The legality of workplace mask mandates and an employer’s ability to terminate employment based on mask-wearing is complex and depends heavily on several factors. These factors include applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, the presence of any specific workplace safety guidelines, and whether the employee has a legitimate medical reason or sincerely held religious belief that prevents them from wearing a mask. For example, during a public health emergency with official mask mandates in place, employer requirements for masking might be legally protected. Conversely, in the absence of such mandates, an employer’s policy could be challenged depending on the specific circumstances and jurisdiction.
Understanding the interplay of these legal and regulatory frameworks is crucial for both employers and employees to ensure a safe and compliant work environment. Historically, workplace safety regulations have evolved alongside public health crises and scientific understanding. This area of law is constantly developing, reflecting changing societal values and legal interpretations regarding individual rights versus collective well-being within the workplace. Clarifying the permissible boundaries of employer policies regarding personal protective equipment like masks helps maintain a balance between worker safety and individual liberties.
This article will further explore the legal landscape surrounding workplace mask policies. Topics covered will include relevant legal precedents, the role of regulatory bodies like OSHA, and the potential legal recourse available to both employers and employees in disputes related to mask-wearing in the workplace.
1. Company Policy
Company policy plays a crucial role in determining the legality of terminating employment for mask-wearing. A clearly written and disseminated policy outlining expectations regarding masks in the workplace is essential. Such a policy provides a framework for enforcement and helps avoid potential legal challenges. For instance, a company operating in a state without a mask mandate might implement a policy requiring masks in common areas. This policy, if consistently enforced, could protect the employer from wrongful termination claims related to mask-wearing. Conversely, a vaguely worded or inconsistently applied policy could leave an employer vulnerable to legal action. A companys policy must align with applicable federal, state, and local laws. Even with a seemingly sound policy, legal challenges could arise if it contradicts prevailing legislation.
Several real-world scenarios highlight the importance of well-defined company policies. A company requiring masks might face a lawsuit if it fires an employee who presents a valid medical exemption without exploring reasonable accommodations. Conversely, an employee dismissed for refusing to wear a mask in accordance with company policy might have limited legal recourse, particularly in the absence of a medical or religious exemption. Companies operating across multiple jurisdictions must navigate varying legal landscapes and adjust their policies accordingly to maintain compliance and minimize legal risk. Furthermore, employers must ensure their policies are consistently applied to all employees to avoid claims of discrimination.
In summary, a comprehensive and clearly communicated company policy regarding mask-wearing is critical for mitigating legal risk and maintaining a safe and compliant work environment. This policy must consider applicable laws, provide for reasonable accommodations, and be enforced consistently. Failure to address these elements can expose employers to legal challenges and create uncertainty for employees. Understanding the intricacies of company policy development and implementation within the context of evolving health and safety regulations is essential for both employers and employees.
2. Public Health Mandates
Public health mandates, particularly those related to mask-wearing, significantly influence the legality of employment termination decisions. These mandates, often issued during public health emergencies, create a complex interplay between individual rights, employer responsibilities, and governmental authority. Understanding this interplay is crucial for navigating the legal landscape surrounding mask-wearing in the workplace.
-
Emergency Powers and Employer Compliance
Governmental bodies possess emergency powers to issue public health mandates, including mask requirements, to protect public health. Employers generally must comply with these mandates, which may supersede existing company policies. For example, a state mandate requiring masks in all indoor public spaces would generally apply to businesses operating within that state, regardless of internal company policies. Failure to comply with such mandates can result in penalties for employers, including fines or legal action. Conversely, adhering to mandates can provide legal justification for employer actions, such as requiring employees to wear masks.
-
Preemption and Conflicts between Jurisdictions
Legal questions may arise regarding whether state or local mandates preempt federal guidelines or vice versa. Conflicting mandates across different jurisdictions can create challenges for businesses operating in multiple locations. For example, a company with offices in states with differing mask mandates must navigate these discrepancies, ensuring compliance with each jurisdictions specific requirements. These jurisdictional differences underscore the complexity of legal compliance regarding mask mandates.
-
Duration and Scope of Mandates
Public health mandates are typically temporary, linked to specific health crises. The duration and specific requirements of a mandate can vary significantly, impacting employer obligations. A mandate might be in effect for a defined period, subject to renewal or termination based on evolving public health conditions. The scope of a mandate can also vary, applying to specific settings, such as healthcare facilities, or encompassing broader public spaces. Employers must remain informed about the current status and specifics of any applicable mandates to maintain compliance.
-
Enforcement and Legal Challenges
Enforcement of public health mandates varies, with mechanisms ranging from public awareness campaigns to legal penalties. Legal challenges to mandates are possible, often centered on arguments regarding governmental overreach or individual liberties. Court decisions regarding these challenges further shape the legal landscape and can influence employer actions related to mask-wearing. Staying abreast of legal developments and court rulings is critical for employers seeking to maintain compliance and avoid potential legal disputes.
In conclusion, public health mandates create a dynamic legal environment for employers. Understanding the legal basis, scope, and enforcement of these mandates is critical for developing and implementing compliant workplace policies. Navigating the interplay between mandates, company policies, and individual rights requires careful consideration and awareness of evolving legal interpretations and potential challenges. The implications for “can an employer fire you for wearing a mask” are directly tied to the prevailing public health mandates and their interaction with other legal considerations.
3. Workplace Safety
Workplace safety is intrinsically linked to the question of employer-mandated mask-wearing and potential termination for non-compliance. The core principle underlying workplace safety regulations is the employer’s duty to provide a safe working environment. This duty extends to protecting employees from recognized hazards, including airborne illnesses. Whether mask-wearing constitutes a necessary safety measure depends on a variety of factors, including the nature of the workplace, the prevalence of transmissible illnesses within the community, and specific job duties. A manufacturing facility with close-proximity work might require masks to mitigate risk, whereas an office with individual workstations may not. This nuanced assessment requires careful consideration of industry-specific guidelines and potential hazards.
Real-life examples illustrate the practical significance of this connection. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers implemented mask mandates to protect employees from infection. These mandates were often supported by public health guidance and, in some cases, legal requirements. Challenges arose when employees refused to comply with mandates, citing personal beliefs or medical exemptions. Legal disputes emerged, testing the balance between employer obligations to maintain a safe workplace and employee rights. These cases highlight the complexity of balancing individual liberties with collective safety concerns in the workplace. The evolving nature of workplace hazards, such as emerging infectious diseases, necessitates continuous evaluation and adaptation of safety measures, including mask policies.
In summary, workplace safety is a critical component when analyzing the legality and ethics of employer decisions regarding mask-wearing and subsequent employment actions. Understanding the specific hazards present in a given work environment is essential for developing and implementing appropriate safety protocols. A balanced approach, considering both employer responsibilities and employee rights, is crucial for navigating the legal and ethical complexities of workplace safety in the context of evolving public health concerns. Ignoring the connection between workplace safety and mask-wearing can lead to legal challenges, negative publicity, and a potentially unsafe work environment. Proactive engagement with workplace safety guidelines and open communication between employers and employees are vital for maintaining a safe and productive work environment.
4. Reasonable Accommodations
Reasonable accommodations play a pivotal role in navigating the complexities of mask-wearing policies in the workplace. This legal concept requires employers to make adjustments to workplace rules or practices to enable employees with disabilities or sincerely held religious beliefs to perform essential job functions. Understanding the scope and limitations of reasonable accommodations is crucial when considering the legality of employment termination related to mask-wearing.
-
Disability-Related Accommodations
Employees with disabilities that prevent them from wearing a mask may be entitled to reasonable accommodations. These accommodations could include modified job duties, remote work options, or alternative protective measures, such as face shields or physical barriers. For example, an employee with a respiratory condition aggravated by mask-wearing might be accommodated through remote work arrangements. The specific accommodation must be tailored to the individual’s needs and limitations while ensuring workplace safety and maintaining job performance expectations. Determining what constitutes a “reasonable” accommodation often requires engaging in an interactive process between the employer and employee.
-
Religious Accommodations
Employees with sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit mask-wearing may also request reasonable accommodations. Similar to disability-related accommodations, these might involve alternative protective measures, modified work arrangements, or adjusted job duties. An employee whose religious beliefs preclude covering their face might be accommodated through remote work or assigned tasks that minimize interaction with others. Employers must assess the sincerity of the religious belief and explore accommodations that respect both the employee’s religious freedom and the safety of the workplace. Undue hardship on the employer’s operations is a factor that can limit the obligation to accommodate.
-
Interactive Process and Undue Hardship
Both disability-related and religious accommodations necessitate an interactive process between the employer and employee. This process involves open communication and collaborative problem-solving to identify effective accommodations. Employers are not obligated to provide accommodations that create undue hardship, meaning significant difficulty or expense. Factors considered in assessing undue hardship include the nature and cost of the accommodation, the employer’s financial resources, and the impact on business operations. A small business might face undue hardship in accommodating a request for extensive workplace modifications, whereas a larger corporation might have greater flexibility.
-
Documentation and Legal Considerations
Proper documentation is essential for both employers and employees involved in accommodation requests. Employers should document the interactive process, including proposed accommodations and reasons for denial if applicable. Employees should provide supporting documentation for disability-related requests, such as medical certifications. Legal counsel can provide guidance throughout this process to ensure compliance with relevant laws and regulations. Failure to engage in the interactive process or provide reasonable accommodations can expose employers to legal challenges, while misrepresenting a disability or religious belief can jeopardize an employee’s request.
In conclusion, reasonable accommodations are a critical consideration in the context of mask-wearing policies and potential employment termination. Balancing the need for workplace safety with the legal obligation to provide reasonable accommodations requires careful analysis of individual circumstances and applicable laws. The interactive process, the concept of undue hardship, and meticulous documentation are key elements in navigating these complex situations. Understanding these facets is essential for both employers and employees seeking to create a safe, inclusive, and legally compliant work environment. Failure to address reasonable accommodations adequately can lead to legal disputes and undermine the goal of fostering a respectful and productive workplace.
5. Religious Exemptions
Religious exemptions to workplace policies, including those related to mask-wearing, present a complex legal landscape for both employers and employees. These exemptions are rooted in legal protections for religious freedom, requiring employers to accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so poses an undue hardship. Navigating the intersection of religious freedom, workplace safety, and public health considerations requires careful analysis and understanding of applicable legal standards.
-
Sincerely Held Beliefs
A key element of a religious exemption claim is the sincerity of the belief. Employers are entitled to inquire into the sincerity of an employee’s belief, but must do so respectfully and avoid discriminatory practices. Objective evidence, such as the employee’s prior religious practices or statements, may be considered. A sudden change in religious practice coincident with a mask mandate might raise questions about sincerity, whereas a long-standing and demonstrable adherence to a particular faith tradition strengthens the claim. Disputes over the sincerity of religious beliefs often involve challenging legal and ethical considerations.
-
Undue Hardship and Workplace Safety
Employers are not obligated to grant religious exemptions if doing so creates an undue hardship. This hardship can involve factors such as significant expense, disruption of workplace operations, or compromise of workplace safety. In a healthcare setting, for example, exempting an employee from wearing a mask might pose a direct threat to patient safety, justifying denial of the exemption. Balancing the protection of religious freedom with the need to maintain a safe work environment requires careful consideration of the specific circumstances and potential risks. This balancing act is further complicated by evolving public health guidance and the presence of other vulnerable individuals in the workplace.
-
Accommodation Efforts and Alternatives
Even if a religious exemption cannot be fully granted, employers are obligated to explore reasonable accommodations. These accommodations might include alternative protective measures, modified job duties, or remote work options. For example, an employee who objects to wearing a standard mask might be offered a face shield or allowed to work in a less densely populated area. The goal is to find a solution that respects the employee’s religious beliefs while minimizing any negative impact on workplace safety and operations. The interactive process between employer and employee is critical for identifying effective and mutually agreeable accommodations.
-
Legal Precedents and Evolving Standards
Legal precedents and evolving legal standards shape the interpretation and application of religious exemptions in the workplace. Court decisions and regulatory guidance from agencies like the EEOC provide a framework for evaluating exemption requests and determining what constitutes undue hardship. Staying abreast of these developments is crucial for both employers and employees navigating the complexities of religious accommodations. The legal landscape is dynamic, and awareness of current legal interpretations is essential for ensuring compliance and protecting individual rights.
In summary, navigating religious exemptions in the context of mask-wearing policies requires a nuanced understanding of legal principles, workplace safety considerations, and the importance of respectful communication. The sincerity of religious beliefs, the potential for undue hardship, the exploration of reasonable accommodations, and awareness of evolving legal standards are all crucial elements. The specific answer to “can an employer fire you for wearing a mask?” in cases involving religious exemptions hinges on a careful analysis of these factors and a commitment to finding solutions that respect both religious freedom and workplace safety.
6. Medical Exemptions
Medical exemptions represent a critical intersection between workplace safety policies, employee rights, and the legal landscape surrounding mask mandates. A medical exemption acknowledges that certain individuals may have legitimate health conditions that preclude mask-wearing. These conditions can range from respiratory illnesses exacerbated by masks to sensory sensitivities or cognitive impairments that make mask-wearing impractical or harmful. The presence of a valid medical exemption significantly alters an employer’s ability to enforce mask policies and potentially terminate employment for non-compliance. Understanding the legal and practical implications of medical exemptions is essential for navigating workplace mask requirements.
Several real-world scenarios highlight the importance of medical exemptions. An individual with severe asthma might experience breathing difficulties when wearing a mask, necessitating an exemption. Similarly, someone with a sensory processing disorder might find the tactile sensation of a mask unbearable, requiring alternative accommodations. In such cases, employers must engage in an interactive process with the employee to explore reasonable accommodations. These accommodations could include remote work options, modified job duties, or alternative protective measures, such as face shields or physical barriers. Failing to consider and accommodate valid medical exemptions can expose employers to legal challenges based on disability discrimination laws. Furthermore, ignoring medical exemptions can create an unsafe and exclusionary work environment, negatively impacting employee morale and productivity.
Navigating medical exemptions requires a balanced approach that respects both employee health needs and workplace safety. Employers must rely on objective medical documentation to substantiate exemption requests. Simply stating a medical condition without supporting evidence is insufficient. Furthermore, employers should consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with disability laws and avoid potential legal pitfalls. Employees seeking medical exemptions must provide adequate documentation from qualified medical professionals, outlining the specific reasons why mask-wearing is contraindicated. Open communication and a collaborative approach between employers and employees are essential for finding solutions that address both individual health concerns and collective workplace safety. Medical exemptions represent a complex interplay of legal, ethical, and practical considerations, and a clear understanding of these dynamics is crucial for fostering a safe, inclusive, and legally compliant work environment. Failing to address medical exemptions appropriately can create legal liabilities, damage employee trust, and undermine efforts to maintain a healthy and productive workplace.
7. Retaliation Concerns
Retaliation concerns are central to the discussion of mask-wearing in the workplace and the potential for unjust termination. Employees who raise concerns about mask policies, request accommodations, or report unsafe working conditions related to mask-wearing are legally protected from retaliatory actions by their employers. Understanding these protections and the potential forms retaliation can take is crucial for both employees and employers.
-
Protected Activities
Several employee activities related to mask-wearing are legally protected against retaliation. These include raising concerns about the enforcement of mask policies, requesting reasonable accommodations due to medical conditions or religious beliefs, and reporting perceived violations of health and safety regulations related to mask-wearing. For instance, an employee who reports a coworker for consistently failing to wear a mask in accordance with company policy is engaging in a protected activity. Similarly, an employee who requests a religious exemption from a mask mandate is exercising a protected right. Retaliation against employees for engaging in these protected activities is illegal.
-
Forms of Retaliation
Retaliation can manifest in various forms, both overt and subtle. Obvious examples include termination, demotion, or reduction in pay. However, retaliation can also take more insidious forms, such as increased scrutiny of work performance, negative performance reviews, exclusion from meetings or training opportunities, or a hostile work environment. Creating a hostile work environment for an employee who requested a mask accommodation, for example, constitutes illegal retaliation, even if the employee’s job title or salary remains unchanged. Recognizing the diverse forms retaliation can take is critical for identifying and addressing such behavior.
-
Legal Recourse and Whistleblower Protection
Employees who experience retaliation for engaging in protected activities related to mask-wearing have legal recourse. Depending on the jurisdiction and specific circumstances, legal remedies may include reinstatement, back pay, compensatory damages, and punitive damages. Whistleblower protection laws offer additional safeguards for employees who report workplace safety violations, including those related to mask-wearing. These laws often provide enhanced protections and remedies for whistleblowers, recognizing their crucial role in ensuring workplace safety and accountability. Understanding the specific legal protections available in one’s jurisdiction is essential for seeking redress for retaliatory actions.
-
Employer Responsibilities and Prevention
Employers bear a responsibility to prevent retaliation and create a work environment where employees feel safe raising concerns about mask policies and workplace safety. This includes establishing clear anti-retaliation policies, providing training to managers and supervisors on recognizing and preventing retaliation, and establishing confidential reporting mechanisms for employees to report potential violations. Taking proactive steps to prevent retaliation not only protects employees but also mitigates the risk of costly legal battles and reputational damage for the employer. A culture of open communication and respect for employee rights is crucial for fostering a safe and productive work environment.
In conclusion, retaliation concerns are inextricably linked to the question of “can an employer fire you for wearing a mask?” Employees who are unjustly terminated or otherwise penalized for raising legitimate concerns about mask policies, requesting accommodations, or reporting unsafe working conditions are victims of illegal retaliation. Understanding the legal protections available to employees, recognizing the various forms retaliation can take, and fostering a workplace culture that prioritizes safety and open communication are all crucial for ensuring that mask-related discussions and decisions are made in a fair, legal, and respectful manner. Ignoring retaliation concerns can undermine employee trust, create a hostile work environment, and expose employers to significant legal and reputational risks.
8. Legal Counsel Recommended
Navigating the complexities of mask mandates, exemptions, and potential employment termination requires a nuanced understanding of applicable laws and regulations. Given the evolving legal landscape and the potential for high-stakes disputes, seeking legal counsel is often recommended. The connection between “legal counsel recommended” and “can an employer fire you for wearing a mask” stems from the intricate web of federal, state, and local laws, as well as company policies and individual circumstances, that govern this issue. Legal counsel can provide clarity on these often-conflicting requirements and help both employers and employees make informed decisions.
Several factors underscore the importance of legal counsel in this context. Varied and sometimes contradictory regulations across jurisdictions can create confusion regarding employer obligations and employee rights. An attorney specializing in employment law can help interpret these regulations and ensure compliance. Additionally, legal counsel can assist in developing and implementing compliant workplace policies regarding mask-wearing, accommodations, and potential disciplinary actions. For example, a company operating in multiple states might need guidance on tailoring its mask policy to comply with varying state mandates. Furthermore, an attorney can advise employees on their rights regarding medical or religious exemptions, potential claims of discrimination or retaliation, and the process for filing complaints or pursuing legal action. Consider a scenario where an employee is terminated for refusing to wear a mask due to a medical condition. Legal counsel can assess the validity of the termination, determine if the employer fulfilled its obligation to provide reasonable accommodations, and guide the employee on potential legal recourse. Similarly, an employer facing a discrimination lawsuit related to its mask policy would benefit from expert legal representation.
In summary, the complexities surrounding mask-wearing in the workplace, coupled with the potential for legal disputes and significant consequences, make seeking legal counsel a prudent course of action. An attorney can provide invaluable guidance on navigating the legal landscape, protecting individual rights, ensuring compliance with applicable laws, and resolving disputes effectively. The interplay of public health concerns, individual liberties, and employer responsibilities requires careful consideration, and legal expertise can significantly contribute to achieving fair and legally sound outcomes. Failing to seek legal counsel when navigating these complex issues can lead to costly mistakes, protracted legal battles, and damage to both employee morale and employer reputation.
Frequently Asked Questions
This section addresses common inquiries regarding the legality and complexities of workplace mask policies and potential employment termination related to mask-wearing. The information provided here is for general guidance only and should not be considered legal advice. Consulting with a qualified legal professional is recommended for specific situations.
Question 1: Are employers always legally obligated to accommodate employee requests for medical exemptions from mask mandates?
Employers are generally required to provide reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities that prevent them from wearing a mask, unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the business. Undue hardship refers to significant difficulty or expense.
Question 2: Can an employee be terminated for refusing to wear a mask due to a sincerely held religious belief?
Terminating an employee solely for refusing to wear a mask due to a sincerely held religious belief can be unlawful. Employers must explore reasonable accommodations that respect religious freedom while maintaining workplace safety.
Question 3: Do company mask policies supersede public health mandates?
Public health mandates generally supersede company policies. Employers must comply with applicable federal, state, and local mask mandates, even if they conflict with internal company policies.
Question 4: What constitutes retaliation for raising concerns about mask policies?
Retaliation can include any adverse employment action, such as termination, demotion, or a hostile work environment, taken against an employee for raising concerns about, requesting accommodations related to, or reporting violations of mask policies.
Question 5: If an employee is terminated for refusing to wear a mask, what legal recourse is available?
Legal recourse can include filing a complaint with relevant regulatory agencies, such as the EEOC or state labor boards, or pursuing legal action in court. The specific remedies available will depend on the nature of the claim and applicable laws.
Question 6: How can employers protect themselves from legal challenges related to mask policies?
Employers can mitigate legal risk by establishing clear and consistent mask policies, engaging in the interactive process for accommodation requests, documenting all relevant communications and decisions, and seeking legal counsel when necessary.
Understanding the legal framework surrounding mask-wearing in the workplace requires careful attention to the interplay between employer obligations, employee rights, and evolving public health guidance. These FAQs provide a starting point for navigating these complexities.
For further information and specific legal guidance, consult with a qualified attorney specializing in employment law.
Tips for Navigating Workplace Mask Policies
These tips provide guidance for both employers and employees on navigating the complexities of mask policies in the workplace. They address key considerations related to legal compliance, employee rights, and maintaining a safe and respectful work environment.
Tip 1: Consult Applicable Laws and Regulations: Thorough review of federal, state, and local laws and regulations is crucial. Requirements can vary significantly by jurisdiction and change frequently. Staying informed about current mandates and guidance from agencies like OSHA is essential.
Tip 2: Develop Clear and Comprehensive Policies: Employers should establish written mask policies that are clearly communicated to all employees. Policies should address mask requirements, exemptions, accommodation procedures, and enforcement protocols. Clarity minimizes confusion and potential disputes.
Tip 3: Engage in the Interactive Process: When employees request accommodations due to medical conditions or religious beliefs, employers must engage in a good-faith interactive process. This involves open communication, exploring potential accommodations, and documenting the process thoroughly.
Tip 4: Maintain Consistent Enforcement: Consistent and non-discriminatory enforcement of mask policies is vital. Inconsistent application can lead to claims of discrimination and undermine the policy’s effectiveness.
Tip 5: Respect Employee Rights: Employers must respect employee rights regarding medical and religious exemptions. Discriminating against employees who request accommodations is unlawful. Proper handling of exemption requests is crucial.
Tip 6: Document Thoroughly: Meticulous documentation is essential. Employers should document policy development, communication, exemption requests, accommodation efforts, and any disciplinary actions. Thorough documentation protects both employers and employees in potential disputes.
Tip 7: Seek Legal Counsel When Necessary: Navigating the legal complexities of mask policies can be challenging. Consulting with experienced legal counsel can provide clarity on compliance requirements, employee rights, and potential legal risks.
Adherence to these tips can help create a workplace environment that balances safety, legal compliance, and respect for individual rights. Open communication, consistent application of policies, and proactive engagement with legal counsel when needed are key to successfully navigating the complexities of workplace mask policies.
These tips provide a framework for navigating the evolving landscape of workplace mask policies. The following conclusion summarizes the key takeaways and emphasizes the importance of ongoing adaptation and communication.
Conclusion
The question of whether an employer can terminate employment for mask-wearing is multifaceted, involving a complex interplay of legal mandates, workplace safety regulations, individual rights, and company policies. This article explored the various dimensions of this issue, highlighting the importance of understanding applicable laws, providing reasonable accommodations, addressing religious and medical exemptions, and preventing retaliation. Legal counsel is often recommended given the intricate legal landscape and potential for disputes. Key takeaways include the necessity of clear and consistently enforced company policies, respectful engagement with employee concerns, and a commitment to fostering a safe and inclusive work environment.
As the legal and public health landscape continues to evolve, ongoing adaptation and open communication between employers and employees remain crucial for navigating workplace mask policies effectively. Proactive engagement with these issues, informed by legal expertise and a commitment to fairness, is essential for building and maintaining a workplace that respects both individual rights and collective well-being. Striking this balance requires vigilance, adaptability, and a commitment to upholding legal and ethical principles within the evolving context of workplace health and safety.
