EEOC Confirms Employer-Mandated COVID-19 Testing Does Not Violate the ADA
Time 2 Minute Read
EEOC Confirms Employer-Mandated COVID-19 Testing Does Not Violate the ADA

On April 23, 2020, the EEOC updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” which Hunton previously posted about here, to address questions that many employers are struggling with related to employee COVID-19 testing.  The EEOC’s new guidance confirms that employers are authorized to administer COVID-19 tests before allowing employees to enter the workplace, and that doing so does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The ADA requires that any mandatory medical test of employees be “job related and consistent with business necessity.”  Under the current circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, an employee with the virus entering the workplace will pose a direct threat to the health of others, such that employers taking steps to determine if an employee entering the workplace has COVID-19 is “consistent with business necessity” and does not violate the ADA.

The results of an employee COVID-19 test is the type of medical information that must be kept confidential under the ADA and maintained separately from the employee’s personnel file.

The EEOC advises employers to review guidance from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CDC or other public health authorities regarding what options are considered to be safe and accurate testing.  The EEOC guidance also reiterates that employers -- even those that choose to implement mandatory COVID-19 testing -- should still require that employees observe infection control practices (such as social distancing, regular handwashing, and other measures) in the workplace to prevent transmission of COVID-19.  Importantly, employers should remember that accurate testing only reveals if the virus is currently present and has no indication of whether an employee will acquire the virus at a later time.

  • Partner

    Kevin is co-chair of the firm’s labor and employment team and co-chair of the firm’s Retail and Consumer Products Industry practice group. He has a national practice that focuses on complex employment litigation, employment ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

In the case of Tarquinio v. Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab (No. 24-1432), decided by the Fourth Circuit on June 25, 2025, the court addressed whether an employer had a duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to accommodate an employee who refused to provide medical documentation supporting her request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption.

Time 4 Minute Read

In Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held a disabled former employee who neither “holds” nor “desires” a job is not a “qualified individual” under the ADA and, thus, cannot sue for disability discrimination following her employer’s revocation of retiree health benefits. 

Time 2 Minute Read

The 2024 EEO-1 Component 1 data collection process is expected to move forward, based on documentation submitted to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.

Time 4 Minute Read

On February 19, 2025, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) Acting Chair Andrea Lucas vowed to prioritize anti-American national origin discrimination in compliance efforts, investigations, and litigation.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page