Football. Ice hockey. Downhill skiing. Air shows. The circus. Horse racing. Tiger taming. Standing in the batter's box against a 95 mile per hour fastball. Bull riding at the rodeo. Skydiving into the stadium before a football game. Daredevil motorcycle jumps. Stock car racing. Cheerleading vaults. Boxing. The balance beam. The ironman triathlon. Animal trainer shows. Movie stunts. The list goes on.

I confess that I enjoy (perhaps too much) watching students squirm as I challenge them with this issue from Judge Kavanaugh's dissent: "The Department [of Labor] cannot reasonably distinguish close contact with whales at SeaWorld from tackling in the NFL."

So, does OSHA prohibit tackling in the NFL? I don't think we'll see that case any time soon; but, if we do, I think we know how Justice (if he gets confirmed) Kavanaugh would vote.

New OSHA Final Rule for Reporting Workplace Injuries and Illnesses

OSHA issued a new final rule (available here) last week. Per the OSHA website:

Not official use.

The new rule, which takes effect Jan. 1, 2017, requires certain employers to electronically submit injury and illness data that they are already required to record on their onsite OSHA Injury and Illness forms. Analysis of this data will enable OSHA to use its enforcement and compliance assistance resources more efficiently. Some of the data will also be posted to the OSHA website. OSHA believes that public disclosure will encourage employers to improve workplace safety and provide valuable information to workers, job seekers, customers, researchers and the general public. The amount of data submitted will vary depending on the size of company and type of industry.

The new rule also requires employers to "inform employees of their right to report work-related injuries and illnesses free from retaliation."

The website includes a quote from Dr. David Michaels, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health:

Our new rule will 'nudge' employers to prevent work injuries to show investors, job seekers, customers and the public they operate safe and well-managed facilities.

Presumably a shout-out to the (in my humble opinion, massively over-hyped) behavioral economics book, Nudge by Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein.

Today is Workers' Memorial Day

Today, April 28, marks Wrokers' Memorial Day. It is a day to remember those who were injured, became ill, or even lost their lives in the course of their work duties. Unfortunately, we all received a tragic reminder of workplace safety risks earlier this month with the Upper Big Branch Mine disaster, which killed 29 miners.

Richard Trumka, AFL-CIO President, used the holiday to push for expanding OSHA (Occupational Safety and Helath Act) and other safety regulations. Specifically, he endorsed the Protecting America's Workers Act (HR 2067, S 1580), invoking the holiday's mantra, "Mourn the dead; fight like hell for the living" (attributed to Mother Jones).

The Obama administration has been pushing for ramped up OSHA enforcement from the start. While Lawffice Space is not a policy advocacy blog, the reality for employers is that some combination of new safety regulations and increased enforcement of existing regulations is coming. Regardless of your position, or opposition, we can all take a moment to remember those who lost their lives just doing their jobs and recognize it as a tragedy.

Posted by Philip Miles, an employment lawyer with McQuaide Blasko in State College, Pennsylvania.