OSHA Withdraws Its COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS Effective January 26, 2022
Client Alert | 1 min read | 01.25.22
Following the Supreme Court’s granting of the emergency motion to stay enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s (“OSHA”) COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) on January 13, 2022 (which we previously covered here), OSHA announced on January 25, 2022 that it is withdrawing the ETS as an enforceable emergency temporary standard, effective January 26, 2022, and will instead prioritize its resources on finalizing a permanent COVID-19 Healthcare Standard, per OSHA’s statement on its website. OSHA noted that it is not withdrawing the ETS as a proposed rule, which will continue to work its way through the ongoing notice and comment rulemaking process.
According to the Federal Register notice, OSHA is not providing an opportunity for public comment on this withdrawal. It also notes that states with their own OSHA-approved occupational safety and health plans are not required to take any action in response to this withdrawal.
In light of this development, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the petitions challenging the ETS before the Sixth Circuit as moot.
OSHA emphasized that it still strongly encourages the vaccination of workers against COVID-19 notwithstanding the withdrawal of the rule.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.12.26
DOJ Guidance Backs Away From Disparate Impact Liability
On June 9, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a formal opinion concluding that the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission’s (EEOC) existing interpretations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) disparate-impact liability, including the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures (UGESP), are unconstitutional. According to the opinion, EEOC’s prior interpretations contemplate liability based on disproportionately adverse effects alone, without regard to an employer’s likely intent, rather than treating disparate impact as an evidentiary mechanism to “smoke out” intentional discrimination. DOJ found that this approach functions as a “qualified racial-proportionality mandate” that places “a racial thumb on the scales, often requiring employers to evaluate the racial outcomes of their policies, and to make decisions based on (because of) those racial outcomes.” The opinion fulfills one mandate of Executive Order 14281, which rejected disparate-impact liability insofar as it “creates a near insurmountable presumption that unlawful discrimination exists wherever there are any differences in outcomes among different [demographic groups].”
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
Auto Dealers: The FTC Is Back in the Driver’s Seat — Warning Letters Signal Renewed Federal Scrutiny
Client Alert | 13 min read | 06.12.26
Client Alert | 4 min read | 06.12.26
