Can an employer require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work? We have discussed it on our [public library system] member directors list but have not come up with a clear yes or no answer.
Here's something positive and affirming I can say: it's possible that the members expressing different opinions on the member directors' list are actually all correct.
That’s because, while I can't give one "clear yes or no answer" to this question, I can give five...five answers based on different scenarios about the facts "before an employee comes to work," including their symptoms, COVID exposure, and the safety measures needed to reduce the risk of COVID transmission in their workplace.
Here the five scenarios are:
Yes, an employer must (and therefore, can) require a COVID test before an employee returns to work, if an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19.
No, an employer does not have to, and has no basis to, require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if the employee is working 100% remotely at home or in a location not at all controlled or at the direction of the employer.
No, an employer may not require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, IF the employee has a medical basis to not be tested; without a negative test, however, if certain screening factors were tripped (such as those in item 2, above) the employer will have to enforce other prescribed measures to comply with state requirements and reduce the risk of transmission within the workplace, such as a mandatory quarantine.
Yes, an employer can require a negative COVID test before an employee comes to work, if an established safety plan based on applicable OHSA guidance and the employee's job duties warrant that level of caution.
I am not surprised you were unable to find a clear answer from a single reliable source, as these five scenario-based answers had to be cobbled together from two separate documents from the New York State Department of Health, which when combined, require employers to:
"Implement mandatory health screening assessment (e.g. questionnaire, temperature check) before employees begin work each day and for essential visitors, asking about (1) COVID-19 symptoms in past 14 days, (2) positive COVID-19 test in past 14 days, and/or (3) close contact with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 case in past 14 days. Assessment responses must be reviewed every day and such review must be documented."
"An individual who screens positive for COVID-19 symptoms must not be allowed to enter the office and must be sent home with instructions to contact their healthcare provider for assessment and testing." [emphasis added]
"If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, regardless of whether the employee is symptomatic or asymptomatic, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms or 10 days of isolation after the first positive test if they remain asymptomatic."
"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms."
"If an employee has had close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19 for a prolonged period of time AND is not experiencing COVID-19 related symptoms, the employee may return to work upon completing 14 days of self-quarantine."
"If an employee is symptomatic upon arrival at work or becomes sick with COVID-19 symptoms while at the workplace, absent close or proximate contact with a person with COVID-19, the employee must be separated and sent home immediately and may return to work upon completing at least 10 days of isolation from the onset of symptoms OR upon receipt of a negative COVID-19 test result." [emphasis added]."
And there you have it. I am not sure if this will make things clearer, but hopefully I have added some clarity to the uncertainty.
 In this case "work" means the "work site," as in an established office or location controlled by the employer where an employee will report to work, or a site they are directed to appear at. For this question, "work site" does not mean a home office or other space the employer does not control/send the employee to.
 I know I covered this in footnote #1, but it bears repeating: based on the published guidance, NY employers are required to conduct mandatory screenings to reduce the transmission of COVID in areas they are responsible for, and areas they serve as part of their work, but not an employee's home office. Requiring a test when there is no logical nexus between the employer's obligations and the request for medical information runs the risk of an ADA violation (not a slam-dunk risk, but enough of a risk to make it a bad idea).
 This answer is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act; if an employee has a disability that means they cannot medically tolerate a test (I have not heard of this, but I imagine it is possible), they will have to provide an alternate means of ensuring safety if such an accommodation is reasonable.
 This answer is based on the needs of work places with the highest levels of risk and risk management.
 "The New York State Department of Health considers a "close contact" to be "someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 10 minutes starting from 48 hours before illness onset until the time the person was isolated. The local health department should be contacted if the extent of contact between an individual and a person suspected or confirmed to have COVID-19 is unclear. "
The governor announced that the vaccine rollout to public employees would be through our unions and health groups, but also said that WE need to prioritize who receives the vaccine first (based upon risk factors/comorbidities) since the supply is limited (as the governor mentioned in Friday's press conference) --it will probably take a few months to vaccinate every staff member who wants one.
How can we organize our internal "prioritization?" Should we prioritize those with underlying health conditions, or use other criteria? What about HIPAA? I want to do this fairly, but I am also concerned about the ethics.
The member's caution shows how important it is to get this one right.
Before delving into it, I want to say: for public libraries with a union, this is one to confer with union leadership on.
For public libraries without a union, it will be good to think about not only your internal prioritization, but the messaging around it.
And for all libraries connecting their employees to vaccine, this is one to plan in careful coordination with a board committee, your lawyer, and your local health department.
With the right participants at the table and careful consideration of ethics and privacy, finding the right plan for you won't be easy, but you will get it right.
This question is about the "ethics and privacy" part of the process. For a public institution that will be part of this rollout, the State of New York's own ethical statement and guidelines for prioritization are a good place to start. Here they are:
New York State based its COVID-19 vaccine distribution and administration process on ten guiding principles.
Informed by these guiding principles, each library can consider its unique policies, Safety Plan, and if relevant, collective bargaining agreement (union contract), and confirm its own internal method of prioritizing.
While these variables will make each library's position unique, the best way to confirm and follow the method of prioritization they decide on is to:
1) Adopt a written policy;
2) Document that it is being followed consistently;
3) Notify the employees and the public as to how the process will be implemented.
Here are an "example policy" and "example notice" drawn from the State's approach:
[**START EXAMPLE POLICY**]
[NAME] Library Vaccine Distribution Policy [Employees Only]
In step with the method of prioritization being applied by the State of New York, [NAME] Library's COVID-19 vaccine employee distribution plan will be based on "levels" that prioritize people at higher risk of exposure, illness and/or poor outcome.
Definitions and Levels
"Higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome" means that a medical condition makes it potentially more likely the employee could become ill, or, if they do become ill, are statistically more likely to experience a poor outcome; such need shall be considered "Level 1(d)."
"Higher risk of exposure" means those who, working within the parameters of the Library's current safety plan, PPE requirements, and operations:
Procedure for 1(d) requests
Any Level 1(d) requests for vaccination shall be confidential. When supplies are available to the Library, employees who self-identify as at "higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome" may request COVID vaccination through the same confidential process used to request and arrange disability accommodations, with the understanding that during this time of extra burden on medical providers, documentation of the condition creating the need may be supplied after vaccination (please supply a note from your physician when you are able).
A request for vaccination may be considered separately or together with accommodations based on disability.
Any employee may request vaccination.
When supply and demand require prioritization, the order of priority shall be:
Levels 1 (any type): highest priority
Level 2 and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome: second highest priority
Level 2: third highest priority
Level 3 and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome: fourth highest priority
Level 3: fifth highest priority
All others: lowest level of priority
If further prioritization is required to prioritize between Level 1 employees, the order of priority shall be:
Level 1 (a/b)
Level 1 (any type) and with a member of their immediate household with higher risk of illness and/or poor outcome
If an employee is selected for vaccination through the library, the employee will be expected to follow all the rules and procedures for vaccination.
Employees not selected will be placed on a wait list in order of priority.
The Director, or their designee, shall be responsible for compliance with this policy.
[**END EXAMPLE POLICY**]
[**START EXAMPLE NOTICE**]
[NAME] Library Vaccine Opportunity Notice
The Library has been issued # doses of COVID-19 vaccine. We expect to be able to initiate vaccinations on DATE.
As determined by the attached policy, the Library will be offering vaccination through our allotment to as many employees as possible.
Vaccination is voluntary.
Please transmit your interest in being vaccinated and your assessment as to the level of priority you fall into (see the policy) to name@address by DATE.
For example: "I am voluntarily requesting vaccination through the library's allotted doses. I believe my priority level is "1."
Requests that include medical disclosures will be treated confidentially.
If the library is able to grant your request, we will send you information regarding next steps, and you will be expected to follow all the rules and procedures for vaccination. Employees not selected will be placed on a wait list in order of priority.
Supplies are limited. If you have the opportunity to be vaccinated through another supplier, we encourage you to do so. Employees may use up to a day of sick leave for each vaccination session. The library places the highest priority on the health of our employees.
[**END EXAMPLE NOTICE**]
Final notes from the lawyer:
These are early days for the vaccine and vaccination rollout. While being prepared with a policy is the right move, prior to announcing any prioritization, after adopting a policy, be ready to be flexible, since the situation is changing rapidly.
As with all major policies, this is one that ideally will be adopted via a vote by your board. Here is a sample resolution for you:
BE IT RESOLVED, that after due consideration of the "guiding principles" of the State of New York and the library's own code of ethics, that the Library adopt the attached "Library Vaccine Distribution Policy" and "Notice;" and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the [insert] committee shall work with the Director to monitor the need to revise this policy, based on any new guidance, knowledge, or operational needs.
I wish you good health, strength, and fortitude as we move into this next phase of overcoming the pandemic.
 This does not mean your library's (online) meetings about your rollout should have a cast of thousands—or even 5. A good approach is like a series of waves: a small core group of policy makers (director and one or two board members) reach out to the identified parties to alert them and get initial input, set a time to check in on a final draft, set a tight deadline for final input and final approval by the board. With the right planning, this can be done in 3-5 business days, and no one should be allowed to sandbag it.
 Care should be taken that any Level 1(d) designation is not set forth on a list that can be accessible per FOIL. Once created, a wait list should simply set forth the names or employee ID numbers in order of priority.
 Drafting note: for libraries that must follow the new sick leave law (Labor Law Section 196-b, effective in September 2020), time off for vaccination does qualify as sick leave. Libraries that regard themselves as being exempt government agencies, and thus not subject to 196-b, should check with their municipal attorney or HR professional to confirm if this meets the requirements for sick leave under municipal policies.
 While it is critical that a library board of trustees entrust the day-to-day management of the library to the director, policies are always ideally adopted at the level of highest accountability. This will also position a board to have a director's back if there is a legal or operational challenge to the vaccine distribution policy.
Can a public library compel staff members to get vaccinations for COVID-19, when they are available? If so, can an employee request an exemption? Do we need waivers of library liability if a staff member chooses not to get vaccinated?
This is an incredibly sensitive, important, and complex set of questions. I know a lot of people out there in "library land" are waiting on the answer—from many different perspectives.
So we're going to take it slow, break it down, and unpack the components of the answers one step at a time.
Step 1: Considering requiring immunization to COVID-19 as part of a library's evolving Safety Plan
As I have emphasized in numerous pandemic-related answers, any library operating in any capacity right now should have a trustee-approved Safety Plan tailored to its unique operations. The plan should evolve as new safety-related information emerges, and as library operations change.
As of this writing, some libraries are open to visit. Some are doing only curbside. Some are offering more remote programming. Some have used their information management and lending capacity to distribute PPE, food, and living supplies. Because of this diversity of service, they all should have different Safety Plans.
The Safety Plan of a library closed to the public for everything but curbside will be different from the Safety Plan of a library open for socially distant use of computers and lending. The Safety Plan of a library distributing fresh produce will be different from a library streaming programming from its community room to an audience within its area of service (and beyond). The Safety Plan of a library operating with ten on-site staff in December should be different from the one they used when there was only one employee on-site in June.
Just like the decision to use a particular mode of sanitization, as a library undertakes and changes its unique services, the decision to require immunization of employees should start with vaccination's role not as a stand-alone solution, but as part of an overall approach to limiting the impact of the pandemic on your library, its employees, and your community. Do the services your library needs to provide the community warrant immunization of employees? If so, keep reading.
Step 2: Wait, so does what you said in "Step 1" mean a public library can go ahead and require employees to be vaccinated?
I say "yes," because under the right conditions, the law does allow employers to impose conditions for safety, and that can include mandatory vaccination. However, I also say "NO," because the phrase "the right conditions" carries a lot of complexity for three little words. To be safe, the default assumption of a library should always be that it can't require immunization of its employees...and then work to find the way, if well-informed risk management and an updated Safety Plan warrants it, it can require immunizations (and just as critically, if it should).
Step 3: Assessing if a library can require vaccination of employees
Before a library gets too far into an internal debate about if it should amend its Safety Plan to require vaccination of employees, it should assess if it is in a position to do so. This means having an experienced HR administrator or attorney look at the organization's bylaws, policies, and employment relationships to see if there are any steps or bars to the requirement.
What could such a bar look like? The most common impediment a library will run into on this is an employment contract—either for individual employees, or with an entire employee union (a "collective bargaining agreement"). The bottom line on this type of impediment: if there is a contract in play, a library must be very tactical, collaborative, and strategic prior to creating—or even considering—immunization as an employment condition.
Another bar might be language in an employee handbook or a pre-pandemic policy. Still another might be that "gray area" when library employees are considered employees of a school district, village, or town.
The best overall guidance I can offer on this Step is: assessing if your library is positioned to require immunization is a critical step to using vaccination as a tool in your Safety Plan. Bring in a ringer to help your library assess the extent of what it can do.
Step 4: Assessing if a library should require vaccination of employees
Okay, let's say you consulted with the best employment lawyer in your village/town/district, they took a close look at whatever relevant contracts and policies your library has, and they have said: "No problem, you can require this."
The next important thing to consider is: should your library require this?
Compelled immunization is an incredibly sensitive area of policy and law. Since the time Ben Franklin started insisting on smallpox immunizations, this public health issue has had passionate rhetoric on both sides of the debate.
I have worked with families whose children have documented contraindications for certain vaccines, and it is not a simple issue. And right now, a public discussion is happening about why people who are African-American might not trust being offered a first round of vaccination. These are life-and-death issues.
That said, those on the front lines of public service, during a time of pandemic, are at higher risk of both getting infected, and spreading disease. Science shows vaccination will mitigate that risk. Thus, under the right circumstances, encouraging such employees to be vaccinated is the right thing to do, and in some cases, employers have made the decision that requiring vaccination is the right thing to do.
The consideration of this question is classic risk management. What critical services is your library providing to the community? What exposure to possible infection do those services create? Does social distancing, PPE, and sanitization mitigate those risks within acceptable tolerances, or would requiring vaccination of employees demonstrably make those employees and the community safer? Are there certain duties that merit requiring immunization, and other duties (jobs performed 100% remotely, for instance) that do not? And critical: is mass employee immunization in step with the approach of your local health department?
There is no cookie-cutter answer to these questions, but a responsible decision to require immunization of employees as part of a well-developed and evolving Safety Plan should answer them all.
Step 5: Developing a robust policy that includes consideration of civil rights, the ADA and privacy
So, let's say your library has followed Steps "1" through "4" and has decided it can, and should, update its Safety Plan to encourage or require immunization of employees.
The next step is developing a policy that:
I also suggest that the library strongly consider ensuring, well in advance, that: 1) the vaccine is available to employees, and 2) that employees don’t have to pay for it. This is because 1) once the library has identified that there are risks in its operations that would be best mitigated through immunization, those activities should be limited until the mitigation is in place, and 2) there can be legal complications if the vaccination requires personal expense. While this advance planning and cost containment is not precisely a legal compliance concern, they are close first cousins, and should be addressed as part of the Safety Plan.
Step 6: If a library decides to require immunization, develop a PR Plan (optional, but a very good idea)
I don't need to tell a library audience that what a public library does on this topic will be scrutinized, criticized, and eventually, also a model for the rest of your community. Since any decision on this point will have its critics, and also (hopefully) its fans, be ready to let your public know, simply and straightforwardly, the basis for your library's decision.
I like the classic "FAQ" approach. Here are two model FAQ's for two libraries that did the legal analysis and safety assessment, and come to the following decisions:
FAQ: I was told the library board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?
FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan. Now our Safety Plan does include supporting voluntary immunization of employees.
FAQ: Voluntary? So you are not requiring it?
FAQ ANSWER: Our risk analysis and still-limited operations showed that we could meet the community's needs by requiring masks, social distancing, and routine sanitization. We have now added supporting employees in getting vaccinated on a voluntary basis.
FAQ: Will you ever require it?
FAQ ANSWER: Only if our operations change and an updated risk analysis shows us that it is best for our employees and for the community.
Another "FAQ" example, for a library that came to a different conclusion, is:
FAQ: I was told the board is requiring all the employees to be vaccinated for COVID, is that true?
FAQ ANSWER: Since re-opening on DATE, the NAME Library has had a Safety Plan. Now our Safety Plan does include mandatory immunization of employees who are able to be vaccinated.
FAQ: Why is the library requiring employees to get vaccinated?
FAQ ANSWER: Feedback shows that the community needs us providing critical services right now. Our risk analysis showed that in addition to requiring masks, social distancing, and sanitizations, immunization by employees would protect their health, and the community's, while we provide those services.
FAQ: The vaccine is not 100% available yet. Did your employees have to do this on their own?
FAQ ANSWER: Our library worked with [INSTITUTION] to make sure our employees had access to this safety measure, without cost to them.
And that's it.
The important take-away I want to emphasize here is that for individual libraries, there are no quick answers to these questions.
Libraries of all types will be assessing their unique legal and risk positions, and will need to make carefully documented and executed decisions. Libraries within larger institutions may need to fight for consideration separate from other operations. Public libraries will need to consider the heightened transparency and public accountability they operate under. Library systems will be thinking about how they can protect their employees while also supporting their members. And for the employee on the ground, they'll be thinking about keeping themselves, their families, and their communities safe.
By taking careful, deliberate, and well-informed steps, the answers to the member's questions can be found.
Thank you for a vital question.
 December 18, 2020. For many of you, that means you've been shoveling lots of snow (we're looking at you, Binghamton).
 See the case Norman v. NYU Health Systems (2020) (SDNY), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 180990 *; 19 Accom. Disabilities Dec. (CCH) P19-109
 And in this case, I use "library" in its broadest sense: public, association, and even libraries operating as part of a larger institution (such as a college, hospital, or museum). School libraries, in particular, may both fall under the policies of the institution they are within, but might also have different operations, activities, and exposure that warrant independent risk analysis.
 I can't be more specific than that, since in some cases, there may be "emergency" management clauses that could easily allow the requirement of further safety measures, while in other cases, there could be language that makes it clear such a requirement will have to be a point of discussion. The important take-away here is: if there is a contract in play, don't wing it. Bring in your lawyer.
 The actual answer will of course be in writing and will likely be much more extensive than "No problem!" It should also be included in the records of library leadership to document the appropriate level of risk analysis.
 When I say "controversial," I mean legally. The science is solid: immunization saves lives.
 Ironically, Franklin's young son would die of smallpox before he could be immunized, in part because Franklin's wife Deborah was wary of the new treatment. Franklin was devastated by the loss of his small, precocious son, and some scholars say it caused a rift in his marriage that was never healed.
 If you know your history, you know these fears are based in reality. If you want to learn more, a good place to start is this New York Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/06/opinion/blacks-vaccinations-health.html?searchResultPosition=4
 Whenever possible, confirming Safety Plans, and significant revisions of Safety Plans, with the local health department is a very good idea.
 The ADA is a critical consideration here. A good place to start for further information on this is the EEOC, at https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws. However, this is just a starting place; as you can see by the linked guidance, this part of your policy cannot be a simple cut-and-paste job.
 I know, this sounds cold; and it is. Considering if a library is actually prepared to terminate employees for refusing to meet the requirements should be part of your library's analysis here, too...because once you develop the policy and start requiring it, granting exceptions without justification can create serious legal complications.
 The member asks about waivers for employees who decide not to be immunized. A waiver of liability should only be used if it is part of a well-developed Safety Plan, and customized for the purpose by an attorney.
 Although I just did. Ah, rhetoric.
 I could go on with a few more FAQ's to illustrate the diversity of approaches available (they are kind of fun to write), but I trust you get it.
The state's new paid sick leave law recently went into effect on September 30th. According to the state's website, eligibility requirements are as follows:
"All private-sector employees in New York State are covered, regardless of industry, occupation, part-time status, and overtime exempt status. Federal, state, and local government employees are NOT covered, but employees of charter schools, private schools, and not-for-profit corporations are covered."
As a school district public library, I'm curious to know if we fall into this local government category and so are not covered by the law. According to the state comptroller's table summary of local government entities [https://www.osc.state.ny.us/local-government/data/local-government-entities], public libraries are listed as "Miscellaneous Local Public Organizations".
However, in regards to page 33 of the State's Local Government handbook,
"Local government in New York State comprises counties, cities, towns and villages, which are corporate entities known as municipal corporations. These units of local government provide most local government services. Special purpose governmental units also furnish some basic services, such as sewer and water services. School districts, although defined as municipal corporations, are single-purpose units concerned basically with education in the primary and secondary grades. Fire districts, also considered local governments in New York State, are single-purpose units that provide fire protection in areas of towns. Fire districts are classified as district corporations. There are other governmental entities which have attributes of local governments but which are not local governments. These miscellaneous units or entities are generally special-purpose or administrative units normally providing a single service for a specific geographic area."
I wonder if a school district public library, such as ourselves, doesn't fall under this last category of governmental entity: one which has attributes of local governments but which is not a local government. If this is so, then this new law would seem to apply to us as well.
It's all a little confusing. Maybe you can help!
I wish I could reply to this excellent question with a plain "yes" or "no." But I cannot.
Why not? Because, while as the member points out, a public library's "type" is relevant to this question, what may also be relevant is how the employees are being paid. So answering this question requires a two-factor analysis:
Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency?"
Factor 2: are the employees of that library compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency?
If the answer to either question is "yes," Labor Law 196-b (which is the new "sick leave" law) doesn't apply. If the answer to both is "no," then it may be time for the non-exempt library to draft a new Sick Leave Policy.
Now let's talk about the factors in this "two-factor test."
Factor 1: Is the library in question considered a "type" of "governmental agency?
Most libraries in the state of New York are NOT "governmental agencies" as that term is used in Labor Law Article 6 .
Sure, the library has to account for taxpayer money as required by the "General Municipal Law." And yes, it is subject to parts of the "Public Officers Law." And yep—it may even have to disclose certain records under the Freedom of Information Law.
But none of that means they are performing a function of a "governmental agency" as defined under the Labor Law, which is where the new "sick leave" rules come from. Under the Labor Law, a public library is far more likely to be considered a not-for-profit education corporation required to offer sick leave (and provide Workers' Compensation Insurance, and follow the NY Minimum wage laws...), than an exempt entity like a school district.
Now that being said, even if a library is not a "governmental agency," they may also be exempt from 196-b if their employees are....
Factor 2: "Compensated as if they were employees of a governmental agency"
How can this type of "compensation" happen, if the library itself isn't a "governmental agency?"
In New York, many libraries use their sponsoring municipalities and sponsoring school districts as the "employer" of their employees—even though the library board retains the legal autonomy to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, or terminate the employees.
In this type of scenario, the library employees are a) paid directly by the municipality, b) are covered by the municipality's insurance, c) get the municipality's benefits, and (most tellingly) are d) eligible for "comp time" otherwise barred by rules requiring mandatory overtime. In short, under much of the Labor Law, they are treated as municipal/district employees.
So does my public library have to give employees sick leave under the new law, or what?
Sadly, there is no "bright-line" rule. But! I have created a handy "Library-Municipality Relationship Type" chart to help you figure it out if it's something your library needs to worry about:
Library-municipality Relationship Type
Legal impact with regard to employees and labor law
What this means with regard to the new "Sick Leave" law ("196-b").
1. "Total Coupling" Type
The library never separated any functions from the sponsoring entity; all finances, employee compensation, employee benefits, procurements, and property are owned/controlled by the municipal entity.
Ideally, the relationship is confirmed in writing.
In "total coupling," employees of the library, for Labor Law 196-b purposes, are considered municipal/district employees, even though the library board retains the authority to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, or terminate the employees.
Employees are totally covered by the policies and benefits of the municipality/district, including the sick leave policy, and 196-b does not apply.
2. "Select support: determinative" Type
The library has separated some functions from the sponsoring entity, but some functions determinative of legal status remain controlled by the municipal entity; for example, if a town still owns the library's building, or payroll and benefits are through a city.
Ideally, the relationship is confirmed in writing.
In a "Select support: determinative" scenario, if "employment" is a determinative factor, employees of the library are paid by the municipality/district, so for legal purposes the employees might be considered municipal employees, even though the board retains the authority to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, collectively bargain with, or terminate the employees, and even though the library has de-coupled from the entity in other ways.
IF employees are totally paid by and covered by the benefits of the municipality/district, including their sick leave policy, 196-b does not apply.
Otherwise, the library must develop a policy under Labor Law 196-b, OR consider itself a separate "governmental agency" to be exempt.
3. "Select support: non-determinative" Type
The library has separated from the sponsoring entity to the degree that any slight collaboration between the library and the municipality does not determine legal status. For example, the Town may plow the parking lot as a courtesy, but does not own the building, hold the money, or provide payroll/benefits.
Ideally, the relationship is confirmed in writing.
In a "Select support: non-determinative" scenario, the select support related to employees would not risk creating employer-employee status, or influence compensation and benefits, but could still be helpful assistance. For example: if library employees were allowed to attend town employee trainings and professional development to save money for the library.
Library employees are not paid through the town/district, so the library must develop a policy under Labor Law 196-b, OR consider itself a separate "governmental agency" exempt from the law (which should be confirmed by a lawyer in writing for that specific library).
4. "Totally De-coupled" Type
The library has completely separated functions from any sponsoring entity. The library owns the building, does all its own procurement and contracting, is the sole administrator of employee-related matters, and takes no extras or freebies from its municipalities/district.
No need to confirm the lack of relationship in writing, but you can exchange New Year's cards.
In a "total de-coupling," there is no select support related to employees. Librarians and municipal/district employees might say "hi," but they don't attend regular trainings or joint work sessions, and they are not in any way co-workers.
Library employees are not paid through the town/district, so the library must develop a policy under Labor Law 196-b, OR consider itself a separate "governmental agency" exempt from the law (which should be confirmed by a lawyer in writing for that specific library).
And there you have it. From what I have seen, every public library in New York State handles its coupling/de-coupling in a different way. Charter documents, bylaws, MOU's, and political/diplomatic relations can influence this just as much (if not more than) that law. If you know where your library stands, you can not only assess its obligations under the Labor Law, but many other critical compliance obligations, as well.
The bottom line here is: library employees shouldn't be left in a lurch, especially when it comes to sick leave, family medical leave, short-term disability, workers' compensation, and paid family medical leave—all of which are rooted in the question of "who" their employer is. This means library trustees should periodically confirm, with certainty and clarity, what policies apply to their workforce. Regardless of where a library falls on the above chart, this can be accomplished with a confirmed, clear set of policies.
As employment law gets more and more intricate, and as we continue to live with a pandemic, this need for clarity will only get more critical.
I want to say a big "THANK YOU" to Ben Gocker at Tupper Lake Public Library for submitting this excellent question and bearing with me while I talked through the answer with him. Like all librarians I get to work with on "Ask the Lawyer," Ben is a critical thinker who brought a lot of research and practical experience to his question. He also exhibited incredible patience as I tried to explain the mutable legal status of bodies defined by the Education Law, operating under the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law, subject to the General Municipal Law, living with the Civil Service law, and of debatable status under the Labor Law. Thanks again, Ben!
I hope this approach and chart come in handy for public libraries out there struggling with this question.
 I know this sounds like a re-hash of the member's point in the question, but in this case, I mean as that term is defined in Article 6 of the Labor Law, which is the section 196-b is part of.
 Section 190 of the Labor Law, whose definitions apply to 196-b, states: “Employer” includes any person, corporation, limited liability company, or association employing any individual in any occupation, industry, trade, business or service. The term “employer” shall not include a governmental agency."
 How this is accomplished will vary, BUT there should always be a written document that sets forth how it is accomplished, and what compensation structure, benefits, and laws apply to the employee. If there uncertainly about how an employee gets worker's comp, unemployment, or paid family leave, that is a sign the library and entity have to examine things a bit further.
 Or school district.
 Worker's compensation, unemployment, paid family leave, etc.
 "Comp time" is when employees can "bank" time off, rather than get paid time-and-a-half for overtime. Only municipalities who are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act can do that. For more on that, see "Ask the Lawyer" https://www.wnylrc.org/ask-the-lawyer/raqs/59.
 Except the Taylor Law.
 I can't emphasize this enough: even when this is the case, the library board retains the authority to hire, discipline, set compensation, promote, collectively bargain with, or terminate the employees.
 Just in case you read this and think "Oops—we may need to develop a policy!" A good breakdown and resources for compliance can be found at https://www.ny.gov/programs/new-york-paid-sick-leave.
 That said, this chart only considers the application of Labor Law 196-b. If it tackled everything, it would be...very, very long. For a good case that shows how tricky these “what is a library” issues can be when it comes to employment, check out this case.
 It will vary from place to place, but for public libraries, your civil service rep should be a great resource for this.
 And another big thank-you for agreeing to be publicly thanked.