EEOC States Employers Must Show Business Necessity to Test Workers for COVID-19
Time 2 Minute Read
EEOC Letterhead

The U.S. Equal Employment Commission (“EEOC”) has recently updated its Technical Assistance Questions and Answers, “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws,” (“Q&A)  and taken the position that employers may only screen employees for COVID-19 if it is a business necessity that is justified by “current pandemic circumstances and individual workplace circumstances” because a COVID-19 viral test is a medical examination within the meaning of the ADA.

Previously, the EEOC’s position as set forth in the Q&A was that the standard under the ADA for conducting medical examinations was always met for employers who conducted viral screenings in the workplace for COVID-19. Hunton previously posted about the Q&A and the EEOC’s updates here and here.

In order to prove business necessity, employers must point to factors such as (1) the vaccination status of its workforce; (2) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention information transmission levels in the community at large; (3) types of contact between employees and others in the workplace or other locations where work is performed; (4) accuracy and speed of using different types of tests; (5) possible severity of COVID-19 variants; and (6) the potential impact on operations if an employee enters the workplace with COVID-19.

Further, although this is not new to the Q&A, if an employer does not meet the business necessity test to permit COVID-19 testing, the employer should not use antibody tests as the Center for Disease Control and Prevention has stated that antibody tests are unable to determine whether a  person is currently infected or immune.

  • Associate

    Katherine provides thoughtful but aggressive representation to businesses and their executives to solve their most complicated legal problems. She has extensive experience managing high-stakes commercial and trade secrets ...

  • Partner

    Susan focuses her practice on labor, employment, and OSHA compliance, defense, and crisis response. She provides comprehensive OSHA representation of employers across all industry sectors. She has counseled and defended ...

You May Also Be Interested In

Time 4 Minute Read

North Carolina has once again favored policyholders seeking insurance coverage for COVID-19 business interruption losses. A recent decision from the Middle District of North Carolina in Durham Wood Fired Pizza Co. LLC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., reinforces the North State Deli decision and suggests that a failure to provide coverage for COVID-19 business interruption claims may constitute bad faith.

Time 2 Minute Read

On November 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of Nevada denied a petition for a writ of mandamus filed by insurers seeking to challenge denial of their partial summary judgment motion on the issue of whether Covid-19 may cause “direct physical loss, damage or destruction” of property under an all-risk insurance policy that includes affirmative coverage for loss caused by infectious disease.

Time 4 Minute Read

The Minnesota Court of Appeals recently handed policyholders an important win in Life Time, Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance Co., reversing a trial court ruling that had capped coverage under a communicable disease endorsement at the $1 million per occurrence limit. Relying on the express language of the communicable disease coverage at issue, the appellate court held that government shutdown orders—not the COVID-19 pandemic itself—constituted the operative “occurrences” under Life Time’s policy. By interpreting the cause of loss in this way, the court expanded Life Time’s recovery from a single $1 million limit to 29 separate limits, one for each jurisdiction that independently ordered closure of Life Time’s business locations.

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.

Search

Subscribe Arrow

Recent Posts

Categories

Tags

Authors

Archives

Jump to Page