Taking Care of HR Business
        A blog from the attorneys of Verrill

        To Test or Not to Test: Employer Considerations Amid COVID-19 Pandemic

        by Tawny L. Alvarez on March 18, 2020

        Q: I am concerned about employees coming to work with a fever—can I test employees’ temperatures before allowing them to work to avoid spreading the coronavirus?

        Verrill’s View: Maybe—but there are many factors to consider. Generally, taking an employee’s temperature would be a restricted medical examination, but employers may have more flexibility due to COVID-19’s “pandemic” status. However, if you are considering taking an employee’s temperature as a method to limit exposure among your workforce, it is important to consider the legal implications of doing so and balance them with the benefits.

        Temperature Tests and the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) restricts employers’ abilities to generally perform “medical examinations” of employees. Although the ADA does not define exactly what constitutes a “medical examination,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines “medical examination” as a “procedure or test that seeks information about an individual’s physical or mental impairments or health.” The EEOC has taken the position that taking a temperature or other form of “temperature test” is a medical examination under the ADA that may only be performed when the examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity. Generally, a medical examination of an employee is job-related and consistent with business necessity when an employer has a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence, that: 1) an employee’s ability to perform essential job functions will be impaired by a medical condition; or 2) an employee will pose a direct threat due to a medical condition. The reasonable belief “must be based on objective evidence obtained, or reasonably available to the employer, prior to making a disability-related inquiry or requiring a medical examination.” A direct threat is defined as “as significant risk of substantial harm to the health or safety of the individual or others that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.” In assessing whether an employee poses a “direct threat,” an employer should consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm.

        Temperature Tests During a Pandemic. The EEOC issued guidance in connection with the H1N1 pandemic stating that “if pandemic influenza symptoms become more severe than the seasonal flu or the H1N1 virus . . . or if pandemic influenza becomes widespread in the community as assessed by state or local health authorities or the CDC, then employers may measure employees’ body temperature.” As COVID-19 has been declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), the EEOC has pointed to its prior guidance and suggested that taking an employee’s temperature may be permissible in connection with the COVID-19 outbreak.

        Other Discrimination Laws. It is important to remember that the ADA serves as a “floor” to the benefits or rights that employees must be afforded. Employers must also comply with individual state disability discrimination laws and be mindful that those laws may have a higher threshold than that set forth under the ADA.

        In addition to disability discrimination laws, employers must also be careful to avoid discriminating against employees based on other factors, including age. Any policies related to medical examinations should be applied objectively among the workforce.

        Confidentiality under Privacy Laws. Employers must also consider applicable privacy laws related to confidentiality of employee medical information. If an employer decides to perform temperature testing prior to starting work, it could result in a group or line of individuals waiting for their temperature to be taken. If an employee had a fever and was denied access to the workplace, other employees in the line may witness the individual being denied access and conclude that the individual was symptomatic (and could presume the individual had COVID-19). This could be seen as public disclosure of private facts or medical information.

        National Labor Relations Act Protections. If an employee or group of employees refuses to submit to testing because of privacy concerns, an argument could be made that these individuals are participating in protected concerted activities under the National Labor Relations Act. If an employer’s policy is that an employee cannot work without submitting to the test, the employer could bar the employee from work (without pay), but the employer probably should not discipline or discharge the individuals involved

        Wage and Hour Implications. Employers should also consider wage and hour implications when considering testing temperatures. At locations where individuals need to wait before having their temperatures taken, that time may be compensable waiting time under the FLSA and/or state wage and hour laws.

        Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). Testing employees’ temperatures might not be the most efficient way to alleviate OSHA concerns. If there are claims that an employer has not appropriately protected employees from COVID-19 under OSHA standards, there are other less invasive precautions that an employer may want to consider. To that end, OSHA’s guidance on handling a pandemic situation is helpful.

        How Helpful is Temperature Measurement? Even if an employer requires employees to have their temperature taken in an effort to decrease spread among employees, it may not effectively diminish the risk of spreading the virus. Even if employees are tested for a fever before work, those who come in contact with the public or who are receiving shipments/deliveries from third parties during the course of the shift may still be at risk of contracting the virus. In addition, if an employee develops a temperature in the middle of the shift, it would go undetected based on pre-shift testing.

        Most importantly, employees who have a fever might not have the COVID-19 virus, and employees who have been in contact with COVID-19 might not have a fever. As of the date of this article, the CDC lists the following as symptoms of COVID-19 that may appear 2-14 days after exposure: 1) fever; 2) cough; 3) shortness of breath. The CDC lists the following as “Emergency Warning Signs”: 1) difficulty breathing or shortness of breath; 2) persistent pain or pressure in the chest; 3) new confusion or inability to arouse; and 4) bluishlips or face. Because people can be asymptomatic and/or can have the virus without having a temperature (but having other symptoms), the use of the process of taking an individual’s temperature would be an invasive way to obtain information about one symptom of COVID-19 that may or may not be present when there are other symptoms that can be seen visually with the naked eye (and therefore can be screened in a less invasive manner and/or without performing a medical examination).

        Bottom Line: Considering all of these factors, a policy to measure employee’s temperatures carries high risk might not justify the perceived benefits. As concerns about the spread of COVID-19 continue, we recommend employers continue to take additional less-invasive precautions to ensure that potentially affected employees remain out of the workplace such as monitoring visible symptoms, allowing employees to work remotely when possible, and following CDC and EEOC guidelines regarding social distancing and self-quarantine measures.

        Taking Care of HR Business

        Human resource professionals, supervisors, and company executives are constantly confronted with a changing legal landscape. Verrill’s Taking Care of HR Business blog is designed to keep you informed about the latest and most significant legal developments that affect employers.

        Key Contacts

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...
        Media Mentions

        Cybersecurity and AI Governance: Scott Anderson Featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        Verrill Managing Partner Scott Anderson was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing how law firms can build attorney buy-in for...
        Blog

        Section 530A Account Update: ERISA Status of Trump Accounts

        The Department of Labor has issued important guidance addressing whether employer programs that permit contributions to Section 530A accounts (and...
        Press Releases

        97 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2027, Including Four Named Lawyers of the Year

        AUGUSTA, Maine, BANGOR, Maine, BOSTON, Mass., PORTLAND, Maine, and WESTPORT, Conn., (August 20, 2026) – Verrill is proud to announce that 97...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        SEC’s Proposed “Reg Crypto”: What Founders Need to Know

        Startup founders and emerging-growth companies have a number of options for raising capital under the federal securities laws, including Regulation D...
        Blog

        After 45 Years, the IRS Speaks on DCAP Nondiscrimination Testing – And It’s Good News

        Employers that provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program will be pleased to learn that for the first time in 45 years, the IRS has issued guidance...
        Media Mentions

        U.S. Courts Highlights Annabel Rodriguez’s Journey from Fellow to Mentor

        Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez was featured in a recent U.S. Courts article titled “From Fellows to Mentors: Alumni Share Lasting Lessons from...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses Bankruptcy Auction Strategy in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach spoke with Law360 article examining the complex bankruptcy auction process that resulted in the sale of 23 summer...