[NA]Restricting employee personal travel: C19

Let'sgoflying!

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
20,315
Location
west Texas
Display Name

Display name:
Dave Taylor
I am reading conflicting thoughts online about the legality of an employer restricting an employee's personal travel right now; some say nope, that would be illegal (a site that purports to provide legal insights).

Others say things like...

"Personal Travel:

  • Impose appropriate restrictions following an employee’s return from travel in accordance with WHO/CDC and other applicable guidelines, such as requiring remote work or paid/unpaid leave during the coronavirus incubation period (14 days)."
 
I am reading conflicting thoughts online about the legality of an employer restricting an employee's personal travel right now; some say nope, that would be illegal (a site that purports to provide legal insights).

Others say things like...

"Personal Travel:

  • Impose appropriate restrictions following an employee’s return from travel in accordance with WHO/CDC and other applicable guidelines, such as requiring remote work or paid/unpaid leave during the coronavirus incubation period (14 days)."

That is what we had seen here. It wasn't you couldn't travel, you just couldn't come back to work if you did. That has since been lifted, since our state is reopening things and lifting restrictions now.
 
I don't think those two opinions are in conflict.

They are saying that you can't restrict the employees travel but you can impose appropriate restrictions if they do.
 
From my time on the Internet, which makes me an expert. In most places 'travel' would not be considered a protected class so you could be fired(you can also be fired if they don't like the color of your shirt...)
 
Doesn't sound legal to restrict an employee from doing personal travel. Does sound completely legal to say we won't let you come back to work for 2 weeks afterward if you do. Whether or not they force you to use PTO during those two weeks or take it unpaid I suppose would vary according to state laws and established company policy.
 
I don't see the conflict. Our company did that early on. If you came home from a level 2 country (back before the whole world became level 2), you have to quarantine for 14 days before you can come back to work. That direction came out during spring break, when I had 4 people out of the country, and one new hire who quit her job the week before spring break, went to Europe as planned, was planning to start the next Monday. 2 of those 5 developed symptoms and were tested; 1 negative, 1 positive. We delayed the new hire's start date 2 weeks while she quarantined.

The military is on a restriction to not go further than 50 miles from base. That to me is a travel restriction.
 
I don't see the conflict. Our company did that early on. If you came home from a level 2 country (back before the whole world became level 2), you have to quarantine for 14 days before you can come back to work. That direction came out during spring break, when I had 4 people out of the country, and one new hire who quit her job the week before spring break, went to Europe as planned, was planning to start the next Monday. 2 of those 5 developed symptoms and were tested; 1 negative, 1 positive. We delayed the new hire's start date 2 weeks while she quarantined.

The military is on a restriction to not go further than 50 miles from base. That to me is a travel restriction.
The operative word is "military".
 
I suspect you’d have a hard time finding a judge or jury who wouldn’t side with a business owner keeping an employee deemed to be “a threat to other employees” off the premises, virus or none.

Any legalese about right to work or similar would die right there.

Safety third! :)
 
I think it depends on the industry. A friend who is a pediatric nurse was told that she'd have to self-quarantine without pay if she traveled outside the "area code". The proposed travel was to a higher-risk area. I don't see that as unreasonable. But it might well be unreasonable if we were talking construction worker or landscaper.

People have to be able to use good judgement.
 
Doesn't sound legal to restrict an employee from doing personal travel. Does sound completely legal to say we won't let you come back to work for 2 weeks afterward if you do. Whether or not they force you to use PTO during those two weeks or take it unpaid I suppose would vary according to state laws and established company policy.

A lot of places around here had that rule until the CARE act. Now you are required to pay them at their full rate up to $511 per day, so that rule is much more rare now.
 
A lot of places around here had that rule until the CARE act. Now you are required to pay them at their full rate up to $511 per day, so that rule is much more rare now.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that stipulation only applies to companies that are big enough to be required to provide FMLA. If you're under 50 employees, you don't (and really can't from what I'm told) provide FMLA so the additional leave thing doesn't apply.
 
My wife’s former employer decided there was something magical about state lines. But customers could cross them to get here.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that stipulation only applies to companies that are big enough to be required to provide FMLA. If you're under 50 employees, you don't (and really can't from what I'm told) provide FMLA so the additional leave thing doesn't apply.
2 weeks applies to any company with under 500 employees. There is a separate section that makes FMLA paid too (beyond that), but a company under 50 employees can petition DOL for an exemption if they can certify it will cause the business to fail, otherwise it applies. The detailed rules are not fully published yet, best I can tell. I think there is a whole thread on this somewhere.
 
Back
Top