Lawyers see limited legal options for workers sent in Zika's way(Reuters) - Employees of U.S. companies seeking to avoid exposure to the Zika virus likely have few legal avenues to either refuse travel to affected areas or sue if they actually become sick from the virus. But it may be a different story if such workers subsequently give birth to Zika-infected babies. Since Zika was detected in Brazil last year, the mosquito-borne virus has spread to 33 countries, most of them in the Americas.  The World Health Organization declared an international health emergency because of strong suspicions that infections in pregnant women may cause microcephaly, a condition in which infants are born with abnormally small heads and can suffer developmental problems.     While the virus had typically caused mild symptoms in adults, it also has been linked to an autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome that can cause paralysis. U.S. and world health authorities are not currently warning against all travel to affected areas, as they did with the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. They are, however, advising pregnant women to consider postponing travel, and all travelers to take precautions to avoid mosquito bites.    Adherence to the recommendations of the U.S. Department of State or the World Health Organization would shield companies to a large degree from claims they acted recklessly in sending employees into Zika-affected areas, lawyers who typically represent employers say.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further recommends that travelers wear insect repellent and sleep with mosquito nets in places where they might be bitten, among other measures.     “Your defense to any sort of claim is that you follow the public health guidance,” said Mark Lies, a lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which specializes in advising companies on employment issues.     Such advisories also mean workers probably would not be protected from termination if they refuse to go to an affected area, lawyers said. While the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act gives workers the right to refuse dangerous tasks, those tasks must pose an immediate risk of death or serious injury. Something like working with a “defective tool that has electrical sparks coming out of it” would meet that standard, said Ben Huggett of Littler, another employment law firm. Traveling to a Zika-affected area, on the other hand, would probably not, he said. Lies said upgraded warnings in the event Zika proves more lethal or virulent could give workers more of a right to refuse travel. But he said OSHA affords no special protection for pregnant women under current threat levels. The law governs only the safety of employees, not any unborn children they may be carrying.     If employees contract Zika while traveling on the job, any immediate harm they suffer would be covered by worker’s compensation insurance, a form of no-fault insurance that applies to injuries suffered on the job. Virtually all states require employers to obtain worker’s compensation insurance and mandate that it be the sole remedy for workplace injuries. Worker’s compensation covers lost wages and medical care but awards are typically smaller than private lawsuits, which can seek to recover damages for pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages for negligence.   Whether worker’s compensation would cover any purported Zika-related injuries in an employee’s baby is less clear. Huggett said that a fetal injury might be covered as being derivative of the mother’s injury. Huggett said he was unaware of any case that directly addressed worker’s compensation for a fetus harmed by an infectious disease.    “It’s really an open question,” he said.     Lies said he did not believe worker’s compensation would generally cover injury to a fetus but thought it could open the door for an employee to bring a lawsuit against her employer for negligence.     “If someone is pregnant, or trying to get pregnant, or could get pregnant, you could have a case,” said Katherine Dudley Helms, a lawyer with employment law firm Ogletree Deakins.     Many states limit worker’s compensation to several years’ pay, while a damage award for a severely impaired child could reach tens of millions of dollars, according to Michael Jones, an employment lawyer with Reed Smith. Michael Gerson of California firm Boxer & Gerson, who brings claims on behalf of employees, said such a case would still be a challenge if the company followed official warnings. The evidence would have to show “that the mother was never given adequate warning to protect herself as she was going into this type of environment,” he said. But Jones said such cases would be tough for the employer too. “I would be concerned if I sent an employee to a high risk region,” he said. “If that claim gets in front of a jury, you’re going to be looking at a very sympathetic plaintiff.” Reuters reported last week that several international airlines are allowing flight crew members who are or may become pregnant to request reassignment to routes that avoid Zika-affected areas.  A spokeswoman for one of the airlines, American(AAL.O), declined to comment on possible legal liability requiring such travel could have created, saying the company’s policy was motivated by concern for employees’ well-being. United(UAL.N) and Delta(DAL.N), which have also offered to reassign their employees, could not immediately be reached.     politicsNews
lawyers see limited legal options workers sent nika way reuters employees companies seeking avoid exposure nika virus likely legal avenues either refuse travel affected areas sue actually become sick virus but may different story workers subsequently give birth babies since nika detected brazil last year virus spread countries americas the world health organization declared international health emergency strong suspicions infections pregnant women may cause microcephaly condition infants born abnormally small heads suffer developmental problems while virus typically caused mild symptoms adults also linked autoimmune disorder called syndrome cause paralysis world health authorities currently warning travel affected areas ebola outbreak west africa they however advising pregnant women consider positioning travel travelers take precautions avoid mosquito bites adherence recommendations department state world health organization would shield companies large degree claims acted reckless sending employees areas lawyers typically represent employers say the centers disease control prevention cdc recommends travelers wear insect repelled sleep mosquito nets places might bitten among measures your defense sort claim follow public health guidance said mark lies lawyer firm seyfarth shaw specializes advising companies employment issues such advisories also mean workers probably would protected termination refuse go affected area lawyers said while federal occupational safety health act gives workers right refuse dangerous tasks tasks must pose immediate risk death serious injury something like working defective tool electrical sparks coming would meet standard said ben suggest little another employment law firm traveling area hand would probably said lies said upgraded warnings event nika proves lethal virulent could give workers right refuse travel but said sha affords special protection pregnant women current threat levels the law governs safety employees unborn children may carrying if employees contract nika traveling job immediate harm suffer would covered worker compensation insurance form insurance applies injuries suffered job virtually states require employers obtain worker compensation insurance mandate sole remedy workplace injuries worker compensation covers lost wages medical care awards typically smaller private lawsuits seek recover damages pain suffering well punitive damages negligence whether worker compensation would cover purported injuries employee baby less clear suggest said fetal injury might covered derivative mother injury suggest said unaware case directly addressed worker compensation fetus harmed infectious disease it really open question said lies said believe worker compensation would generally cover injury fetus thought could open door employee bring lawsuit employer negligence if someone pregnant trying get pregnant could get pregnant could case said katherine medley helps lawyer employment law firm ogletree dealing many states limit worker compensation several years pay damage award severely impaired child could reach tens millions dollars according michael jones employment lawyer reed smith michael person california firm boxer person brings claims behalf employees said case would still challenge company followed official warnings the evidence would show mother never given adequate warning protect going type environment said but jones said cases would tough employer i would concerned i sent employee high risk region said if claim gets front jury going looking sympathetic reuters reported last week several international airlines allowing flight crew members may become pregnant request reassignment routes avoid areas a spokeswoman one airlines american declined comment possible legal liability requiring travel could created saying company policy motivated concern employees united delta also offered resign employees could immediately reached politicsnews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: Lawyers see limited legal options for workers sent in Zika's way(Reuters) - Employees of U.S. companies seeking to avoid exposure to the Zika virus likely have few legal avenues to either refuse travel to affected areas or sue if they actually become sick from the virus. But it may be a different story if such workers subsequently give birth to Zika-infected babies. Since Zika was detected in Brazil last year, the mosquito-borne virus has spread to 33 countries, most of them in the Americas.  The World Health Organization declared an international health emergency because of strong suspicions that infections in pregnant women may cause microcephaly, a condition in which infants are born with abnormally small heads and can suffer developmental problems.     While the virus had typically caused mild symptoms in adults, it also has been linked to an autoimmune disorder called Guillain-Barre syndrome that can cause paralysis. U.S. and world health authorities are not currently warning against all travel to affected areas, as they did with the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. They are, however, advising pregnant women to consider postponing travel, and all travelers to take precautions to avoid mosquito bites.    Adherence to the recommendations of the U.S. Department of State or the World Health Organization would shield companies to a large degree from claims they acted recklessly in sending employees into Zika-affected areas, lawyers who typically represent employers say.  The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) further recommends that travelers wear insect repellent and sleep with mosquito nets in places where they might be bitten, among other measures.     “Your defense to any sort of claim is that you follow the public health guidance,” said Mark Lies, a lawyer with the firm Seyfarth Shaw, which specializes in advising companies on employment issues.     Such advisories also mean workers probably would not be protected from termination if they refuse to go to an affected area, lawyers said. While the federal Occupational Safety and Health Act gives workers the right to refuse dangerous tasks, those tasks must pose an immediate risk of death or serious injury. Something like working with a “defective tool that has electrical sparks coming out of it” would meet that standard, said Ben Huggett of Littler, another employment law firm. Traveling to a Zika-affected area, on the other hand, would probably not, he said. Lies said upgraded warnings in the event Zika proves more lethal or virulent could give workers more of a right to refuse travel. But he said OSHA affords no special protection for pregnant women under current threat levels. The law governs only the safety of employees, not any unborn children they may be carrying.     If employees contract Zika while traveling on the job, any immediate harm they suffer would be covered by worker’s compensation insurance, a form of no-fault insurance that applies to injuries suffered on the job. Virtually all states require employers to obtain worker’s compensation insurance and mandate that it be the sole remedy for workplace injuries. Worker’s compensation covers lost wages and medical care but awards are typically smaller than private lawsuits, which can seek to recover damages for pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages for negligence.   Whether worker’s compensation would cover any purported Zika-related injuries in an employee’s baby is less clear. Huggett said that a fetal injury might be covered as being derivative of the mother’s injury. Huggett said he was unaware of any case that directly addressed worker’s compensation for a fetus harmed by an infectious disease.    “It’s really an open question,” he said.     Lies said he did not believe worker’s compensation would generally cover injury to a fetus but thought it could open the door for an employee to bring a lawsuit against her employer for negligence.     “If someone is pregnant, or trying to get pregnant, or could get pregnant, you could have a case,” said Katherine Dudley Helms, a lawyer with employment law firm Ogletree Deakins.     Many states limit worker’s compensation to several years’ pay, while a damage award for a severely impaired child could reach tens of millions of dollars, according to Michael Jones, an employment lawyer with Reed Smith. Michael Gerson of California firm Boxer & Gerson, who brings claims on behalf of employees, said such a case would still be a challenge if the company followed official warnings. The evidence would have to show “that the mother was never given adequate warning to protect herself as she was going into this type of environment,” he said. But Jones said such cases would be tough for the employer too. “I would be concerned if I sent an employee to a high risk region,” he said. “If that claim gets in front of a jury, you’re going to be looking at a very sympathetic plaintiff.” Reuters reported last week that several international airlines are allowing flight crew members who are or may become pregnant to request reassignment to routes that avoid Zika-affected areas.  A spokeswoman for one of the airlines, American(AAL.O), declined to comment on possible legal liability requiring such travel could have created, saying the company’s policy was motivated by concern for employees’ well-being. United(UAL.N) and Delta(DAL.N), which have also offered to reassign their employees, could not immediately be reached.     politicsNews
Your task is to classify the provided input as real or fake news. Label 0 is meant for fake news, Label 1 is for real news. TEXT: lawyers see limited legal options workers sent nika way reuters employees companies seeking avoid exposure nika virus likely legal avenues either refuse travel affected areas sue actually become sick virus but may different story workers subsequently give birth babies since nika detected brazil last year virus spread countries americas the world health organization declared international health emergency strong suspicions infections pregnant women may cause microcephaly condition infants born abnormally small heads suffer developmental problems while virus typically caused mild symptoms adults also linked autoimmune disorder called syndrome cause paralysis world health authorities currently warning travel affected areas ebola outbreak west africa they however advising pregnant women consider positioning travel travelers take precautions avoid mosquito bites adherence recommendations department state world health organization would shield companies large degree claims acted reckless sending employees areas lawyers typically represent employers say the centers disease control prevention cdc recommends travelers wear insect repelled sleep mosquito nets places might bitten among measures your defense sort claim follow public health guidance said mark lies lawyer firm seyfarth shaw specializes advising companies employment issues such advisories also mean workers probably would protected termination refuse go affected area lawyers said while federal occupational safety health act gives workers right refuse dangerous tasks tasks must pose immediate risk death serious injury something like working defective tool electrical sparks coming would meet standard said ben suggest little another employment law firm traveling area hand would probably said lies said upgraded warnings event nika proves lethal virulent could give workers right refuse travel but said sha affords special protection pregnant women current threat levels the law governs safety employees unborn children may carrying if employees contract nika traveling job immediate harm suffer would covered worker compensation insurance form insurance applies injuries suffered job virtually states require employers obtain worker compensation insurance mandate sole remedy workplace injuries worker compensation covers lost wages medical care awards typically smaller private lawsuits seek recover damages pain suffering well punitive damages negligence whether worker compensation would cover purported injuries employee baby less clear suggest said fetal injury might covered derivative mother injury suggest said unaware case directly addressed worker compensation fetus harmed infectious disease it really open question said lies said believe worker compensation would generally cover injury fetus thought could open door employee bring lawsuit employer negligence if someone pregnant trying get pregnant could get pregnant could case said katherine medley helps lawyer employment law firm ogletree dealing many states limit worker compensation several years pay damage award severely impaired child could reach tens millions dollars according michael jones employment lawyer reed smith michael person california firm boxer person brings claims behalf employees said case would still challenge company followed official warnings the evidence would show mother never given adequate warning protect going type environment said but jones said cases would tough employer i would concerned i sent employee high risk region said if claim gets front jury going looking sympathetic reuters reported last week several international airlines allowing flight crew members may become pregnant request reassignment routes avoid areas a spokeswoman one airlines american declined comment possible legal liability requiring travel could created saying company policy motivated concern employees united delta also offered resign employees could immediately reached politicsnews