Skip to content

As California enters Stage 2 of its “Resilience Roadmap” plan to reopen, California Governor Gavin Newsom and the California Department of Public Health issued further guidance on June 18, 2020, mandating all Californians wear face coverings in various “high-risk” settings.  The guidance updates a previous CDPH guidance (issued on April 1, 2020) that outlined best practices regarding the use of face coverings, but did not mandate their use state-wide. In light of the threat posed by Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), the CDPH has been given broad authority to issue public health directives by Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-33-20, requiring Californians to “heed the State public health directives.”

The CDPH Order requires people in California wear cloth face coverings in “high-risk situations,” which include: indoor public spaces, outdoor public spaces (when maintaining social distancing is not feasible), obtaining healthcare, using public transportation (including taxis and ride—share services), and engaging in work with members of the public. The Order exempts children under two years of age, persons who cannot wear a face covering due to a health issue, deaf persons (or those communicating with deaf persons), persons obtaining services which require the removal of face covering, persons dining at a restaurant (so long as they are maintaining social distance from others), and persons engaged in outdoor recreation (so long as they are maintaining social distance from others). The State of California has issued a FAQ regarding the new requirement.

The Order broadly requires the use of face coverings in the workplace. Although the requirement is limited to (1) workplaces that can be visited by the public, (2) locations where food is being prepared for others, (3) working in (or passing through) common areas, and (4) enclosed areas where social distancing is impossible, the Order’s breadth will impact a majority of employers.

As California workplaces begin to implement return-to-work plans, they will need to incorporate these new state-wide face covering requirements. Likewise, employers should also review and assess any county or city requirements as many cities, like Los Angeles and San Francisco, have stricter requirements than California’s new Order.

For more information and updates on the developing COVID-19 situation, visit GT’s Health Emergency Preparedness Task Force: Coronavirus Disease 2019.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Matthew J. Weber Matthew J. Weber

Matthew J. Weber represents employers in workplace matters, including virtually all types of employment litigation, with an emphasis in wage and hour class actions and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) actions. He also represents employers in single-plaintiff actions, including cases related to alleged

Matthew J. Weber represents employers in workplace matters, including virtually all types of employment litigation, with an emphasis in wage and hour class actions and Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) actions. He also represents employers in single-plaintiff actions, including cases related to alleged discrimination, retaliation, wrongful termination, and harassment. Matthew has experience in state and federal court, as well as arbitration, and has deep experience in compelling matters to arbitration. Matthew is experienced in all stages of litigation, including initial investigations, pleading challenges, discovery, depositions, motions, and trial.

Matthew is an active member of the Labor and Employment community, regularly writing on wage and hour topics, including authoring wage and hour chapters/sections in a number of treatises/publications. Matthew counsels employers regarding employment policies, accommodations/leaves of absence, and exemption and independent contractor classification.

Photo of Adil M. Khan Adil M. Khan

Adil M. Khan is a commercial litigator with a primary focus on commercial disputes, class actions, and labor & employment matters. He has diverse experience in all phases of civil litigation, from the pleadings stage through trial, in both state and federal courts.…

Adil M. Khan is a commercial litigator with a primary focus on commercial disputes, class actions, and labor & employment matters. He has diverse experience in all phases of civil litigation, from the pleadings stage through trial, in both state and federal courts.

Adil has represented companies in a variety of contexts, including pursuing former executives and managers for theft of trade secret, unfair competition, conversion, and fraud. He has helped his clients navigate commercial real estate disputes and lender liability claims.

He also has wide-ranging experience with consumer class action litigation, including the defense of a publicly traded, for-profit owner of various “trade schools” in multiple class actions alleging claims under Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

His labor & employment work concentrates on the defense of wage-and hour-class actions under federal and state law, as well as individual and multi-plaintiff claims involving discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.

In prior years, Adil gained considerable experience in representing several juice makers in defending claims of false advertising under the Lanham Act.