Can an employer require employees to be COVID-19 tested at their own expense? In this case, the employer is a medium-sized ENT office. Some employees are young single mothers who don't have the resources to comply with this. The question also applies to non-medical employers, of course.
Depends on your definition of "require". In case of at-will employment — where the employer can fire an employee for any or no reason (other than that being discrimination of a member of the protected groups) — it would be perfectly legal for the employer to fire an employee who does not comply with that request. But that aside, no (unless such testing was a term of the employment agreement, be it written or verbal). No party to a contract can require the other party to perform what the contract terms did not include.
This is just saying that if they can’t host your event then the only remedy you get is your money back that your paid them (your deposit, advance payments, and of course your don’t owe final payments). It is there to make it clear that they are not responsible of any other money. What else might the client want them to refund? Other lost expenses. Non refundable deposits to the band, the florist, the caterer if this is just for the space. The non refundable airline tickets your relatives bought. Prepaid hotel rooms. They will not pay for any of that. The pandemic is a bit of a red herring because although that is of course the big thing now, it says any occurance whether or not the business caused it. The answers to your specific questions though are pretty trivial. -The business did not cause the pandemic or control the state health office (Irrelevant as noted) -There is nothing they can do about it. The state or county will allow the events when the situation improves. But even if say there was no state order but the venue for their own reasons or because they could not get enough staff cancelled, the answer would be the same.
Employers – whether public or private – have a duty of care. They must provide a safe working environment that does not endanger the health of employees, which includes appropriate heating/cooling. Too low temperatures must be prevented to protect the health of employees. Therefore, existing regulations in form of ASR A 3.5 require minimum temperatures: how strenuous → light medium heavy seated +20°C +19°C - standing, walking +19°C +17°C +12°C EnSikuMaV reduces these minimum temperatures for light and medium work by 1°C: how strenuous → light medium heavy seated +19°C +18°C - standing, walking +18°C +16°C +12°C The EnSikuMaV wants to ensure that the public sector serves as a role model, and therefore requires that public buildings are heated to exactly the minimum allowed levels (these levels are maximums per § 6 but also minimums per § 12). Public sector employers can nevertheless keep higher temperatures in individual cases if they consider this necessary for their duty of care. See explanations on page 22 of the document. The private sector is not forced to reduce heating, but now has legally safe grounds to reduce heating somewhat, if they so wish. This Verordnung does not introduce minimum heating levels, but lowers existing temperature requirements. Reducing heating reduces costs, and will therefore generally be in the interest of (profit-maximizing) private industry. Some minimum temperature is necessary to protect the health and rights of workers. See the explanation on page 27 of the document. ASR A3.5: https://www.baua.de/DE/Angebote/Rechtstexte-und-Technische-Regeln/Regelwerk/ASR/ASR-A3-5.html (direct link to PDF) EnSikuMaV: https://www.bmwk.de/Redaktion/DE/Downloads/E/ensikumav.pdf (permalink to PDF)
As an academic matter, the US system has struggled with this, and law professors spend their lives debating it. As a realistic matter, I'd bet that company in your example gets nailed. On the theory, the issue here is but-for cause. Civil liability requires that the jury find it more likely than not, or over 50% likely, that but-for D's actions, P's injuries would not have occurred. Your hypo puts it at exactly 50, and tie goes to the defendant, so in this case even the theory is clear. But, say you change it a little bit to make it more like 65 or 70%. Now, you're getting into the territory of the classic blue bus case. A man is hit by a blue bus. Two companies in town own blue busses, and one company owns 90% of them. Can he recover against that company with no other evidence? The black letter answer is no, that naked statistical evidence doesn't cut it. The rationale is that if it were the other way, anytime someone got hit by a blue bus, that company would automatically have to pay out unless they had some evidence to disprove their liability. The burden of proof has been shifted, violating a fundamental tenet of our legal system. But, this doctrine obviously poses an issue for plaintiffs like yours. It's one thing to say that someone hit by a bus needs to have more evidence. Theoretically, they could go out and get it: they could find the bus routes and schedules, examine where they were, and show that X company had a bus going by there at that time. They can also canvas for witnesses. It's much harder when, as your excellent hypo touches on, the science is so complicated. One controversial solution that has been debated a lot recently is market-share liability, but that doesn't seem pertinent here because you have mentioned another company. On the legal realist side. As far as I can tell the system usually finds a way to hold the company responsible. One example is the tobacco litigation. My understanding is the science couldn't definitively prove that smoking caused cancer, but it could prove that it raised the risk significantly. Here's some information on that https://www.tortmuseum.org/the-tobacco-cases/ from the American Museum of Tort Law, which, yes, is a real thing.
You must follow the lawful and reasonable directions of your employer As an RN you have obligations under the law that are independent of your employment. Almost certainly, one of these is not to practice in an area which you are not skilled or qualified to do so (unless you are under adequate instruction and supervision). Remember, as an RN you, personally, are legally responsible if your advice leads to harm and you were not acting reasonably. There are plenty of nurses who have gone to jail for delivering a lethal dose of medicine that was wrongly prescribed by a doctor. Even if your advice is unlikely to lead to this, you can still be deregistered - seems a waste of a lot of education just to become an Uber driver. Further, most jurisdictions make it illegal to mislead or deceive in trade or commerce. This one won’t send you to jail. So, it appears that the instructions are unlawful and it is not misconduct if you were to, politely, refuse them. This would not give your employer grounds to fire you. However, you should document your concerns and reach out to your union and possibly consult a lawyer.
One path would be to get compliance, by demonstrating that it is legally required. The best evidence that he is legally required to wear a mask is this recent mandate from the Department of Public Health. However, I cannot find a corresponding executive order, which may be in a generic form empowering CDPH to issue orders. Any imposition of penalties for violation must be publicly announced and rest on legislative authority. The mandate is not generally enforced, except in a few cases regarding bars and restaurants. There are various persuasive avenues that you could pursue, such as asking CDPH to come talk to him (unlikely, but you could try), complaining to the property owner, appealing to local social media to apply pressure (possibly putting yourself at legal risk for defamation, if you make a false statement). There are two more involved legal actions to contemplate. One is to terminate the lease and move elsewhere. This would likely result in an action to collect the remainder of the rent, but the strategy would be to argue that the manager has interfered with your private enjoyment of the premise. A second, highly improbable, is to sue the manager and get an enforceable court order requiring him to wear a mask. Courts have a prejudice against ordering people to take actions when other options exist (terminating the lease, monetary compensation). It could be an interesting but expensive test case to see if you could get a judge to order the manager to wear a mask. So yes they are obligated to wear masks, but legal enforcement is going to be difficult at best.
It is generally understood that governments do have the right to quarantine citizens in case of epidemic outbreaks. In nations with a rule of law, the extent of quarantine regulations may be challenged in court. A challenge against the app has been filed, and trying to second-guess the court by reading sections of the constitution seems to be pointless.
The leading case in this area is Commun. for Non-Violence (CCNV) v. Reid 490 U.S. 730 (1989).1 There are two routes to employers automatically being the first owner of copyright in a work produced by a hired party: in an employee-employer relationship, or in certain works by independent contractors if an express agreement is made. CCNV construed the definition of "work made for hire" in 17 USC 101 to split paid work into two categories: work done by "employees" and work done by "independent contractors". Copyright in "employees" are automatically owned by the employer. Copyright in work by independent contractors can also be owned by the employer if it falls under a set of specific categories of work (which course materials are certainly included in) and "parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire". The term "employee" above takes on a special meaning in this context. The court held that the test is to use common law agency principles: To determine whether a work is a "work made for hire" within the § 101 definition, a court should first apply general common law of agency principles to ascertain whether the work was prepared by an employee or an independent contractor The court listed 12 (non-exhaustive) factors to be taken into account when deciding whether a hired party is a an employee under common law agency and thus the work would be automatically considered a "work for hire": the hiring party's right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished the skill required the source of the instrumentalities and tools the location of the work the duration of the relationship between the parties whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party the extent of the hired party's discretion over when and how long to work the method of payment the hired party's role in hiring and paying assistants whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party whether the hiring party is in business the provision of employee benefits the tax treatment of the hired party This is a case-by-case judgement, and courts have not made a ruling that applies to all university course materials universally. I'm sure we could all imagine arrangements that would fall squarely on the "employee" side of the test, and thus give the employer first ownership of copyright in course material just as easily as we could imagine arrangements that would fall squarely on "independent-contractor" side. There are arguments on both sides regarding whether the typical university professor or lecturer relationship would be considered an "employee" relationship for the purpose of the "work made for hire" definition (I'll come back to reference some law journal articles later). Regardless, even if particular relationship is found to be an "independent-contractor", the employer can still be the first owner of copyright in the works if "parties expressly agree in a written instrument signed by them that the work shall be considered a work made for hire" (assuming the work is one of the categories listed in the 17 USC 101 definition of "work made for hire" part (2), and course material certainly is). Last, even for independently contracted work that doesn't fall under one of the special categories in "work made for hire" (2), parties could agree to a contract requiring assignment of copyright. In this case, the employer wouldn't be the initial owner, but they would be due equitable assignment of the copyright by the author. 1. There are various reasons why Weinstein (mentioned in the question) is not relevant. Weinstein doesn't hold that the author of course material is automatically the copyright owner. Weinstein is pre-CCNV. Weinstein was a Seventh Circuit opinion; CCNV is a Supreme Court opinion. The test that was being used at the time by the Seventh Circuit (an "actual control of the work" test) was rejected by the Supreme Court in CCNV.