SHARE

March 23, 2022

New York State Ends COVID-19 HERO Act Designation

You've Reached Your
Free Article Limit This Month
Register for free to get unlimited access to all Law.com OnPractice content.
Register Now

Key Takeaways

  • On March 17, 2022, New York State’s Commissioner of Health ended the designation of COVID-19 as an airborne infectious disease that presents a serious risk of harm to public health under the New York Health and Essential Rights (HERO) Act.
  • With COVID-19 cases continuing to rise and fall, employers should continue to watch for developments in state, local, and federal workplace health and safety regulations.

On March 17, 2022, New York State's Commissioner of Health ended the designation of COVID-19 as an airborne infectious disease that presents a serious risk of harm to public health under the New York Health and Essential Rights (HERO) Act. As of that date, private sector employers in New York State are no longer required to implement their workforce safety plans.

In Depth


The HERO Act was signed into law on May 5, 2021, and began to apply to COVID-19 as an airborne infectious disease on September 6, 2021. Employers were required to implement extensive new workplace health and safety protections in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The purpose of the NY HERO Act was to protect employees against exposure and disease during a potential airborne infectious disease outbreak.

Although COVID-19 is no longer designated as an airborne infectious disease covered by the HERO Act's protections, the HERO Act technically remains available for New York State to choose to reactivate its application to COVID-19, or to apply the HERO Act to any other future airborne infectious disease that presents a serious risk of harm to public health.

NEXT STEPS

With COVID-19 cases continuing to rise and fall, employers should continue to watch for developments in state, local, and federal workplace health and safety regulations. As of this publication, New York City's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for private employers remains in effect, and New York City Mayor Eric Adams has not provided any further guidance on when this mandate may be withdrawn.

ALM expressly disclaims any express or implied warranty regarding the OnPractice Content, including any implied warranty that the OnPractice Content is accurate, has been corrected or is otherwise free from errors.

More From McDermott Will & Emery

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Whirlpool

By Andrew R. Roberson McDermott Will & Emery November 21 , 2022

On November 21, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari in Whirlpool Financial Corp., et al., Petitioners v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, No. 22-9.

Antitrust M&A Snapshot | Q3 2022

By Marisa E. Poncia McDermott Will & Emery November 17 , 2022

The US Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) lost four merger challenges (Illumina/GRAIL, UnitedHealth/Change Healthcare, U.S. Sugar/Imperial Sugar and Booz Allen/EverWatch) in September.

Not So Clean: Federal Circuit Upholds Trade Dress Preliminary Injunction, Finds Defenses Improperly Plead

By Kat Lynch McDermott Will & Emery November 17 , 2022

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a “narrow” preliminary injunction in a trade dress case, finding that the opponent of a registered configuration mark failed to prove its lack of secondary meaning and functionality defenses.

More From COVID-19

New York State Cannabis Control Board Releases Proposed Adult-Use Regulations

By Lynelle K. Bosworth Greenberg Traurig November 22 , 2022

On Nov. 21, 2022, the New York State Cannabis Control Board (CCB) approved draft regulations governing the Adult-Use Cannabis program.

New California Law Requires Open Payments Notice to Patients

By Ming Chuang McDermott Will & Emery November 16 , 2022

On September 29, 2022, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1278, which requires physicians and their employers to provide patients with notices about the Open Payments database starting January 1, 2023.

U.S. Supreme Court Refuses Review of Case Involving Technical Issue With Plaintiff's EEOC Charge

By Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris Jackson Lewis P.C. November 16 , 2022

Refusing to weigh in on the impact of a plaintiff’s failure to verify her discrimination charge filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Supreme Court lets stand the lower court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s failure to verify her charge barred her from filing a lawsuit.

Featured Stories
Closeclose
Search
Menu

Working...