Speaker 1: This is Bloomberg Law with June Brussel from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 1: A former police officer in Minnesota, Kim Potter, is facing
Speaker 1: a second degree manslaughter charge for the shooting death of
Speaker 1: a twenty year old black man, Dante Right, on Sunday.
Speaker 1: Police say Right was pulled over for expired tags, but
Speaker 1: they tried to arrest him after discovering he had an
Speaker 1: outstanding warrant for failure to appear in court on charges
Speaker 1: that he fled from officers and possessed a gun without
Speaker 1: a permit. There have been four nights of protests over
Speaker 1: the shooting, which was captured on videotape. The city's former
Speaker 1: police chief says Potter mistakenly fired her handgun when she
Speaker 1: meant to use her taser. Both the chief and Potter
Speaker 1: resigned on Tuesday. Wright's family members and black community leaders
Speaker 1: are calling for more serious charges. Nikima Levy Armstrong, a
Speaker 1: civil rights lawyer and activist in Minneapolis, says Potter should
Speaker 1: be held to a higher stand undered. Kim Potter is
Speaker 1: a twenty six year veteran. The fact that she was
Speaker 1: a field training officer and she should have known better
Speaker 1: um in terms of distinguishing between a taser and a gun.
Speaker 1: I do not believe that it was an accident. Joining
Speaker 1: me as former federal prosecutor Eli Hoenig, what's your reaction
Speaker 1: to the filing of the charges so quickly? Everything is
Speaker 1: moving very very quickly with this case. The first of all,
Speaker 1: the police released the body camera within twenty four hours
Speaker 1: of the incident, which is faster than I've ever seen
Speaker 1: body camera footage released. I think that was a good
Speaker 1: and necessary step. Then they brought the charge just days later.
Speaker 1: The initial charge right now is a manslaughter charge under
Speaker 1: Minnesota law. It essentially charges what we call culpable negligence,
Speaker 1: meaning that the officer created a grossly unreasonable risk. Not
Speaker 1: that the officer intended necessarily to kill Mr. Wright, but
Speaker 1: that she created a grossly unreasonable risk. So that'll be
Speaker 1: an interesting question for the jury. Is there any possibility
Speaker 1: that that the prosecutors may add charges as time goes on?
Speaker 1: That absolutely is a possibility. Prosecutors frequently, especially in a
Speaker 1: high profile case, or whether there's some need or impetus
Speaker 1: to make an arrest quickly, will charge the most readily provable,
Speaker 1: sort of most easily provable, lowest charge just to get
Speaker 1: a charge on the books to make an arrest, and
Speaker 1: then as the investigation progresses, prosecutors not uncommonly will add
Speaker 1: charges or upgrade charges, or in some instances downgrade or
Speaker 1: even dismiss charges as the evidence dictates. And just as
Speaker 1: one example, this was done essentially with Derek Chulfin and
Speaker 1: the George Floyd case. He was initially charged with actually
Speaker 1: the same manslaughter charge that not charged against this officer,
Speaker 1: as well as a third degree murder charge, and then
Speaker 1: later prosecutors added a higher charge, a second degree murder charge.
Speaker 1: So that's quite common. Does it seem though, that this
Speaker 1: charge is the appropriate one here, because looking at the footage,
Speaker 1: it seems like, however reckless it was, it was a mistake,
Speaker 1: it was an intentional on her part. So this is
Speaker 1: why I think this charge is appropriate. At the moment,
Speaker 1: an act can be both accidental and negligent. So, for example,
Speaker 1: if somebody were to get behind the wheel of a
Speaker 1: car while severely impaired and then God forbid, hit a
Speaker 1: person and kill that person, that would be an accident.
Speaker 1: The driver didn't didn't intend to hit until somebody, But
Speaker 1: it also would be culpable negligence. It would be manslaughter
Speaker 1: because by getting behind the wheel with a severe impair
Speaker 1: in severely impaired condition, you are creating and undo a
Speaker 1: gross unreasonable risk. So there is room in the law
Speaker 1: to charge somebody with a crime, even if it's an accident,
Speaker 1: if that person also acted grossly negligently. This is such
Speaker 1: a high profile case, but in other circumstances it seems
Speaker 1: like it would be a good case for a plea deal. Look,
Speaker 1: the vast majority of cases do end up pleading guilty.
Speaker 1: This case could be different, however, because the stakes are
Speaker 1: so high for both sides. I mean, on the one hand,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of value I think from the prosecutor's
Speaker 1: perspective in getting a guilty plea, because you lock in
Speaker 1: the conviction, you get the person to admit guilt. On
Speaker 1: the other hand, for the former police officer who has
Speaker 1: been charged, if she gets convicted, she's looking it up
Speaker 1: to ten years in prison, and if she sees a
Speaker 1: way to sort of cut her risk and take a
Speaker 1: plea deal and maybe limit herself to a much shorter
Speaker 1: time in prison, I think she'll have to think hard
Speaker 1: about that. There's been some reporting that Derek Chauvin tried
Speaker 1: to get a plea deal. Do you have any information
Speaker 1: about that. Well, I've seen what's been reported publicly that
Speaker 1: he was interested in pleading guilty to a ten year charge.
Speaker 1: But then William Barr, who at the time was Attorney
Speaker 1: General of the United States, said no. And for anyone
Speaker 1: wondering why would Bill barb be involved in this, this
Speaker 1: is a state charge because any defendant in that position
Speaker 1: is only going to take the charge if he knows
Speaker 1: that he won't be charged by anybody else, because the
Speaker 1: Feds still can charge Derek Schauvin. And so, in a
Speaker 1: of words, as a practical matter, the Chauvin and his
Speaker 1: lawyer would say, look, we're not taking a plea unless
Speaker 1: the state of Minnesota signs off and d o J
Speaker 1: signs off, because I don't want to plead guilty in
Speaker 1: Minnesota and then get hit with a new charge by defense.
Speaker 1: And so Bill Barr said no. Uh. And I think
Speaker 1: he probably made the right decision there, because I think
Speaker 1: ten years would have probably been widely perceived as as
Speaker 1: not justice, not not sufficient for Derek Chauvin. Coming up
Speaker 1: next on the Bloomberg Law Show, I'll continue this conversation
Speaker 1: with former federal prosecutor Elie Honig, and we'll take a
Speaker 1: look at the Derek Chauvin murder trial. The defense wrapped
Speaker 1: up its case today without putting Derek Chauvin on the stand.
Speaker 1: So how did the defense do? Were they able to
Speaker 1: score any points? Not? Well, I don't think the defense
Speaker 1: has done spectacularly well in any sense. First of all,
Speaker 1: we all we have to keep in mind no defendant
Speaker 1: ever has any burden of proof whatsoever. Defendants can put
Speaker 1: on no case at all and just say the prosecution
Speaker 1: hasn't met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: That actually happens. I have done trials where the defendant
Speaker 1: has said, no case, your honor, We're just going to
Speaker 1: argue they haven't proven it. So every defendant has the
Speaker 1: right to do that. That said, Chauvin has decided to
Speaker 1: try to put on a fairly robust case here. I
Speaker 1: just am not persuaded by the witnesses. I don't believe
Speaker 1: the jury will be either. You had the medical witness
Speaker 1: who testified essentially that George Floyd's death was caused by
Speaker 1: everything but Derek Chauvin up to an including carbon monoxide, which,
Speaker 1: when cross examined, he revealed he had no data, no science,
Speaker 1: no facts behind whatsoever other than the fact that George
Speaker 1: Floyd was down by a car which we don't even
Speaker 1: know if it was running. So I don't think the
Speaker 1: defense experts have been remarkably persuasive. But again, remember it's
Speaker 1: not an athletic event where you asked who has more points.
Speaker 1: All the defense has to do here is create reasonable doubt.
Speaker 1: Just didn't live up to the battles of the experts
Speaker 1: that I've seen in a lot of trials. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there a reason why it seems as if the
Speaker 1: prosecution's experts were much more qualified than the defense. Well,
Speaker 1: typically a case being high profile, I would just think
Speaker 1: logically would would attract more attention, right because experts would
Speaker 1: want to be seen and say, look at me, I
Speaker 1: testified in this famous trial that you've all heard of,
Speaker 1: So hire me in the future. If I had to guess,
Speaker 1: I would say a lot of it is probably just
Speaker 1: the merits of the case. I think it's hard to
Speaker 1: find a police officer, for example, who will come in
Speaker 1: and say I found Derek Chovin's use of force to
Speaker 1: be appropriate and necessary like that one witness broad who
Speaker 1: was his last name? Did I thought that was very
Speaker 1: dubious testimony. I think it's much much easier based on
Speaker 1: the many police officers I know personally, they all think
Speaker 1: that this was an unreasonable use of force. So I
Speaker 1: think it's it's largely a function of the fact. And
Speaker 1: one thing that's important to remember, June, expert witnesses are
Speaker 1: not magic. The jury will be told specifically, you are
Speaker 1: not to give an expert witness anymore or less credibility
Speaker 1: or credence than you would to any other way. Is
Speaker 1: simply because they're experts. It's just a label we put
Speaker 1: on them that allows them to give their opinion. But
Speaker 1: you can and must evaluate their testimony. Is it reasonable,
Speaker 1: is it logical? Is it supported by the facts as
Speaker 1: you would any other witness. So although these witnesses have
Speaker 1: the label expert on them, the jury is still free
Speaker 1: to disregard them. Considering the resources of the that the
Speaker 1: prosecution has put into the case and the resources that
Speaker 1: the defense has. But it seems like the prosecution has
Speaker 1: just overwhelmed the defense with the number of attorneys, the
Speaker 1: preparation of the witnesses, etcetera. Well, I agree the prosecution
Speaker 1: has put on more and better evidence than than the defense,
Speaker 1: keeping in mind that the prosecution fares that burden of
Speaker 1: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. UM. I do think it's
Speaker 1: actually interesting the numbers game here, the four prosecutors versus
Speaker 1: the one defense lawyer. I actually don't love that dynamic
Speaker 1: for prosecutors. When I was a prosecutor, we were always
Speaker 1: wary of looking like we were overdoing it on a case,
Speaker 1: and we never put more than three prosecutors on a case.
Speaker 1: And only the biggest cases, I mean, your major organized
Speaker 1: crime or terrorism cases would even have three. Typically you
Speaker 1: have two prosecutors because we didn't want to look like, well,
Speaker 1: why is half the office here doing this case. And
Speaker 1: I think it's also an interesting strategy by the defense
Speaker 1: to only have one lawyer. We've only seen Eric Nelson
Speaker 1: stand up for the defense. It looks like he has
Speaker 1: an aid or somebody there in the courtroom, but that
Speaker 1: sort of paints the picture of a man alone, you know,
Speaker 1: sort of nobly defending his charge. That said, I think
Speaker 1: we're talking about sort of your courtroom dynamic more than
Speaker 1: anything else. UM. One thing that we don't know that
Speaker 1: it would be interesting to me is what kind of
Speaker 1: resources does Derek Chauven have here? A lot of times
Speaker 1: police officers and former police officers are able to use
Speaker 1: money from unions even if they're out of the union. Now, um,
Speaker 1: it's not clear who's paying Eric Nelson's bill. It's not
Speaker 1: clear who's willing to work for free. Some of the
Speaker 1: prosecution witnesses the experts that they had volunteered to work
Speaker 1: for free because they felt strongly about this case. So
Speaker 1: I do agree though there's been a mismatch in both
Speaker 1: the quantity and quality of evidence. But again, remember it's
Speaker 1: not who has more and better evidence, it has the
Speaker 1: prosecution met its burdened beyond a reasonable doubt. Something that
Speaker 1: I found extraordinary is the testimony of George Floyd's brother
Speaker 1: in what's called this spark of life, which allows the
Speaker 1: prosecution to give life and dimension to the victim, something
Speaker 1: that you don't normally see in most cases until it's
Speaker 1: time for sentencing. That was very unusual testimony because most
Speaker 1: courts in the country would not allow it. Minnesota has
Speaker 1: this UNI or I don't know if they're the only state,
Speaker 1: but Minnesota has this unusual law statute, this spark of
Speaker 1: Life statute, which actually was passed decades ago UM in
Speaker 1: relation to a case involving a murder of a police officer,
Speaker 1: and the legislature decided that in case in murder cases,
Speaker 1: the jury should get to hear from a relative of
Speaker 1: the victim to humanize the victim. But in most jurisdictions,
Speaker 1: including federal courts, that would never be admissible because it's sympathy. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's an emotional appeal, but it has no
Speaker 1: relevance to the disputed fact. I mean, what what George
Speaker 1: Floyd's brother remembers about him, and how fond but he
Speaker 1: remembers him, and how much he loved him has no,
Speaker 1: strictly speaking, no logical connection to whether Derek Chauvin's acts
Speaker 1: constituted murder or not. But this is a law on
Speaker 1: the books in Minnesota, and I thought the prosecution used
Speaker 1: it effectively without overdoing it. I thought they were smart
Speaker 1: to call the brother felonis um because he was emotional,
Speaker 1: but he he wasn't over the top. And I think
Speaker 1: you want to be wary there as the prosecutor, of
Speaker 1: appearing too overtly to try to play on emotions, because
Speaker 1: ultimately emotion matters. But most juries, when it comes down
Speaker 1: to it, are looking pretty closely at the facts, and
Speaker 1: I think attempts to bring too much emotion into play
Speaker 1: ten ten backfire. So there was some speculation that Derek
Speaker 1: Chauvin might take the stand and considering that the defense
Speaker 1: has not been going as well as some might have fought,
Speaker 1: but he decided not to. Think there was a wise decision.
Speaker 1: I do defendants very rarely take the stand in their
Speaker 1: own trials. I know in movies and TV we always
Speaker 1: see that dramatic moment when the defendant takes the stand
Speaker 1: and has to defend himself against the prosecutor. But reality is,
Speaker 1: defendants rarely do take the stand because it's so so risky.
Speaker 1: I guess the only argument in favor of Chauvin taking
Speaker 1: the stand here is well, perhaps if he got one
Speaker 1: juror who liked him or felt sorry for him, that
Speaker 1: juror would decide uh not to vote guilty, and that
Speaker 1: could result in a hung jury. Remember, a jury verdict
Speaker 1: has to be unanimous to all the zero to convict
Speaker 1: or quit. Anything in between is a deadlock, hung jury
Speaker 1: and a mistrial, which is as a practical matter, he
Speaker 1: win for the defense. So that would be the sort
Speaker 1: of hail merry nature of this, But it would have
Speaker 1: been so risky for him to take the stand. I mean,
Speaker 1: the prosecution likely would have been able to cross examine
Speaker 1: him on prior complaints against him for force. Uh. They
Speaker 1: certainly would have played that video for him, And it
Speaker 1: would have been devastating to have to, you know, make
Speaker 1: him watch that video after George Floyd has stopped speaking
Speaker 1: and stopped moving, and so you're still on him here right.
Speaker 1: You know, you hadn't heard him speak in a minute,
Speaker 1: you hadn't heard him speak in two minutes, and you
Speaker 1: kept that knee on on his neck. It would have
Speaker 1: just been a stating class examination. I think it would
Speaker 1: have been too risky, and I think it was probably
Speaker 1: the prudent move for him not to testify. Thanks Ellie.
Speaker 1: That's former federal prosecutor Ellie Honig. After successfully transitioning to
Speaker 1: remote work for more than a year, many businesses are
Speaker 1: rethinking the future of a fully in person workforce. Twitter
Speaker 1: and Microsoft are among the tech companies that have said
Speaker 1: some employees can continue to work from remote locations permanently
Speaker 1: even after the pandemic is controlled. But suppose your employer
Speaker 1: insist that you return to the office full time, what
Speaker 1: are your options joining me as Michael Schmidt, Vice chair
Speaker 1: of the Labor and Employment Practice at Coson O'Connor. The
Speaker 1: overarching question is whether an employer can force employees to
Speaker 1: go back to work after they've been working from home
Speaker 1: due to COVID. So the general answer to that is
Speaker 1: whether you're asking about simple return to work or if
Speaker 1: you are asking about whether an employer can require that
Speaker 1: an employee be vaccinated before returning to work, the overarching
Speaker 1: answer is really the same employers at the moment are
Speaker 1: able to require employees to return to work subject to
Speaker 1: obligations to accommodate both disability issues as well as sincerely
Speaker 1: held religious objections to coming back to the offers or
Speaker 1: or getting vaccinated as a condition to coming back to
Speaker 1: the office. So, as far as disabilities are you referring
Speaker 1: to disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act or other
Speaker 1: disabilities that may arise because of COVID. The important thing
Speaker 1: to take away is that we're not just talking about
Speaker 1: federal law. Part of the issue is, and what makes
Speaker 1: this somewhat complicated like other areas of employment law, is
Speaker 1: that this area is so dependent on state and local
Speaker 1: law as wealth you're looking at the Americans with Disabilities
Speaker 1: Act on the federal level certainly, but you're also in
Speaker 1: states like New York or California and other states that
Speaker 1: have their own statutory schemes dealing with reasonable accommodation requirements
Speaker 1: and disability discrimination protection. So if somebody has a particular
Speaker 1: medical condition, physical or mental that for some reason precludes
Speaker 1: them from going into the office, or in case of
Speaker 1: a vaccine, precludes them from becoming vaccinated at the time.
Speaker 1: Suppose someone's a senior citizen and doesn't want to return
Speaker 1: to the office because of fears that they're more vulnerable
Speaker 1: to COVID. Would that require some kind of accommodation. Well,
Speaker 1: that's where it gets a little tricky, because you need
Speaker 1: to distinguish those who have a covered disability, a covered
Speaker 1: medical condition versus those who just have generalized fears about
Speaker 1: leaving the home or generalized fears about going to the workplace.
Speaker 1: Is simply because they have this generalized fear, or simply
Speaker 1: because they may be part of a group, uh such
Speaker 1: as of a certain age or a certain vulnerability. So
Speaker 1: you know, part of the difficulty is having to distinguish
Speaker 1: between those buckets and for those people who don't have
Speaker 1: a covered disability that entitles them to potentially an accommodation. UH.
Speaker 1: Employees are not able to necessarily just say well, I'm
Speaker 1: uncomfortable or have a generalized fear that something might happen
Speaker 1: UH and therefore be protected from UH from from complying
Speaker 1: with a rule that they need to come back to
Speaker 1: the office. Suppose they believe that their workplace is not safe,
Speaker 1: that the workplace is not taking enough for cautions against COVID, Well,
Speaker 1: certainly we're gonna see a lot of that. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: they're gonna be a lot of employees who either return
Speaker 1: to the office or don't return to the office. And
Speaker 1: based on what they see or hear or understand, they're
Speaker 1: gonna be raising issues regarding protocols and safety. People may
Speaker 1: not be wearing masks, or the company is not enforcing
Speaker 1: social distancing requirements or other protocols UH. So much of
Speaker 1: this is about balancing UH, communication and the psychology of
Speaker 1: all this. It's not just about what is the law
Speaker 1: technically require one side to do or not do. There
Speaker 1: is a psychology that comes along with the workforce that
Speaker 1: employers need to accept, and there also has to be
Speaker 1: some understanding that employees those uncomfortable or not are gonna
Speaker 1: be raising issues like you just mentioned, and has to
Speaker 1: be a means for addressing them, for taking them seriously. UH.
Speaker 1: And that's what employers should do. They should have an
Speaker 1: avenue for people to raise concerns or raise complaints about
Speaker 1: protocols and other safety issues. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: if the employer does look into those issues and does
Speaker 1: follow best practices and available guidance, and again, it just
Speaker 1: becomes a situation where the employee is saying, I'm just
Speaker 1: not come sorta will come into the workplace, I'm just
Speaker 1: not comfortable leaving the home and working UM and no
Speaker 1: accommodation is needed and there really is no UM particular
Speaker 1: protocol or issue that is challenging the safety and health
Speaker 1: of the workplace. UM, the employee may not be protected
Speaker 1: in those situations. What about the employee reporting the conditions
Speaker 1: to OSHA, that's certainly another avenue. UH. It's all about communication.
Speaker 1: I find that many issues can be addressed and resolved
Speaker 1: between employer and employee. But there's no question that there
Speaker 1: are government agencies out there, including OSHA, who are there
Speaker 1: to receive complaints that employees may have about unsafe workplace conditions, UH,
Speaker 1: And that's certainly an opportunity for employees to raise it
Speaker 1: externally if that's what they want to do, in which case,
Speaker 1: you know, OSHA or whatever the federal or state agency
Speaker 1: UH will be will likely contact the employer and do
Speaker 1: its own and investigation into the issue. Suppose an employer
Speaker 1: fires an employee because they won't return to the workplace.
Speaker 1: Are they entitled to unemployment? I know that President Biden
Speaker 1: said something about this. Are they entitled to unemployment or
Speaker 1: there's certain parameters. Well, that's the unemployment issue. Notwithstanding the
Speaker 1: discussion on the federal level, the unemployment issue is also
Speaker 1: very much a state by state concerns, So UH the
Speaker 1: rules will vary depending on the particular state you're in
Speaker 1: in the state unemployment scheme you're talking about. But from
Speaker 1: a general rule standpoint, as we know, typically if somebody
Speaker 1: resigns and resigns without reason uh refuses to work, UM,
Speaker 1: they're not going to be entitled necessarily to unemployment insurance.
Speaker 1: But what many jurisdictions are doing, and what the federal
Speaker 1: government is talking about doing is making an exception there
Speaker 1: if the reason that you are not coming back to
Speaker 1: work is due to a good faith belief, good faith
Speaker 1: objective belief UH that there is something about the workplace
Speaker 1: you're being asked to return to that is not safe
Speaker 1: and is not healthy for you to do so. In
Speaker 1: those cases, if you refuse to return to that kind
Speaker 1: of workplace UH, in many situations, you will not be
Speaker 1: denied the opportunity to obtain unemployment insurance. Going back to
Speaker 1: vaccinations which you mentioned, Let's say an employer says all
Speaker 1: employees have to be vaccinated before returning to work. If
Speaker 1: an employee has a religious objection, what happens The e
Speaker 1: o C, which is a federal government agency that handles
Speaker 1: disability related UH Title seven related issues and accommodations. The
Speaker 1: e o C put out guidances past December on this
Speaker 1: very issue mandatory vaccine policies and putting aside the disability
Speaker 1: issue we just talked about. If an employee has a
Speaker 1: sincerely held religious belief or practice that prevents them from
Speaker 1: being vaccinated, the employer is required to engage in in
Speaker 1: an interactive process to see if an accommodation and be
Speaker 1: given without there being an undue hardship or without there
Speaker 1: being a direct threat by not being vaccinated. This is
Speaker 1: very much an individualized assessment. An employer should not be
Speaker 1: simply knee jerk in its reaction to that kind of
Speaker 1: objection being raised, which also means that they can't just
Speaker 1: automatically fire them or discipline them for refusing to be vaccinated.
Speaker 1: They'll have to go through this process of well, what's
Speaker 1: the nature of the position. Can the position continue to
Speaker 1: be worked at remotely? Um? What are the essential functions
Speaker 1: of the job. So the bottom line is there needs
Speaker 1: to be an interactive process in response to any religious
Speaker 1: objection being raised, and only after that process is exhausted
Speaker 1: UH and the the appropriate boxes are checked by the company,
Speaker 1: can an employer perhaps discipline up to an including termination.
Speaker 1: UH terminate an employee based on a religious objection to
Speaker 1: getting vaccinated. Suppose it's not a religious objection. Suppose an
Speaker 1: employee just has a generalized objection to vaccinations. Do they
Speaker 1: also have to be treated in the same way? Well,
Speaker 1: very much the same answer as with the disability issues.
Speaker 1: And I can tell you there is this lingering issue
Speaker 1: out there that a lot of people are necessarily talking about,
Speaker 1: and that has to do with the whole emergency use
Speaker 1: authorization process that these vaccines were approved by the FDA
Speaker 1: in the first place, and as part of that process,
Speaker 1: the f d A rules suggests that recipients of a
Speaker 1: vaccine UH must be told that they have the right
Speaker 1: to refuse to get a vaccine. So there are a
Speaker 1: lot of us out here that are waiting for additional
Speaker 1: guidance from the appropriate government entities as to the relationship
Speaker 1: between those f DA rules and an employer's ability to
Speaker 1: have a mandatory vaccine policy or engage in certain workplace rules.
Speaker 1: But putting that issue aside to your specific question, it's
Speaker 1: very much the same as a disability context if someone
Speaker 1: just has a generalized objection there against vaccines, or too
Speaker 1: early in the process where I'm not that comfortable to
Speaker 1: get vaccinated just yet. Those are not concerns that are
Speaker 1: typically protected by law that have to be accommodated at
Speaker 1: the moment. Have you been getting a lot of inquiries
Speaker 1: from employers during COVID about problems they're having management issues
Speaker 1: with people working from home? I have, and and this
Speaker 1: is certainly the time where a lot of companies are
Speaker 1: thinking about the types of questions that you're asking thinking about.
Speaker 1: You know, we'd love to get to a place in
Speaker 1: the world where we can come back to whatever normalcy
Speaker 1: there was pre pandemic and start to get some of
Speaker 1: the benefits that we had by having in person interaction
Speaker 1: and team meetings and mentorships UH physically in the office,
Speaker 1: while recognizing, as I said before, there still is this
Speaker 1: psychology lag where people are not completely comfortable UH returning
Speaker 1: to the office just yet, are not completely comfortable getting
Speaker 1: vaccinated yet, so they're trying to figure out should they
Speaker 1: have any type of mandatory return to work or mandatory
Speaker 1: vaccine policy, and if so, when they should do it. UM.
Speaker 1: I think most of the employers that I've been speaking
Speaker 1: with are leaning toward promoting the benefits of vaccination, perhaps
Speaker 1: in many cases creating appropriate incentive programs to have employees
Speaker 1: get vaccinated. UM. But I still think as we're here
Speaker 1: in April of one, I think fewer employers are yet
Speaker 1: going the root of UH imposing a mandatory return to
Speaker 1: work and a mandatory vaccine policy right now. I think
Speaker 1: the biggest issue again is is sort of you know,
Speaker 1: the this balancing act and recognizing that it's not all illegal,
Speaker 1: that there is you know, a lot of practical and
Speaker 1: a lot of psychological impacts that that are at play
Speaker 1: here and at at the end of the day, if
Speaker 1: you're going to be mandating any of these things, whether
Speaker 1: it's returning to the physical office getting vaccinated, you do
Speaker 1: have to keep in mind the requirements for accommodating disability
Speaker 1: and religious objections. Thanks Mike. That's Michael Schmidt of Cozon
Speaker 1: O'Connor and that's it for the edition of the Bloomberg
Speaker 1: Lawn Show. Remember you can always at the latest legal
Speaker 1: news on our Bloomberg Lawn podcast. You can find them
Speaker 1: on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com,
Speaker 1: slash podcast slash Law. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
Speaker 1: to Bloomberg