Paid Leave Concerns When Employees Get COVID-19 Twice – Law360.com

https://www.law360.com/articles/1291176

Law360 (July 15, 2020, 4:21 PM EDT) —

Mark Konkel
Mark Konkel
Maria Biaggi
Maria Biaggi
Nicholas Kromka
Nicholas Kromka

The coronavirus has been novel in more ways than one. On one end of the spectrum, employers confront new questions of almost philosophical dimensions.

How much risk is too much risk? What risks should we ask our employees to accept? Where is the line between ordinary risk — the kind that employees undertake when they walk out the door every day to go to work — and the extraordinary risks posed by a pandemic from which, in the end, employers cannot entirely shield their workforces?

A seemingly more mundane novelty is the plethora of new COVID-19 laws and regulations. Compliance should just be a matter of reading a statute and, well, complying. But even there, an evolving real-world pandemic potentially makes compliance just as complicated.

One example we have helped our clients wrestle with involves exactly this kind of straightforward-on-paper, tricky-in-practice complexity.

One requirement of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act appears to be simple: When an employee working for an employer with under 500 employees gets sick with COVID-19, is seeking a COVID-19 diagnosis, or is subject to a quarantine order of a doctor or a government, they are entitled to up to 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave.

And that made perfect sense when the law was hurriedly drafted: You get sick once, and you do not get sick again, right?

Wrong. Mounting evidence now shows that contracting COVID-19 does not confer absolute immunity and that many individuals have now contracted the novel coronavirus more than once. So what happens when an employee exhausts his or her 80-hour emergency paid sick leave entitlement, recovers from COVID-19, and then contracts it again?

What are the basic requirements of the FFCRA?

Under the FFCRA, full-time and part-time employees who are unable to work or telework due to one of the qualifying reasons below may take up to 80 hours of paid sick leave.

  • The employee is subject to a federal, state or local quarantine or isolation order related to COVID–19.
  • The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID–19.
  • The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.
  • The employee is caring for an individual who is subject to the first or second reason above.
  • The employee is caring for his or her child if the school or place of care of the child has been closed, or the child care provider of such child is unavailable, due to COVID–19 precautions.
  • The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in consultation with the secretary of the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Labor.

An employee who contracts COVID-19 may be eligible to take 80 hours of emergency paid sick leave for one or more of the above-qualifying reasons. However, they may only take 80 hours of paid sick leave once.

That is, the language of the FFCRA is arguably quite clear that two weeks of emergency paid sick leave is all an employee is entitled to within one Family and Medical Leave Act period, i.e., 12 months, whether a calendar year, another fixed 12-month leave year, etc.

The new legislation, effective April 1 to Dec. 31, was quickly drafted in March when the coronavirus was still novel. But while there is still so much that is unknown about COVID-19, we can no longer assume that an individual who has been infected with COVID-19 and recovers, will not be able to get the virus again.

In the U.S., people are reporting testing positive for the virus after having recovered from an initial infection.[1] According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

When a positive test occurs less than about 6 weeks after the person met criteria for discontinuation of isolation, it can be difficult to determine if the positive test represents a new infection or a persistently positive test associated with the previous infection. If the positive test occurs more than 6-8 weeks after the person has completed their most recent isolation, clinicians and public health authorities should consider the possibility of reinfection.[2]

And, of course, persons who are determined to be potentially infectious should undergo evaluation and remain isolated.

In April, the DOL issued guidance which also confirms the plain language of the FFCRA’s FMLA Expansion Act. That is, employees are not entitled to any more than 12 weeks of FMLA leave in a 12-month period, regardless of whether an employee takes paid leave under the FMLA Expansion Act or regular unpaid FMLA leave for reasons unrelated to COVID-19.

The FMLA Expansion Act does not add additional job-protected leave time. Rather, it adds additional qualifying reasons to take leave. Thus, an employee who takes 12 weeks of FMLA leave, does not have an additional 12 weeks of leave under the act because he or she is, for example, experiencing symptoms of COVID–19 for a second time and seeking another medical diagnosis.

Moreover, employees who may have taken FMLA leave for reasons other than the public health emergency in the preceding leave year may have reduced leave time under the FMLA for purposes of the public health emergency. This may have the unfortunate effect of potentially leaving those who are most vulnerable with less leave time than employees who have not needed to use regular unpaid FMLA leave for their own serious health condition. Also, the FFCRA only applies to employers with 500 or fewer employees.

New York employers are required to comply with both the FFCRA and the New York Emergency Paid Sick Leave Law, or EPSL. The benefits available under the EPSL vary based on the size and net income of the employer.

Under the EPSL, private employers with 100 or more employees are required to provide their employees with at least 14 days of paid sick leave. Employees in New York are eligible for benefits under the EPSL when the benefits provided by that law are in excess of those provided under the FFCRA.

In this situation, employees would be entitled to federal benefits, plus the difference in benefits provided under the FFCRA and the EPSL. In other words, no double dipping. And, unless the employee has to care for a family member with a serious health condition, he or she would not be entitled to New York paid family leave.

Given all this, there is no statutory obligation under the FFCRA to provide employees with additional paid leave in the unfortunate circumstance that an employee contracts the virus twice. However, this may not always be the answer under state law.

For example, the New York State Department of Health and New York State Department of Labor recently issued guidance providing that health care employees who test positive after a quarantine or isolation may receive paid sick leave for up to two additional periods of quarantine or isolation.

Employers could certainly opt to pay employees during a second quarantine, but they are not required to under the current federal law. Alternatively, employers could provide unpaid time off, if the employee has exhausted his or her paid time off.

An employer may also be obligated to consider leave as a reasonable accommodation for individuals whose disabilities put them at greater risk from COVID-19, unless such an accommodation would cause an undue hardship on the employer.

So that ends the inquiry, right? Again: wrong.

What’s an employer to do?

We are always wary of simple answers to tricky questions. One answer to the questions posed above is deceptively simple: If an employee has exhausted her 80 hours of FFCRA leave, it is exhausted, and she is not entitled to a second round of leave.

While that position is straightforward and legally defensible, it misses a bigger context. If an employee is not entitled to additional leave but has contracted COVID-19 twice (or more), a sensible employer, or at least, one that is interested in avoiding getting sued by other employees, will not allow the sick employee to return to work. But if an employer takes the position that an employee ordered to stay home is not entitled to pay, it opens up a whole other can of worms.

One policy arguably underlying the pay protection provisions of the FFCRA is to encourage candor: Employees will be less likely to ignore or minimize their own symptoms, and to tell their employers about what is going on, if they are not concerned about losing compensation as a reward for their honesty.

And with federal unemployment benefits of $600 per week in addition to the normal level of benefits still in place, an employee may well consider continuing to stay home or eventually finding another job.

These concerns underscore why many larger employers who are not subject to the FFCRA’s coverage because of their size have gratuitously offered pay protection to sick employees: You want to know that employees are sick, tell them to stay home to avoid community spread in the workplace, and — perhaps most importantly to your longer-term business goals — actually retain a workforce you hope can return soon enough in full force.

Obviously, employers must first and foremost ensure compliance with applicable law, including the FFCRA. But navigating the pandemic is not just a question of strict compliance. Arguably, protecting continuity of operations, the health of the workforce and an employer’s long-term investment in its workforce is at least as important as ensuring any shorter-term compliance.

While this article cannot address how a specific employer will weigh those potentially competing concerns, smart employers consider all of those impacts in deciding whether or not to maintain a leave policy that may exceed, not just meet, the requirements of the FFCRA.

Regardless of whether the U.S. is in the first or second wave, the possibility is now evident that employees may get the coronavirus for a second time, while having already exhausted the leave entitlements under the FFCRA, state leave laws and the employer’s PTO policy. Employers should be prepared to face this new obstacle, particularly as cases in the U.S. are not abating.


Mark A. Konkel is a partner and co-chair of the labor and employment practice group at Kelley Drye & Warren LLP.

Maria B. Biaggi is an associate at the firm.

Nicholas J. Kromka is an associate at the firm.

The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media Inc., or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.

The New Normal….Pandemic Insurance Products

It was only a matter of time before insurers began to develop products to cover pandemics.  The products range from traffic monitor apps that pay insureds based on a minimum threshold to relapse coverage that protects businesses forced to shut down a second time.  The complete article from Reuters is below.

————————-

Insurers are creating products for a world where virus outbreaks could become the new normal after many businesses were left out in the cold during the COVID-19 crisis.

While new pandemic-proof policies might not be cheap, they offer businesses from restaurants to film production companies to e-commerce retailers ways of insuring against disruptions and losses if another virus strikes.

The providers include big insurers and brokers adding new products to existing coverage, as well as niche players that see an opportunity in filling the void left by mainstream firms that categorize virus outbreaks like wars or nuclear explosions.

Tech firm Machine Cover, for example, aims to offer policies next year that would give relief during lockdowns. Using apps and other data sources, the Boston-based company measures traffic levels around businesses such as restaurants, department stores, hairdressers and car dealers.

If traffic drops below a certain level, it pays out, whatever the reason.

“This is the type of coverage which … businesses thought they had paid for when they bought their current business interruption policies before the coronavirus pandemic,” the company’s founder Inder-Jeet Gujral told Reuters.

“I believe this will be a major opportunity because post-COVID, it would be as irresponsible to not buy insurance against pandemics as it would be to not buy insurance against fire.”

The company is backed by insurer Hiscox and individual investors, mostly from the insurance and private equity world.

Restaurants in Florida’s Miami-Dade County, where Mayor Carlos Gimenez on Monday ordered dining to shut down soon after reopening, are now reeling, said Andrew Giambarba, a broker for Insurance Office of America in Doral, Florida.

“It’s been like they made it to the ninth round of the fight and were holding on when this punch came out of nowhere,” said Giambarba, whose clients include restaurants that did not get payouts under their business interruption coverage.

“Every niche that is dealing with insurance that is affected by business interruption needs every new product they can have.”

Filling the Void

Pandemic exemptions have helped some insurers emerge relatively unscathed and the sector has largely resisted pressure to provide more virus cover. Indeed, some insurers that paid out for event cancellations and other losses have removed pandemics from their coverage.

British risk managers association Airmic said last week that the pandemic had contributed to a lack of adequate insurance at an affordable price and most of its members were looking at other ways to reduce risk.

To help fill the void in a locked-down world, Lloyd’s of London insurer Beazley Plc, started selling a contingency policy last month to insure organizers of streamed music, cultural and business events against technical glitches.

“These events are completely reliant on the technology working and a failure can be financially crippling,” said Mark Symons, contingency underwriter at Beazley.

Marsh, the world’s biggest insurance broker, has teamed up with AXA XL, part of France’s AXA, and data firm Arity, which is part of Allstate, to help businesses such as U.S. supermarket chains, restaurants and e-commerce retailers cope with the challenges of social distancing.

With home deliveries surging, firms have hired individual drivers to meet demand, but commercial auto liability insurance for “gig” contractors with their own vehicles is hard to find.

Marsh and its partners devised a policy based on usage with a price-by-mile insurance, which can be cheaper than typical commercial auto cover as delivering a pizza doesn’t have the same risks as driving people around.

“Even when the pandemic is over, we believe last-mile delivery will continue to grow,” said Robert Bauer, head of Marsh’s U.S. sharing economy and mobility practice.

A report by consultants Capgemini showed that demand for usage-based insurance has skyrocketed since COVID-19 first broke out and more than 50% of the customers it surveyed wanted it.

However, only half of the insurers interviewed by Capgemini for its World Insurance Report said they offered it.

Bespoke Cover

Since businesses are only now learning how outbreaks can affect them, some new products are effectively custom-made.

Elite Risk Insurance in Newport Beach, California, has been offering “COVID outbreak relapse coverage” since May for businesses forced to shut down a second time, its founder Jeff Kleid said.

The policies are crafted around specific businesses and only pay out when certain conditions are met, Kleid said.

For film and television production companies that could be when a cast member contracts the virus, forcing them to stop shooting. Another client, which raises livestock for restaurants, is covered for a scenario in which it would be impossible to get animal feed.

Such policies do not come cheap. A $1 million policy could cost between about $80,000 to $100,000 depending on the terms.

“The insurance … is costly because it covers a risk that does not have a historical basis for calculating the price,” Kleid says.

And in March, when COVID-19 ravaged northern Italy, Generali’s Europ Assistance offered medical help, financial support and teleconsultations for sufferers when discharged from hospital, on top of regular health insurance.

It sold 1.5 million policies in just two weeks and now has 3 million customers in Europe and United States.

Some insurers are also working on changes to employee compensation and health insurance schemes. With millions of workers not expected to return to offices anytime soon, some large insurers in Asia are preparing coverage to account for that, according to people familiar with those efforts.

At least one Japanese insurer has started work on a product to cover employees for injury while working at home, they said.

“Working from home will be the new normal for years to come. That would make the scope of the employee compensation scheme meaningless if a person suffers an injury while at home,” said a Hong Kong-based senior executive at a European insurer.

(Reporting by Noor Zainab Hussain in Bengaluru, Suzanne Barlyn in Washington Crossing, Pennsylvania, Carolyn Cohn in London and Sumeet Chatterjee in Hong Kong; additional reporting by Muvija M; Editing by Tomasz Janowski and David Clarke)

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/07/10/575081.htm

 

Analysis of the COVID-19 Pandemic’s Impact on the New York State Workers’ Compensation System

In late June the NYCRIB released a research brief on understanding and estimating the impact of COVID-19 claims.

Coronavirus New York state updates from May 2020 - ABC7 New York

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated our communities, brought personal tragedy to many, and wreaked havoc on our economy. New York State’s unique experience has been driven by the breadth of virus transmission throughout its downstate metropolitan region, New York City, which is the most densely populated American city with approximately 27,000 people per square mile. While managing a pandemic in a dense urban area presents a myriad of complexities, the New York State workers’ compensation system will undoubtedly be called upon to compensate workers infected with the COVID-19 disease in the course of employment.

The purpose of this study is to provide a framework for understanding and estimating the direct impact of COVID-19 claims on medical and indemnity costs in the State’s workers’ compensation system.1 While we also briefly discuss the pandemic’s indirect impact, a detailed analysis is beyond the scope of this research brief. We hope that the information provided in this study will facilitate meaningful and informed discussion, policymaking, and decisions, and we also recognize that while the pandemic continues, its ultimate impact will remain largely unknown. This is so because the number of people infected and the number of COVID-19 claims filed are a function of public orders that have not yet been issued, choices that have not yet been made, behaviors that have yet to manifest, and the timing of scientific discovery that will bring this tragic period to conclusion.

Nevertheless, serious and thoughtful study on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic cannot wait until the pandemic concludes and all claims and data have been submitted. Accordingly, this research brief relies upon Rating Board data as well as external information, data, and estimates from the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, the New York State Department of Labor, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and published studies on medical treatment patterns and costs. In some instances, this research brief incorporates assumptions based upon conversations with workers’ compensation experts and anecdotal evidence collected by the Rating Board. As more information becomes known and additional data emerges, these assumptions will be refined for use in future research briefs and analyses.

You can find the complete brief here: NYCIRB Releases Research Brief on COVID-19 Impact on State’s Workers’ Comp System

Source: The New York Compensation Insurance Rating Board

COVID-19: Confirmed Cases & Deaths Per State

Featured

The Kaiser Family Foundation has created an interactive map that illustrates the most current confirmed cases and deaths of COVID-19. For a breakdown by state, click here.

 

The NCCI, Presumption and COVID19

The National Council of Compensation Insurance (“NCCI”) continues to further refine its cost estimates of COVID19 for the 38 states that it oversees for the purposes of rate and rule making for workers’ compensation.  The most notable states not included in this study are California, New York and New Jersey which collectively make up about 40% of the workers’ compensation premiums countrywide.

The term “presumption of compensability” speaks to whether a COVID19 case is deemed compensable solely by the nature of the afflicted’s joe duties, scope and where work is performed.  This is different in every state with new bills and laws being drafted and legislated every day.

The preemption legislation generally falls into three buckets:

  • Bills that establish compensability presumptions for first responders (fire, police, ambulance) and/or certain healthcare workers (nursing homes, hospitals, home health etc)
  • Bills that establish compensability presumptions for essential or frontline workers.  This expands presumption into most all client-facing roles still necessary (grocery, pharmacist, mass transit, TSA, meat-packing, banking etc.)
  • Bills that establish compensability presumptions for all employees in the state

Needless to say, understanding the expected costs to the workers’ compensation system of any given state and the appropriate risk load to charge as a result starts with who will and will not “automatically” be covered and thus drive cost.  As you will note below, there is a lot of activity in regard to this issue across the country.

You can access NCCI’s state-by-state compensability tracker here.

Additionally, the NCCI has built a free on-line COVID19 “Hypothetical Scenarios Tool” that really gets into the granular on expectation of costs by type of worker and symptom group as well as the expected risk load as a result thereof.  Here is where the NCCI’s middle of the road projection is as of their last study in April with the assumptions of all NCCI states and the total workforce presumed to have contracted COVID19 in an occupational setting.  The scenario assumptions with slide bars below can be adjusted manually, but these are the “middle ion the road” defaults.


Note in this scenario of the total workplace presumed to being exposed to COVID19 in all NCCI states, the expected additional risk load is +85%.

Where I found this model to be even more interesting is on a state by state basis.  Using same “total workforce” but now selecting just Florida.

A 69% v 85% risk load and a fatality claim average being $121,118 v $341,111.  Fatalities the most important risk and cost driver with “critical claims” coming in #2.  Now if we do the same for Texas…

The risk load almost triples the national average at 236% fueled by the cost of a fatality more than double the national average, or $723,912.

This is a very powerful tool that shows all of the variables in play in the forecasting of expected costs in NCCI states due to COVID19.  As this continues to be refined we will update you.

Have a great weekend and stay safe.

California Workers’ Compensation Impact Projections – COVID19

As our clients continue to grow their businesses during the COVID19 pandemic, it has never become more important to select the right client company exposures to take risk on and those to lay off on guaranteed cost policies.  Having an underwriting strategy for risk selection and understanding of proper pricing as a result of COVID19 is an issue that needs to be focused on in this dynamic environment.

As with any projection, as time goes by, the future is understood with greater certainty.  As I continue to monitor the “risk load” attributable to COVID19 on a State by State basis, it made me think of one of my literary heroes and a famous quote of his:

“A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree or certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which the world suffers.”  – Bertrand Russell
Why?  Because we are still dealing with “evidence” on COVID19 that is uncertain.   How much we can warrant forecasted outcomes as a result is therefore uncertain.  Besides the fact we are dealing with a 1 in a 100 year pandemic with no script to work off from the past, the models forecasting number of events and costs are built off of social distancing and staying at home; these variables being complicated by the reopening of States on the rise and social demonstrations triggered by the Floyd case/police brutality.
That said, based on the evidence in California at present, the middle of the road estimate is the addition of $1.2B of system costs to the current system costs of $18.3B, or 7%.
The low end is 3.3% and high end 11%.  These costs emanate from the mid-range loss estimate of 31,100 COVID19 claims.  Please note that this projection is based off the Governor’s order of presumption only lasting through July 1, 2020.  Of these expected claims, it is anticipated the costs will be as follows:
Claim Type               %               Expected Costs per Claim
Mild                           82                          $2,100
Severe                      10                           $74,800
Critical                        3                           $191,100
Death                         5                            $280,500
While I found this projection on the surface to be light, Mr. Stypla and I than contemplated the facts that California was one of the first to close and has been very strict in “stay at home” protocols.  As a result, their fatalities per 100,000 people are far less than other populous states:
Cases/ Fatalities/ 100,000
California – 347/12/100,000
New York – 1,951/157/100,000
Texas – 270/6/100,000
Florida – 307/13/100,000
New Jersey – 1,855/139/100,000
Illinois – 1,020/48/100,000
Michigan – 651/60/100,000
Wisconsin – 366/11/100,000
Ohio – 335/21/100,000
Mass. – 1,507/108/100,000
As you can see, there is a wide range of events by State with California being on the lower end of the spectrum.  So the take away is based on evidence today, California appears to be outperforming against initial forecasts and the country as a whole.  Hopefully the numbers will stand, but to belabor it, these are very fluid forecasts based on evidence available as of today.

Commercial Lines Prices Rose +6% During Q1

According to a survey conducted by Willis Towers Watson, Property and Casualty premiums increased by over 6% in aggregate during Q1 which marks the 2nd quarter in a row for such an increase.   As has been the trend for years, Workers’ Compensation was the only line to experience consistent rate reductions during the same time period. However, many presume there is a hard market ahead for comp as well. Time will tell.

———-

U.S. commercial insurance prices climbed more than 6 percent in aggregate during the 2020 first quarter compared to the year, Willis Towers Watson’s pricing survey for the sector.

Price increases surpassed 6 percent in aggregate for the second quarter in a row, Willis Towers Watson said.

Once again, nearly all commercial lines saw price hikes. Some saw double-digit increases: Directors and Officers liability, excess/umbrella, commercial auto and property.

For most other lines, however, Willis Towers Watson said price changes trended higher at a similar rate to the previous quarter.

Price increases were more muted for small commercial accounts and higher across mid-market accounts, with large accounts nearing double digits, Willis Towers Watson said.

Workers’ compensation continued to be a notable exception with many carriers reporting rate reductions, Alejandra Nolibos, senior director, Insurance Consulting and Technology for Willis Towers Watson, said in prepared remarks.

As well, Nolibos said that the statistics don’t yet reflect reactions to short and midterm impacts of COVID-19, “among them changes in task and employment mix and the economic situation.” He said that continued analysis of emerging data will track those effects for future premium trends.

Willis Towers Watson’s CLIPS survey is a retrospective look at historical changes in commercial property/casualty insurance (P&C) prices and claim cost inflation.

Source: Willis Towers Watson

https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/06/09/571470.htm

 

California COVID Call to Cost Billions for Workers’ Compensation System

As expected, the largest workers’ compensation market in the country has rendered the opinion that it is presumed that anyone that is employed outside of their house has contracted the virus at work.  Prior to this order or COVID for that matter the total cost of loss in the California system was predicted to be $18.1 B.  The median risk load as a result if you include “First Responders” is $11.2 B, or 61%.  If you exclude “First Responders”, the additional cost expected is $5.2 B, or a risk load or 28%.

It will be interesting how insurance carriers and those on large deductibles react to this.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Contact: Governor’s Press Office
Wednesday, May 6, 2020 (916) 445-4571

Governor Newsom Announces Workers’ Compensation Benefits for Workers who Contract COVID-19 During Stay at Home Order

Benefit will be available for diagnosed workers working outside their homes

 

Presumption will be workers contracted the virus at work; employers will have chance to rebut

 

Governor also signed executive order waiving penalties on property taxes for residents and small businesses experiencing economic hardship based on COVID-19; order also extends deadline for filing property tax statements

 

SACRAMENTO – As California prepares to enter Stage 2 of the gradual reopening of the state this Friday, Governor Gavin Newsom today announced that workers who contract COVID-19 while on the job may be eligible to receive workers’ compensation. The Governor signed an executive order that creates a time-limited rebuttable presumption for accessing workers’ compensation benefits applicable to Californians who must work outside of their homes during the stay at home order.

 

“We are removing a burden for workers on the front lines, who risk their own health and safety to deliver critical services to our fellow Californians, so that they can access benefits, and be able to focus on their recovery,” said Governor Newsom. “Workers’ compensation is a critical piece to reopening the state and it will help workers get the care they need to get healthy, and in turn, protect public health.”

 

Those eligible will have the rebuttable presumption if they tested positive for COVID-19 or were diagnosed with COVID-19 and confirmed by a positive test within 14 days of performing a labor or service at a place of work after the stay at home order was issued on March 19, 2020. The presumption will stay in place for 60 days after issuance of the executive order.

 

The Governor also signed an executive order that waives penalties for property taxes paid after April 10 for taxpayers who demonstrate they have experienced financial hardship due to the COVID-19 pandemic through May 6, 2021. This will apply to residential properties and small businesses. Additionally, the executive order will extend the deadline for certain businesses to file Business Personal Property Statements from tomorrow to May 31, 2020, to avoid penalties.

 

“The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the lives and livelihoods of many, and as we look toward opening our local communities and economies, we want to make sure that those that have been most impacted have the ability to get back on their feet,” said Governor Newsom.

 

Since declaring a state of emergency due to COVID-19 on March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom has taken several actions to benefit workers on the front lines, includingpaid sick leave benefits for food sector workers that are subject to a quarantine or isolation order; critical child support services for essential workers and vulnerable populations; additional weekly unemployment benefits; and needed assistance in the form of loans for small businesses and job opportunities in critical industries for workers that have been displaced by the pandemic.