TML Coronavirus Update

Urgent Updates

We’ve heard differing interpretations about whether a city can enforce the governor’s mandatory mask order. Does it all hinge on whether a police officer may “detain” a person to issue a citation?

It does, and the answer remains unclear. On July 2, Governor Abbott issued Executive Order GA-29, which is his order that requires face coverings, with certain exceptions. The order was adopted pursuant to Section 418.173 of the Texas Government Code (The Texas Disaster Act), which allows criminal penalties in the form of fines and jail time up to 180 days for a violation of an order issued under Chapter 418. Executive Order GA-29, however, limits the punishment to a fine only:

“Following a verbal or written warning for a first-time violator of this face covering requirement, a person’s second violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250. Each subsequent violation shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $250 per violation.”

However, the order also provides that:

“[N]o law enforcement or other official may detain, arrest, or confine in jail any person for a violation of this executive order or for related non-violent, non-felony offenses that are predicated on a violation of this executive order; provided, however, that any official with authority to enforce this executive order may act to enforce trespassing laws and remove violators at the request of a business establishment or other property owner.”

According to the Texas District & County Attorneys Association (TDCAA):

“[T]he order specifically states that ‘no law enforcement or other official may detain, arrest, or confine in jail any person for a violation of this executive order ….’ (emphasis added). That language does perhaps leave the door open for a consensual encounter and a warning – although the word ‘perhaps’ is doing a lot of work in that statement – but we cannot for the life of us figure out how a law enforcement officer is supposed issue a citation to someone they are not allowed to detain for that purpose. Not only is this a problem for enforcing the statewide mask edict, but if an officer’s initial mask-based encounter elevates to an investigation of a jailable offense (possession of a controlled substance, for example), that type of contraband evidence may be suppressed before trial if the sole basis for the encounter was a mask violation under GA-29.”

The above is why we’ve seen news articles related to law enforcement refusing to even attempt to criminally enforce the governor’s mask mandate.

Does law enforcement have any options with regard to enforcement?

Maybe. The TDCAA has an interesting twist on the subject, and the following is entirely their analysis:

“Just as every mask has two loopholes for your ears, GA-29 has two loopholes for potentially getting around the problems it creates, if you or your community are so inclined.

First, by its own terms, GA-29 still allows officers to ‘enforce trespassing laws and remove violators at the request of a business establishment or other property owner.’ That has been the preferred practice under GA-28, which in paragraph 15 said:

‘Nothing in this executive order or the DSHS minimum standards precludes requiring a customer to follow additional hygiene measures when obtaining services. Individuals are encouraged to wear appropriate face coverings, but no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.’

This was the original loophole that allowed local governments to rely on – or in some places, require – businesses to enforce mask requirements, and it remains one avenue for enforcement under GA-29. However, GA-29 also includes the following new provision:

‘Executive Order GA-28 is hereby amended to delete from paragraph number 15 [see above] the phrase: *but no jurisdiction can impose a civil or criminal penalty for failure to wear a face covering.*

As a result, even though the statewide mask mandate may largely be a sham, local jurisdictions MAY now impose direct penalties for failure to wear a face covering, in addition to penalties on businesses that fail to enforce their own mask mandates on their premises. And furthermore, the limitation on detentions in GA-29 says, ‘No law enforcement or other official may detain, arrest, or confine in jail any person for a violation of this executive order’ (emphasis added), but it silent as to detention, arrest, or confinement for the purposes of enforcing a local mask order.

So, while the local penalties for violating local orders must still be limited to fines or other non-jailable remedies under other language in GA-28 that bars jail as a punishment for violating any executive order during the pandemic, the “no detention” language apparently does not apply to local mask orders, making them enforceable. As of yesterday, this is apparently what the City of Austin will do, and the same governor who overrode Austin and other urban jurisdictions’ local mask ordinances back in April is apparently on board with them now.” (End analysis by TDCAA).

City officials should consult with local legal counsel regarding any action related to the above.

Further Updates

How are committee of the Texas House of Representatives going to conduct interim hearings during the pandemic?

It appears that they may not. Typically, the interim period between sessions is devoted to numerous public committee hearings on a range of issues. The Speaker of the Texas House issued interim study charges late last year, and the Lt. Governor did so as well. Many of the charges could affect cities, including by limiting their authority in many areas. 

Months ago, the governor suspended many provisions of the Open Meetings act to allow local governments to meet virtually. Last week, however, Speaker Bonnen issued a memo to his committee chairs banning them from doing so:

“Committees are not authorized:

-To use virtual meetings or virtual hearings to conduct business in lieu of holding in-person meetings open to the public at the Capitol or an approved location outside of Austin; or

-To intentionally meet, via videoconference, telephone conference, or in person, in numbers of less than a quorum to conduct committee business, including receiving briefings from agency officials at which committee members may ask questions.”

Why the limiting interpretation? Why not ask the governor to allow them to meet virtually? Who knows… 

One thing is sure, cities are heading into what is certain to be the toughest session we’ve ever encountered. And it looks like, in the Texas House at least, they will do so without having had the chance to provide public input on the issues. Because of that, it make even more sense for city officials to visit with their members now to ensure they are educated on city issues.

Has the Texas comptroller issued updated state revenue estimates?

Yes. Today (July 20), the comptroller issued the following:

“Texas Comptroller Glenn Hegar today revised the Certification Revenue Estimate (CRE) and now projects a fiscal 2021 ending shortfall of $4.58 billion. The shortfall, which Hegar attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and recent volatility in oil prices, is a decrease from the $2.89 billion positive year-end balance originally projected in the October 2019 CRE.

In a July 20 letter to state leadership, Hegar said the state will have $110.19 billion in General Revenue-related (GR-R) funds available for general-purpose spending for the 2020-21 biennium, down from a projected $121.76 billion in the October 2019 CRE.

The ending balance does not include the impact of instructions from state leadership directing most agencies to reduce their spending by 5 percent of 2020-21 GR-R appropriations. Any of these savings will reduce the projected shortfall. Similarly, the balance also does not assume any further financial assistance from the federal government as both the prospect and nature of such assistance remain uncertain.

‘The economic contraction associated with COVID-19 has resulted in revenue collections this fiscal year that are much lower than our earlier CRE projections,’ Hegar said. ‘It’s important to note that this revised estimate carries unprecedented uncertainty. We’re assuming the state will effectively manage the outbreak and that infection rates won’t overwhelm our health care system. This estimate also assumes that restrictions on businesses and individuals will be lifted before the end of this calendar year and that economic activity will strengthen but not return to pre-pandemic levels by the end of this biennium.’

The pandemic hit tax revenues hard across the board, particularly hotel, motor vehicle sales, severance, and mixed beverage taxes. The state’s sales tax, its largest source of tax revenue, has held up better than some taxes, but still has fallen significantly. Fiscal 2020’s sales tax revenues, buoyed by strong collections in the first half of the year, are expected to finish about 1 percent below fiscal 2019 totals, followed by a drop of more than 4 percent in fiscal 2021.

The Economic Stabilization Fund (ESF, or the state's “Rainy Day Fund”) and the State Highway Fund (SHF) both receive funding from oil and natural gas severance taxes. In fiscal 2021, the ESF and SHF each will receive $1.1 billion in transfers from the General Revenue Fund for severance taxes collected in fiscal 2020. Severance tax collections in fiscal 2021 are expected to drop significantly from fiscal 2020, resulting in smaller fiscal 2022 transfers to the ESF and SHF of about $620 million each.

After accounting for appropriations and investment and interest earnings, this estimate projects an ESF fiscal 2021 ending balance of $8.79 billion.

Proposition 7, an amendment to the Texas Constitution approved by Texas voters in 2015, requires the first $2.5 billion in sales tax collections exceeding $28 billion in any fiscal year to be deposited to the SHF. The SHF will receive $2.5 billion from sales taxes collected in each year of the biennium, although the final transfer from fiscal 2021 collections will not occur until September 2021, the first month of fiscal 2022.

‘In the coming months, some economic indicators will establish new records for rates of growth, but those records will be on the back of this year’s unprecedented declines’ Hegar said. ‘The rebound will leave many measures of economic health below pre-pandemic levels. Consumers and businesses must be confident the virus is controlled before economic output, employment and revenues return to pre-pandemic levels.’

There are substantial risks to this forecast on both the upside and downside. If the spread of the virus slows or stops sooner than anticipated, if consumers and businesses return to pre-pandemic levels of economic activity more readily than assumed or if the federal government provides more aid, Texas may finish the 2020-21 biennium with more revenue than projected today. On the other hand, if COVID-19 case counts continue to increase or accelerate, if there is a substantial new wave of infections nationally or in Texas in the fall or winter or if consumers and businesses are slower to resume economic activity than assumed, revenue collected this biennium could fall short, perhaps far short, of this updated forecast.

Visit our online resources for a downloadable, easy-to-understand primer on the data points that drive the CRE.”

Has the attorney general issued guidance to private religious schools for fall re-openings?

Yes. Last Friday (July 17), the attorney general issued the following press release:

“Attorney General?Ken?Paxton?today issued a guidance letter to religious private schools in Texas, informing them that local public health orders attempting to restrict their re-openings violate the United States and Texas Constitutions and the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Moreover, local orders seeking to restrict the reopening of religious private schools or institutions is inconsistent with Governor Abbott’s executive orders, and therefore, are invalid. 

‘As the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed just last week, there are robust constitutional and statutory protections unique to religious individuals and communities, specifically including religious private schools,’ said Attorney General Paxton. ‘In accordance with the protections granted by the First Amendment and Texas law, this guidance allows religious private schools to determine for themselves when to reopen free from any government mandate or interference.’”

While the legal analysis in the attorney general’s letter is suspect, it’s not much different than what he has previously issued for places of worship. His arguments sound fine, but they aren’t legally sound. 

Both the Texas and U.S. Constitutions and Texas religious freedom protection laws create a higher legal burden for government to meet prior to substantially burdening a person's free exercise of religion. The burden is sometimes referred to as “strict scrutiny.” To meet it, the government should demonstrate that the regulation: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest. Virus-protection measures for teachers, staff, and students during a global pandemic may satisfy that two-part test. 

Of course, no local entity is required to take any action whatsoever with regard to any type of school. Whether any particular city regulation meets the burden is a question for your city attorney. Reliance on an open letter (that is, outside the usual opinion process to state officials) from the attorney general, who has no duty to your city (or a private religious school for that matter), would be misplaced.

What’s the latest from TEA with regard to public school openings this fall?

On Friday (July 17), in the wake of outcry from many Texans, the Texas Education Agency issued additional reopening guidance. School systems will now be able to temporarily limit access to on-campus instruction for the first four weeks of school. After the first four weeks, a school system can continue to limit access to on-campus instruction for an additional four weeks, if needed, with a board-approved waiver request to TEA.  Because school opening is largely governed by the local health authority, the state, and each individual district, the League won’t report on it in great detail. The TEA COVID-19 website has additional information. 

Where can I find archived issues of the TML Coronavirus Updates?

TML Coronavirus Updates are archived by date here and by subject here.

Special Updates: Personnel Law Issues Recap

Figuring out what to do if an employee has been exposed to or tests positive for COVID-19 or becomes symptomatic is complicated. Can you break it down for us?

Of course. The following Q&As attempt to make it a little less complicated. But it is, in fact, complicated, so always consult with your city attorney prior to taking any personnel actions. 

The CDC has issued Interim Guidance for Businesses and Employers (updated May 6, 2020) and Interim Guidance for Critical Infrastructure Workers (updated April 20, 2020) for implementing safety practices for workers who may have confirmed or suspected COVID-19. Recently (July 11), the CDC also issued a number of FAQs expounding on the above guidance. The CDC guidance are recommendations, and they may be adapted by state and local health departments to respond to rapidly changing local circumstances. We’ve included, below, excerpts of some FAQs that are applicable to cities as employers.

What should I do if an employee comes to work with COVID-19 symptoms?

Employees who have symptoms when they arrive at work or become sick during the day should immediately be separated from other employees, customers, and visitors and sent home. Employees who develop symptoms outside of work should notify their supervisor and stay home.

Sick employees should follow CDC-recommended steps to help prevent the spread of COVID-19. Employees should not return to work until they have met the criteria to discontinue home isolation and have consulted with a healthcare provider.

Employers should not require sick employees to provide a COVID-19 test result or healthcare provider’s note to validate their illness, qualify for sick leave, or return to work. Healthcare provider offices and medical facilities may be extremely busy and unable to provide such documentation in a timely manner.

What should I do if an employee is suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19?

In most cases, you do not need to shut down your facility. But do close off any areas used for prolonged periods of time by the sick person. Wait 24 hours before cleaning and disinfecting to minimize potential for other employees being exposed to respiratory droplets. If waiting 24 hours is not feasible, wait as long as possible.

Follow the CDC cleaning and disinfection recommendations:

-Clean dirty surfaces with soap and water before disinfecting them.

-To disinfect surfaces, use products that meet EPA criteria for use against SARS-Cov-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and are appropriate for the surface.

-Be sure to follow the instructions on the product labels to ensure safe and effective use of the product.

-You may need to wear additional personal protective equipment (PPE) depending on the setting and disinfectant product you are using.

In addition to cleaning and disinfecting, employers should determine which employees may have been exposed to the virus and need to take additional precautions:

-If an employee is confirmed to have COVID-19, employers should inform fellow employees of their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace but maintain confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

-Employees who test positive for COVID-19 (using a viral test, not an antibody test) should be excluded from work and remain in home isolation if they do not need to be hospitalized. Employers should provide education to employees on what to do if they are sick.

-Employers may need to work with local health department officials to determine which employees may have had close contact with the employee with COVID-19 and who may need to take additional precautions, including exclusion from work and remaining at home.

-Most workplaces should follow the Public Health Recommendations for Community-Related Exposure and instruct potentially exposed employees to stay home for 14 days, telework if possible, and self-monitor for symptoms.

-Critical infrastructure workplaces should follow the guidance Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Employees Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19.

Sick employees should follow CDC recommended steps. Employees should not return to work until they have met the criteria to discontinue home isolation and have consulted with a healthcare provider. Antibody test results should not be used to make decisions about returning persons to the workplace.

If employees have been exposed but are not showing symptoms, should I allow them to work?

Employees may have been exposed if they are a “close contact” of someone who is infected, which is defined as being within about six feet of a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time:

-Potentially exposed employees who have symptoms of COVID-19 should self-isolate and follow CDC recommended steps.

-Potentially exposed employees who do not have symptoms should remain at home or in a comparable setting and practice social distancing for 14 days.

All other employees should self-monitor for symptoms and wear cloth face coverings when in public. If they develop symptoms, they should notify their supervisor and stay home.

See Public Health Recommendations for Community-Related Exposure for more information.

To ensure continuity of operations of essential functions, CDC advises that critical infrastructure employees may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to COVID-19, provided they remain symptom-free and additional precautions are taken to protect them and the community:

-Critical infrastructure businesses have an obligation to limit, to the extent possible, the reintegration into the worksite of in-person employees who have been exposed to COVID-19 but remain symptom-free in ways that best protect the health of the employee, their co-employees, and the general public. (Remaining at home for 14 days may still be the most preferred and viable option for exposed employees.)

-An analysis of core job tasks and workforce availability at worksites can allow the employer to match core activities to other equally skilled and available in-person employees who have not been exposed.

-A critical infrastructure employee who is symptom-free and returns to work should wear a cloth face covering at all times while in the workplace for 14 days after last exposure. Employers can issue cloth face coverings or can approve employees’ supplied cloth face coverings in the event of shortages.

See Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Employees Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19 and COVID-19 Critical Infrastructure Sector Response Planning.

What should I do if I find out several days later, after an employee was present at work, that they were diagnosed with COVID-19?

You should take the following steps:

-If it has been less than 7 days since the sick employee used the facility, clean and disinfect all areas used by the sick employee following the CDC cleaning and disinfection recommendations.

-If it has been 7 days or more since the sick employee used the facility, additional cleaning and disinfection is not necessary. Continue routinely cleaning and disinfecting all high-touch surfaces in the facility.

-Other employees may have been exposed to the virus if they were in “close contact” (within approximately 6 feet) of the sick employee for a prolonged period of time. If that’s the case:

1. If an employee is confirmed to have COVID-19, employers should inform fellow employees of their possible exposure to COVID-19 in the workplace but maintain confidentiality as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

2. Those who have symptoms should self-isolate and follow CDC recommended steps.

3. In most workplaces, those potentially exposed but with no symptoms should remain at home or in a comparable setting and practice social distancing for 14 days.

4. Critical infrastructure employees should follow Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Employees Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19. A critical infrastructure employee who is symptom-free and returns to work should wear a cloth face covering at all times while in the workplace for 14 days after last exposure. Employers can issue cloth face coverings or can approve employees’ supplied cloth face coverings in the event of shortages.

Employees not considered exposed should self-monitor for symptoms. If they develop symptoms, they should notify their supervisor and stay home.

When should an employee suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 return to work?

Sick employees should follow steps to prevent the spread of COVID-19. Employees should not return to work until they meet the criteria to discontinue home isolation and have consulted with a healthcare provider.

Employers should not require a sick employee to provide a negative COVID-19 test result or healthcare provider’s note to return to work. Employees with COVID-19 who have stayed home can stop home isolation and return to work when they have met one of the sets of criteria found here.

Should we be screening employees for COVID-19 symptoms (such as temperature checks)? What is the best way to do that?

Screening employees is an optional strategy that employers may use. Performing screening or health checks will not be completely effective because asymptomatic individuals or individuals with mild non-specific symptoms may not realize they are infected and may pass through screening. Screening and health checks are not a replacement for other protective measures such as social distancing.

Consider encouraging individuals planning to enter the workplace to self-screen prior to coming onsite and not to attempt to enter the workplace if any of the following are present:

-Symptoms of COVID-19.

-Fever equal to or higher than 100.4 degrees.

-Are under evaluation for COVID-19 (for example, waiting for the results of a viral test to confirm infection).

-Have been diagnosed with COVID-19 and not yet cleared to discontinue isolation.

Content of screening questions

If you decide to actively screen employees for symptoms rather than relying on self-screening, consider which symptoms to include in your assessment. Although there are many different symptoms that may be associated with COVID-19, you may not want to treat every employee with a single non-specific symptom (e.g., a headache) as a suspect case of COVID-19 and send them home until they meet criteria for discontinuation of isolation.

Consider focusing the screening questions on “new” or “unexpected” symptoms (e.g., a chronic cough would not be a positive screen). Consider including these symptoms:

-Fever or feeling feverish (chills, sweating)

-New cough

-Difficulty breathing

-Sore throat

-Muscle aches or body aches

-Vomiting or diarrhea

-New loss of taste or smell

Protection of screeners

There are several methods that employers can use to protect the employee conducting the screening. The most protective methods incorporate social distancing (maintaining a distance of six feet from others), or physical barriers to eliminate or minimize the screener’s exposures due to close contact with a person who has symptoms during screening. Examples to consider that incorporate these types of controls for temperature screening include:

-Reliance on Social Distancing: Ask employees to take their own temperature either before coming to the workplace or upon arrival at the workplace. Upon their arrival, stand at least 6 feet away from the employee and: (1) ask the employee to confirm that their temperature is less than 100.4 degrees and confirm that they are not experiencing coughing or shortness of breath; (2) make a visual inspection of the employee for signs of illness, which could include flushed cheeks or fatigue; and (3) screening staff do not need to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) if they can maintain a distance of 6 feet.

-Reliance on Barrier/Partition Controls: During screening, the screener stands behind a physical barrier, such as a glass or plastic window or partition, that can protect the screener’s face and mucous membranes from respiratory droplets that may be produced when the employee sneezes, coughs, or talks. Upon arrival, the screener should wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or, if soap and water are not available, use hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol. Then: (1) make a visual inspection of the employee for signs of illness, which could include flushed cheeks or fatigue; (2) conduct temperature and symptom screening using this protocol: (a) put on disposable gloves; (b) check the employee’s temperature, reaching around the partition or through the window. Make sure the screener’s face stays behind the barrier at all times during the screening; (c) if performing a temperature check on multiple individuals, make sure that you use a clean pair of gloves for each employee and that the thermometer has been thoroughly cleaned in between each check, except if disposable or non-contact thermometers are used and you did not have physical contact with an individual, you do not need to change gloves before the next check; and (d) remove and discard PPE (gloves), and wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds - if soap and water are not available, use hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol.

If social distance or barrier controls cannot be implemented during screening, PPE can be used when the screener is within six feet of an employee during screening. However, reliance on PPE alone is a less effective control and more difficult to implement given PPE shortages and training requirements.

Reliance on Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)

Upon arrival, the screener should wash their hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol, put on a face mask, eye protection (goggles or disposable face shield that fully covers the front and sides of the face), and a single pair of disposable gloves. A gown could be considered if extensive contact with an employee is anticipated. Then: (1) make a visual inspection of the employee for signs of illness, which could include flushed cheeks or fatigue, and confirm that the employee is not experiencing coughing or shortness of breath; (2) take the employee’s temperature; and (3) after each screening or after several screenings, where you did not have physical contact with an individual, remove and discard PPE and wash hands with soap and water for at least 20 seconds or use hand sanitizer with at least 60 percent alcohol.

I don’t provide paid sick leave to my employees. What should I do?

Employers that do not currently offer sick leave to some or all of their employees may want to draft non-punitive “emergency sick leave” policies. Ensure that sick leave policies are flexible and consistent with public health guidance and that employees are aware of and understand these policies.

The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA) requires [all municipalities] to provide their employees with paid sick leave or expanded family and medical leave for specified reasons related to COVID-19.

Should I require employees to provide a doctor’s note or positive COVID-19 test result?

Employers should not require sick employees to provide a COVID-19 test result or a healthcare provider’s note to validate their illness, qualify for sick leave, or to return to work. Healthcare provider offices and medical facilities may be extremely busy and not able to provide such documentation in a timely manner.

Should I allow critical infrastructure employees to work if they have been exposed but are not showing symptoms of COVID-19?

Functioning critical infrastructure is imperative during the response to the COVID-19 emergency, for both public health and safety as well as community well-being. When continuous remote work is not possible, critical infrastructure businesses should use strategies to reduce the likelihood of spreading the disease. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, separating staff by off-setting shift hours or days and implementing social distancing. These steps can preserve and protect the workforce and allow operations to continue.

To ensure continuity of operations of essential functions, CDC advises that critical infrastructure employees may be permitted to continue work following potential exposure to COVID-19, provided they remain asymptomatic and additional safety practices are implemented to protect them and the community. However, reintegrating exposed, asymptomatic employees to onsite operations, while discussed in the critical infrastructure guidance, should not be misinterpreted as always being the first or most appropriate option to pursue in managing critical work tasks. Staying home may still be the most preferred and protective option for exposed employees. Critical infrastructure businesses have an obligation to limit, to the extent possible, the reintegration of in-person employees who have experienced an exposure to COVID-19 but remain symptom-free in ways that best protect the health of the employee, their co-employees, and the general public.

Create a critical infrastructure sector response plan. Cross-training employees to perform critical job functions so the workplace can operate even if key employees are absent and match critical job functions with other equally skilled and available employees who have not experienced an exposure to COVID-19.

Critical infrastructure employees who have been exposed but remain symptom-free and must return to in-person work should adhere to the following practices before and during their work shift:

-Pre-screen for symptoms.

-Monitor regularly for symptoms.

-Wear a cloth face covering.

-Practice social distancing.

-Clean and disinfect workspaces.

Employees with symptoms should be sent home and should not return to the workplace until they have met the criteria to discontinue home isolation.

See Implementing Safety Practices for Critical Infrastructure Employees Who May Have Had Exposure to a Person with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19