In early June 2022, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) issued an order revising the definition of “close contact.” Under the CDPH order, close contact was defined as “someone sharing the same indoor airspace (e.g. home, clinic waiting room, airplane, etc.) for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period.” This created confusion because “same indoor airspace” could be quite broad and is certainly much broader than the 6 feet-15 minutes-24 hour definition the entire nation had been using.  Compounding the problem was Cal/OSHA’s deference to the CDPH definition of “close contact” in its ETS, which California employers are required to follow.

CDPH had provided some clarification in guidance issued on June 20, 2022, stating that when entities are responding to potential exposure they may prioritize the response by:

  • Identifying close contacts who may be considered “high-risk contacts” based on their proximity to the case in the setting, the duration or intensity of their exposure, and/or their greater risk of severe illness or death from an exposure.
  • Determining any smaller spaces within the larger indoor setting for the purposes of assessing potential exposure.
  • Determining any transient exposures totaling <15 minutes, such as passing in a hallway. Those with transient exposures would not meet the definition of close contact.

On July 18, 2022, Cal/OSHA updated its FAQ for the ETS to address the close contact determination as it relates to the ETS. Cal/OSHA states that a shared indoor airspace may be analyzed in several ways as follows:

  • Smaller spaces contained within a large indoor space that are separated by floor-to-ceiling walls are not part of the same indoor airspace as the large indoor space, e.g. suites, waiting areas, bathrooms, or break areas.
  • Larger indoor settings that are not divided into smaller spaces that are separated by floor-to-ceiling walls may constitute a shared indoor airspace e.g. open-floor plan offices, warehouses, or retail stores. In this situation, Cal/OSHA states that “employers must evaluate whether employees shared the same indoor airspace on a case-by-case basis, considering the duration and proximity of the contact, regardless of the specific task of the employees.”
  • Cal/OSHA states in its guidance that “proximity and length of exposure are key to this determination.”

If you have questions about the Cal/OSHA emergency temporary standards or related workplace safety issues, please reach out to the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you often work or any member of our Workplace Safety and Health Team.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Sean Paisan Sean Paisan

Sean Paisan is of counsel in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is the leader of the firm’s Cal/OSHA practice subgroup and co-leader of the firm’s Construction industry group. His practice focuses on assisting employers with Cal/OSHA compliance, investigations…

Sean Paisan is of counsel in the Orange County, California, office of Jackson Lewis P.C. He is the leader of the firm’s Cal/OSHA practice subgroup and co-leader of the firm’s Construction industry group. His practice focuses on assisting employers with Cal/OSHA compliance, investigations, and fighting citations. Additionally, Sean also assists employers in data privacy and traditional employment matters, including litigation and counseling.

Sean’s first exposure to OSHA regulations occurred during his undergraduate studies while working for a construction company that helped build Disney’s California Adventure. After attending law school and working for the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office and the United States Attorney’s Office, Sean moved into private practice, where he focused on general liability matters, including serious injuries and fatalities. Through this experience, Sean became very knowledgeable on the myriad of Cal/OSHA regulations imposed on businesses, especially in the construction, manufacturing, and healthcare industries, and the consequences for violations of those regulations. From there, Sean became OSHA 30 certified and began assisting employers with all workplace safety matters, from compliance, to investigations and inspections, to the appeals of citations in California, Arizona, Washington, and Hawaii.

Throughout his career, Sean has been called upon to try cases that cannot be settled. He has handled trials in the United States District Court, California Superior Court, Cal/OSHA Appeals Board, Workers Compensation Appeals Board, and the US Department of Labor OALJ, as well as binding arbitrations. Sean has tried cases involving the following subjects: general employment, wrongful death, premises liability, unfair competition (B&P § 17200), false advertising (Lanham Act), misappropriation of trade secret, restrictive covenants, and whistleblower (AIR21).

In addition to his trial experience, he is routinely called on to assist his clients with workplace crises such as catastrophic injuries, fatalities, data breaches, and ransomware incidents. Drawing on his years of in both civil and criminal law, Sean’s unique background allows him to anticipate and proactively manage issues, rather than simply reacting to requests and inquiries by investigating agencies such as law enforcement, OSHA, Cal/OSHA, California Bureau of Investigations (BOI), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), as well as opposing counsel in litigation matters.

In addition to his litigation experience, Sean has earned the CIPP/US credential through the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP). He helps organizations manage rapidly evolving privacy threats and mitigate the potential loss and misuse of information assets. He has an in-depth understanding of how privacy laws can impact business operations. These laws include the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act (HITECH), Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA), Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA), Fair and Accurate Credit Transaction Act (FACTA), Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, California Financial Information Privacy Act, Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Telemarketing Sales Rule, Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), Junk Fax Prevention Act, Controlling Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act (CAN-SPAM), Cable Communications Policy Act, Video Privacy Protection Act, Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA), California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), and California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA). With respect to laws affecting the ability of the government to obtain information, Sean can assist employers in understanding their obligations under the Federal Wiretap Act, Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), Right to Financial Privacy Act, Privacy Protection Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), and USA PATRIOT Act.

Before becoming an attorney, Sean earned his bachelor’s degree in accounting from the University of Southern California, where he also played varsity ice hockey in the ACHA. When not practicing law, Sean enjoys spending time with his wife and three young children, playing adult league ice hockey, mountain biking, and motorsports.