OSHA Issues Rule Based upon Biden Mandate

November 5, 2021
OSHA published its rule putting into effect President Biden’s mandate regarding worker vaccinations

Yesterday, November 4, 2021, OSHA published its rule putting into effect President Biden’s mandate regarding worker vaccinations. The OSHA rule provides some needed clarity for employers in terms of compliance.


The previously announced Biden mandate applies to employers of 100 or more employees, medical facilities that receive funding from Medicare or Medicaid, and federal contractors with a contract value over $250,000. However, the announcement did not address how the number of 100 employees would be calculated. While the OSHA rule clarifies multiple different scenarios of how to calculate the total number of employees (including whether to use independent contractors, or employees working remotely, or employees working in different locations), the rule makes clear that the number of employees is to be calculated using the number of employees as of the date the rule was published. The OSHA rule also clarifies that employers who had adopted a mandatory vaccine policy prior to the Biden mandate are in compliance, even if those policy contains exceptions for employees who are not vaccinated based upon religious grounds and disability/medical grounds.

The OSHA rule also states that covered employers who do not comply could face penalties of $14,000 per violation. Further, employers’ mandatory vaccination plan must be readily accessible to all employees. In addition, the OSHA rule mandates that employers have 30 days from the effective date of the rule to:


  • establish a vaccination policy;
  • determine vaccination status of employees and obtain proof,
  • ensure unvaccinated employees wear face masks at work and in company vehicles; and
  • provide employees information about workplace policies/procedures, and protections against retaliation and discrimination, and also information about laws with potential criminal penalties for supplying false information.


The Rule further clarifies that Employers will have 60 days from the date the rule becomes effective to ensure that unvaccinated employees test weekly.


The new OSHA rule will add a new wrinkle to the constantly fluid situation of compliance with government regulations based upon the COVID 19 pandemic. 


If you have any questions about the new OSHA rule, or any other aspect of employment law, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm.

The Royal Law Firm Attorneys Receive a Partial Dismissal in USDC MA Case.

By The Royal Law Firm • August 15, 2025
Royal attorneys successfully obtained a Partial Dismissal on a USDC MA case. The Plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of sex, pregnancy, parental leave, and retaliation. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed the 93A claims.

Client Update: Supreme Court Ends Nationwide Injunctions—What Employers Need to Know

July 25, 2025
On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. CASA that federal district courts cannot block executive orders for the entire country. The Court held that such broad injunctions exceed the authority Congress granted under the Judiciary Act of 1789. Courts may now only stop enforcement for the parties in the case—not for everyone else. What Happened in the Case President Trump issued Executive Order 14160 in early 2025. It denies birthright citizenship to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. Multiple lawsuits followed. Three federal courts blocked the order nationwide. The Supreme Court disagreed. It sent the case back and told the lower courts to revise the injunctions to cover only the named plaintiffs. The Court did not decide whether the order itself violates the Constitution. It ruled only on how far a court’s injunction can reach. Why It Matters to Employers The ruling affects how quickly and widely federal courts can stop controversial policies, especially during fast-changing political cycles. Employers have often relied on national injunctions to pause new mandates on wages, workplace safety, pay transparency, and non-compete agreements. This decision limits that option. The Court said nothing about injunctions under the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs agency rules. But the opinion raises doubts about whether even those can continue on a nationwide scale. Justice Kavanaugh suggested they might, but the Court left that question for another day. What This Means for You No nationwide protection unless you sue If your business is not part of the case, you likely cannot rely on someone else’s win. You must litigate directly to get relief. Rules may take effect in one state and not another A federal court in Texas may block a rule, while a court in New York upholds it. National companies may face conflicting rules and inconsistent enforcement. Trade groups cannot shield you Even if your industry association wins an injunction, it may apply only to their members or to the parties named in the lawsuit. Older rulings may now shrink Past national injunctions—on vaccine mandates, non-compete bans, overtime rules, or joint-employer standards—could be challenged or narrowed based on this ruling. More class actions are likely Some plaintiffs may now push for class certification to restore broader relief. Employers could face more complex litigation as a result. Next Steps for Employers Identify any current or past rules your business has relied on that are being blocked nationwide. Confirm whether you were covered by name or just assumed you were protected. Reassess your risk exposure for pending federal actions under OSHA, the EEOC, the DOL, or the NLRB. Monitor APA-based injunctions to see whether courts continue to grant broad relief under that statute. Consider joining strategic litigation early if new executive orders or agency rules would harm your operations. You cannot assume another company’s lawsuit will protect you. The Court narrowed that path. To block a federal mandate, you may now need to act alone—or join the fight directly. Michael P. Lewis is an attorney at The Royal Law Firm with experience advising clients through the litigation process. Michael helps employers resolve workplace challenges with focus, precision, and judgment. He counsels and defends businesses across Massachusetts and Connecticut, handling matters involving discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wage and hour claims, restrictive covenants, and breach of contract. His practice includes litigation in state and federal courts and before administrative agencies. If your business has any questions on this topic or any other matters, please do not hesitate to contact the attorneys at The Royal Law Firm at 413-586-2288.