Client Alerts & Insights
OSHA Issues Updated Guidance On Recording Employee Adverse Vaccine Reactions And Other COVID-19 Related News
April 23, 2021
Authored By:
On April 20, 2021, OSHA issued new guidance on when employers must report instances in which an employee suffers an adverse reaction to a COVID-19 vaccination. According to the guidance, employers who require their employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations must record adverse reactions in their OSHA 300 log if it led to the employee missing more than one day of work, required medical treatment beyond first aid, or resulted in restricted work or transfer to another job. These conditions may sound familiar to many because they are the same conditions that trigger mandatory recording of other types of work-related injuries and illnesses. OSHA’s logic on the recording of adverse COVID-19 reactions is fairly straightforward: if an employer requires its employees to receive a vaccination, any adverse reaction to the vaccine is “work-related.” This updated guidance (and other OSHA COVID-19 related guidance), can be found here. We cannot predict the impact of this guidance on state workers’ compensation laws or decisions, but it certainly will provide claimants and their representatives an argument.
In related news, the U.S. Labor Department is yet to issue an emergency temporary standard for the protections of workers from COVID-19 infection, despite President Biden’s three month old order to do so. The January 21 order initially provided OSHA until March 15 to release a rule. To date, it remains unclear whether OSHA believes the pandemic poses a grave threat to workers’ safety. Without such a finding by OSHA, its expedited emergency rulemaking ability cannot be triggered. While OSHA is yet to act, some states have taken their own steps to protect workers from COVID-19 infection. Virginia, California, and Oregon issued their own emergency temporary standards last year, while Maryland and New York passed bills in April – which have yet to be signed into law – requiring state agencies to enact COVID-19 worker protections.
All of this comes at a time when lawmakers and employer organizations continue to request updated guidance from the EEOC on employer vaccine incentive programs, the purpose of which is to increase the number of workers who receive the COVID-19 vaccine. The EEOC’s acting legal counsel recently stated that the agency is working to update its technical assistance manual regarding vaccine incentive programs; however, the work is ongoing and the EEOC has provided no indication as to when the updates will be made. Some employers have moved forward with their own vaccine incentive guidelines, some of which include paid time off and cash bonuses. Their concern, however, is that without EEOC guidance it is unclear whether the programs may violate anti-bias laws, the Americans with Disabilities Act, or other state and federal laws and regulations.
While OSHA and the EEOC mull over emergency rules and updated guidance on vaccine incentive programs, employers should monitor closely the two agencies’ efforts and also remain cognizant that many states are actively developing and implementing their own rules. In addition, employers that are considering the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine incentive or dis-incentive (for not getting the vaccine) program prior to the issuance of updated guidance from the EEOC should take care not to run afoul of EEOC’s current guidance.
If you have any questions, we encourage you to reach out to your Benesch contact or one of the attorneys below to discuss.
Joseph N. Gross at jgross@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4163.
Joseph R. Blalock at jblalock@beneschlaw.com or 614.223.9359.
***
Please note that this information is current as of the date of this Client Alert, based on the available data. However, because COVID-19’s status and updates related to the same are ongoing, we recommend real-time review of guidance distributed by the CDC and local officials.

Latest News
FTC Enforcement Trends in 2026: What Businesses, Advertisers Should Be Watching Now
Regulators continue to signal a return to core consumer‑friendly principles through new rulemaking initiatives, and recent enforcement activity, warning letters, and public commentary offer a practical preview of where scrutiny is likely to concentrate in 2026…
IEEPA Tariffs – Top Five Q&A for Supply Chains after U.S. Supreme Court Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated decision regarding tariffs Friday. The Court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”) does not authorize the President to impose tariffs according to the 6-3 decision…
Watch Your T&Cs! When Done Right, Terms and Conditions are Both Viable—And Valuable
The era of the paper/hard copy bill of lading and/or rate confirmation is fading fast. Hard copies and paper do live on in various shipment schematics; however, increasingly, and at a very rapid rate, transactions between shippers, carriers, brokers and forwarders are conducted by, and memorialized in, electronic form via email, interactive website access and response, and—more and more—AI mechanisms.
The Long Tail of the Opioid Crisis: How AGs Continue to Pursue Manufacturers, Distributors, Pharmacies
The opioid crisis has been a perennial priority for state attorneys general, and was the marquis priority for the National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG) in both 2023 (under OH AG Dave Yost) and 2025 (under NH AG John Formella). Recently, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced the conclusion of a multistate effort to secure the bankruptcy reorganization plan for Purdue Pharma (Purdue).