Client Alerts & Insights
New CDC Mask Guidance — What Does it Mean for Employers?
August 2, 2021
Authored By:
On July 27, 2021, the CDC revised its advisory guidance — providing that even the fully vaccinated should wear a mask indoors in public if in an area of “substantial or high transmission.” The CDC has provided a map indicating which counties have “substantial” (orange) or “high” (red) transmission. The CDC updates this data week to week.
The CDC guidance remains advisory, and not mandatory, for most employers. As such, the good news is that most employers do not have to do anything differently as a result of the CDC’s revised guidance – and that is the decision that has been made by many. (As always, employers should consider local rules which may be compulsory, as some localities have re-implemented mask mandates, e.g., Los Angeles County.) However, those employers that have committed to adhering to the CDC guidance are undoubtedly considering if, and how, they revise their policies in light of the CDC’s revised perspective. Feasible options vary. You can continue to require/encourage masks for the non-vaccinated among your workforce, depending on applicable state orders. If you want to do more, most conservatively, you could go back to requiring that everyone wear masks. Practically, this is not likely to be well-received by your employees. Plus, there could be some state issues — more on that below. Or, as a middle-ground alternative between the conservative approach versus taking no action, you could look at the CDC’s map week to week and make a determination based on it, and consistent with the new guidance. This too likely is not going to be well-received by your employees, and you get the added bonus of more administrative burden related to COVID-19 as you constantly adapt to the revised classification of the county(ies) where your employees work. A final option would be just to let your employees know about the new guidance, and that you encourage even the fully vaccinated to wear masks indoors.
Perhaps in response to this, we are seeing a few large employers begin to require vaccines for employees returning to the office (e.g., Google, Facebook, Disney, and Walmart). But employers should be aware that certain states have taken action to restrict vaccine mandates with respect to customers/patrons/consumers. Even if those orders on their terms do not apply to employees, they may make enforcing a mandate in the workplace practically challenging. For example, in Arizona and Texas, public entities and those private entities that are or will receive public funds cannot condition entry by a consumer or receiving any service based on vaccination status. (Read the Arizona order here and the Texas order here.) In Florida, all businesses (regardless of public funding) cannot require patrons or customers to certify vaccine status in order to enter or receive services. (See Florida legislation here). And in Ohio, there is a law (effective in October 2021) — applicable to public schools — prohibiting “discrimination” against a non-vaccinated individual, including by requiring different precautions for him/her (which would appear to apply to masks). Employers should be mindful of new and additional laws on this topic, especially as the country remains divided as to the vaccine and masks.
For more information, contact a member of Benesch’s Labor & Employment Practice Group.
Corey Clay at cclay@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.6196.
Johanna Fabrizio Parker at jparker@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4585.
Adam Primm at aprimm@beneschlaw.com or 216.363.4451.
Latest News
Ohio Board of Professional Conduct Issues Ohio Ethics Guide on Artificial Intelligence for Lawyers and Judicial Officers
Dispensary tip practices—especially involving hybrid roles like “Leads” or Agents-in-Charge—are increasingly being scrutinized as unlawful as a surge in wage-and-hour lawsuits claim that managers or employees with supervisory duties are improperly sharing in tips meant for front-line staff.
Connecticut Broadens Data Privacy Act Requirements Effective July 1, 2026
Key Takeaways Revised Applicability Scope and Exemptions Effective July 1, 2026, the CTDPA’s existing applicability thresholds are reduced, resulting in …
SCOTUS Extends FAA Exemption to Last-Mile Drivers: What the Flowers Foods decision means for motor carriers and transportation providers
On May 28, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Flowers Foods, Inc. v. Brock, expanding reach of the Federal Arbitration Act’s (“FAA”) Section 1 exemption for transportation workers engaged in interstate commerce. The Court held that a worker who transports goods on an intrastate leg of an interstate journey can qualify for Section 1’s exemption without crossing state lines or interacting with vehicles that do. This decision has significant implications for motor carriers and transportation providers that rely on arbitration agreements to resolve disputes with independent contractors and employee drivers.
Beyond the Buzzwords: State AGs Put Enforcement Muscle Behind Algorithmic Pricing and Age Verification Crackdowns
State AGs are doubling down—across party lines—on consumer protection, with a sharp focus on vulnerable groups and increased scrutiny of algorithmic pricing models and online age verification practices.