HB 25-05: Employer COVID-19 Liability Limitation Act (Debating)

[Joseph Cao]

Isn't the constitutional amendment to Article 3, Section 3 already designated as HB (HR?) 25-05?

Anyway, I'd be willing to sponsor this.

[Joseph Cao]

I don't see any reason why this is necessary. This bill actually seems fairly cruel. At risk persons should not be forced to come back to work and then have protections removed.

Well… no? It should already be incumbent on businesses to comply with public health regulations in order to protect their employees, and the bill doesn’t remove any protections or avenues of recourse available to workers. If employers maintain proper workplace protections for their employees they won’t have anything to worry about, and if they don’t they open themselves up to legal liability through the second half of the bill.

Forcing those at risk to return to work is another matter, but if the business knowingly creates a workplace that poses a sufficient risk such that an employee contracts COVID, the employee can still sue. Nothing in this bill prevents that.

Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Based on my research, it seems like this would insulate businesses from lawsuits based on established principles that can prove negligence, like industry standards/customs or common sense. Not everything that applies here is codified in a specific statute. Moreover, I don't see why COVID should be treated differently than any other ongoing health hazard -- if anything, it seems like liability is a needed incentive for employers to take workplace precautions seriously.

There's also no reason to believe that employers are going to face lots of frivolous lawsuits because of the pandemic.

The second subsection quite literally provides room for employees to pursue legal action if the employer violates the standard of reasonable care: specifically whether or not the business complies with state, regional, or federal COVID prevention regulations already in place.

I’m also not sure that this bill treats COVID-19 all that differently from other workplace hazards, since – similarly to past precedent in other cases related to workplace hazards – lawsuits aimed at businesses who violated that standard already pose a giant threat to employers who don’t feel sufficiently incentivized to comply with health and safety regulations.

[Joseph Cao]

Yeah, I'm not a fan either. Based on my research, it seems like this would insulate businesses from lawsuits based on established principles that can prove negligence, like industry standards/customs or common sense. Not everything that applies here is codified in a specific statute. Moreover, I don't see why COVID should be treated differently than any other ongoing health hazard -- if anything, it seems like liability is a needed incentive for employers to take workplace precautions seriously.

There's also no reason to believe that employers are going to face lots of frivolous lawsuits because of the pandemic.

The second subsection quite literally provides room for employees to pursue legal action if the employer violates the standard of reasonable care: specifically whether or not the business complies with state, regional, or federal COVID prevention regulations already in place.

I’m also not sure that this bill treats COVID-19 all that differently from other workplace hazards, since – similarly to past precedent in other cases related to workplace hazards – lawsuits aimed at businesses who violated that standard already pose a giant threat to employers who don’t feel sufficiently incentivized to comply with health and safety regulations.

My issue with that subsection is the definition of "State, Regional, or Federal Law." If that doesn't cover precedent from civil cases, the bill rules out a lot of avenues for employees to be made whole when businesses don't meet the standard. If it does cover things that aren't included in statute, then I'm not sure why the bill is necessary in the first place -- it's just saying "businesses can't be found liable for this in court unless they cause injury by violating the standard of care," which is how things are right now anyway.

My initial and current reading of the bill comes under your second option, I think – its primary function is to add COVID-19 to the list of workplace hazards and thus bring it under the existing "standard of care" legal consensus, which would make the bill necessary in order to remove any ambiguity (legal or otherwise) that could occur once businesses reopen in earnest.

[Joseph Cao]

Amendment for the House to consider that clarifies the intent of the bill:

An Act

To limit the liability of employers in the event of employee exposure to COVID-19.

Section 1. Short title

This Act shall be cited as the “Employer COVID-19 Liability Limitation Act".

Section 2. Limitation of employer liability

(a) In general. —

An employer may not be held liable in any cause of action before a State, Regional, or Federal court for medical costs or other expenses related to their treatment as a result of an employee contracting COVID-19.

(b) Exception. —

Subsection (a) shall not apply if the employer violates State, Regional, or Federal Law related to workplace safety or employee rights protections, including any regulations on the usage and distribution of personal protection equipment by employees and any other COVID-19 prevention regulations.

Section 3. Effective date

This Act shall take effect immediately on the date of the enactment of this Act.

People's Regional Senate
Passed 4-2 in the Atlasian Senate Assembled,

An apparently much-needed clarification regarding the bill's intent that gets to the point I was arguing earlier.

If the rules permit, I'll sponsor this amendment.

[Joseph Cao]

Amendment offered.

Amendment friendly.

[Joseph Cao]

Anything else to add here?

[Joseph Cao]

I move for a final vote on this legislation. 24 hours to object.

No further objections.

[Joseph Cao]

I move for a final vote on this legislation. 24 hours to object.

No further objections.

Great! We’re just waiting on Muad’dib to withdraw his objection — after that we can go to a vote.

Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe he has already informed us of the withdrawal of his objection:

Pending that clarification … I will immediately withdraw my objection (you can take that as the withdrawal once confirmed) and will further second the existing motion for a final vote.

[Joseph Cao]

Aye.