Yesterday, OSHA issued guidance aimed at educating workers and employers on how to properly use face coverings at work during the COVID-19 pandemic. Structured as a series of frequently asked questions with answers, the guidance is the latest word from OSHA on measures workplaces can and should take to protect against the spread of COVID-19.

The FAQs begin with a description of the differences between cloth face coverings, surgical masks, and respirators. OSHA makes it clear that cloth face coverings are not considered PPE and will not protect the wearer from airborne infectious agents. Surgical masks may protect against splashes and sprays, and they may be considered PPE when used for that purpose. Respirators, which may be necessary to protect workers performing certain jobs, contain proper filtering material and must be properly fitted and used by the wearer.

Because cloth face coverings are not considered PPE, OSHA’s existing PPE standards do not require that employers provide them to workers. However, relying on CDC recommendations, “OSHA generally recommends that employers encourage workers to wear face coverings at work.” Cloth face coverings may be appropriate, depending on the work environment and particular job functions, and the use of cloth face coverings may conserve PPE, such as surgical masks, for healthcare settings in which they are needed the most.

There may be instances where cloth face coverings are not appropriate, however, such as when a job function might exacerbate the hazard (e.g., the face covering could become contaminated with chemicals or infectious material). In those cases, employers may need to consider PPE, such as surgical masks or face shields. Employers should also consider whether they need to provide masks with clear windows in cases where an employee or members of the public may need to lip-read to communicate.

OSHA makes it clear that face coverings do not eliminate the need for social distancing in the workplace.

Notably, the FAQs state that the General Duty Clause requires employers to furnish a workplace that is free from recognized hazardous that may cause death or serious physical harm. “Control measures may include a combination of engineering and administrative controls, safe work practices like social distancing, and PPE.”

Photo of Megan Baroni Megan Baroni

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an…

I am an environmental attorney in Robinson+Cole’s Environmental and Utilities Group. I have worked with manufacturers, both big and small, on environmental compliance, risk management, and litigation matters for my entire career. My full firm bio can be accessed here.

As an environmental lawyer, I never want to be a roadblock to our client’s goals. I strive to understand the business of our manufacturing clients – what do you make and how do you make it? I want to know your objective, and I want to help you get there. Regulatory requirements and potential legal liabilities can sometimes seem daunting, but I help our clients develop an understanding of the requirements and all of the potential options so that we can create practical and cost-effective solutions to accomplish the objective. I work with management as well as the people who make our clients’ products every day, and I enjoy every part of it. It’s a good day for me when I can put on my hard hat and walk the factory floor.