Sharing a Lunchroom Virus

ETHICAL EDUCATOR

Scenario: Two support staff in the district office discover an absent colleague had tested positive for the coronavirus. They learn on their own that the colleague e-mailed the diagnosis to a handful of immediate co-workers and his supervisor but were told the right to medical privacy would prevent supervisors from making the news available to them and a dozen other staff in the central office, many of whom share a kitchen for eating lunch. Should the supervisor be obligated to inform all employees about the positive test result?

Chris Nicastro:

The supervisor should have informed the employee with COVID that he or she had to report that another employee had tested positive. The supervisor should have informed the infected employee that it was in the public health interest of the entire staff to let them know they might have been exposed.

Further, the supervisor should ask the employee if he would share a list of other employees with whom he had contact during the previous 14 days. If the infected employee is willing to share, the supervisor should let each of these employees know they may have been exposed. Releasing the name of the infected employee is not necessary and should be avoided unless he grants permission to release his identity.

In this case, the identity of the employee with COVID can be protected but informing the rest of the staff is essential. COVID has created a number of legal issues, many of which have yet to be litigated. In the interim, school leaders would be well advised to take action based on the “common good,” that is, the interest of the majority of staff, while being sensitive and supportive to staff members infected. Most would contend that medical privacy law is not relevant in cases which cause potentially dangerous exposure for other employees.

Roark Horn:

It should not be the obligation of the supervisor to inform central-office staff about the positive test result. Policies and established procedures pertaining to medical privacy actually prevent the supervisor from doing so. The absent colleague, on his own, chose to contact a handful of his co-workers about the diagnosis. This indicates he only wanted select people to know. He and he alone is in charge of his own health information, and he obviously did not release the supervisor to tell anyone beyond those he informed.

Absent this permission, the supervisor would be violating the trust of the infected staff member who told her something in confidence. This could lead to a loss of faith by him and others in the supervisor’s ability to be trustworthy.

Sheldon Berman:

The supervisor needs to respect the absent colleague’s privacy and is correct in not sharing his medical data. The district should have an approved procedure for reaching out to individuals who were close contacts of any employee who has tested positive, based on the notification guidelines of the CDC and local board of health at the time of the potential exposure.

If these two support staff were considered close contacts of the absent colleague, either the supervisor or the individual designated to reach out to close contacts would have informed them. Because they were not notified, persons who share the kitchen can assume they were not exposed to the colleague at a level that places them in danger of infection. If any staff are still concerned, COVID tests should be available to determine whether they have contracted the virus.

Maria C. Ott:

The pandemic has tested workplace supervisors and colleagues in respecting the right to medical privacy for people in their organizations. This has been a double-edged sword. The supervisor must protect the health and welfare of employees by notifying them of a possible exposure while not identifying the individual who tested positive for coronavirus. 

This is challenging as the risks associated with contracting the virus can be life threatening to exposed individuals or their immediate family. On one side, we note the confidentiality of an individual’s medical status. On the other side, we must protect others and their loved ones. 

In this situation, the co-workers found out about the diagnosis through non-formal channels and are not entitled to confirmation of the name of the individual testing positive. Rumors identifying individuals infected with coronavirus are difficult to control in a work environment where everyone is on alert when someone is out ill. The best situation here is for the supervisor to notify individuals they may have been exposed in the lunchroom but to not identify the employee. It is only fair that exposed employees are warned to watch for symptoms and to take a COVID test if there is any indication they have become infected.

Violating an employee’s right to medical privacy can be serious if it affects their ability to return to work without any negative treatment by co-workers or future work-related consequences. Because the ill employee chose to share information with certain colleagues, the supervisor is placed in the position of managing rumor control while sharing the potential exposure of some employees to COVID. Truly a double-edged sword!

This scenario reminds leaders to clarify rules for information sharing and be transparent to the extent allowed legally. States have adopted policies for notifying employees when potential exposure to COVID-19 has occurred, including responsibility for communicating infections to the local health agency. When employees understand the rules, there is a greater likelihood they will respect the employer’s need to maintain confidentiality while still sharing information about a potential exposure.