Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver

California's premier full-service law firm with an emphasis on the representation of peace officers in disciplinary, criminal, labor, workers' compensation, personal injury and other civil matters.

  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer

Navigating Employee Rights in Anticipation of a COVID-19 Vaccine

December 11, 2020 by Hien Nguyen

[Download a print-friendly PDF]

As the hope for a COVID-19 vaccination appears to be coming to fruition, labor organizations and their members are naturally concerned about whether they will be provided prioritized access to the vaccination, as well as their employers’ lawful authority to mandate a COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment. While public employees other than public school and healthcare professionals generally are not subject to mandatory vaccinations, the COVID-19 pandemic has been anything but ordinary. Therefore, employee organizations must be prepared to address these matters with their employing agency.

In March 2020, the EEOC updated its Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace guidance to state:

Employers and employees should follow guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as well as state/local public health authorities on how best to slow the spread of this disease and protect workers, customers, clients, and the general public. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not interfere with employers following advice from the CDC and other public health authorities on appropriate steps to take relating to the workplace.

(https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/pandemic-preparedness-workplace-and-americans-disabilities-act)

Notably, the CDC has issued guidance recommending vaccination during an influenza pandemic for the “critical workforce,” which is defined as “anyone whose occupation, skills, or license makes them essential to preserving the critical functions of a society or given jurisdiction.” (https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/pdf/roadmap_panflu.pdf.) This would appear to include public safety personnel including peace officers, firefighters, and dispatchers, however, there are, as yet, no rules mandating vaccination for such essential workers.

Should employers seek to mandate that their employees receive a COVID-19 vaccination, in addition to collective bargaining interests that must be addressed through the statutory meet and confer process, as set forth below, there must be exceptions to any vaccination requirement.

The United States Supreme Court first confronted the subject of mandatory vaccinations in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 11, where the Court ruled that it was within the police power of the State to mandate that all citizens receive the smallpox vaccine in order to protect the public health and safety, writing that an individual’s liberty may, “under the pressure of great dangers,” be subject to restraint “enforced by reasonable regulations.” Jacobson also held, however, that the vaccination mandate would not apply where vaccination would exacerbate a “particular condition of [one’s] health or body.”

The EEOC Pandemic Preparedness in the Workplace guidelines discuss both the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The former prohibits discrimination based on disability (i.e., a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity such as hearing, seeing, speaking, walking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for oneself, learning or working) and the latter, among other protections, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion.

While the ADA generally requires an employer to grant an employee a reasonable accommodation if the employee is generally at greater risk of death or serious injury by taking a mandated vaccination, such accommodation may not be required if the employer can show that doing so would cause an undue hardship, defined as a “significant difficulty or expense.” Additionally, an employer is not required to provide an accommodation if the employee poses a “direct threat to the health and safety of others.” (i.e., “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices, or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.”)

Similarly, Title VII requires an employer to offer a reasonable accommodation to an employee who refuses a vaccination due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, but the employer is not required to incur undue hardship. (See Weber v. Roadway Express, Inc. (5th Cir.2000) 199 F.3d 270, 273.) Once the employer has offered such accommodation, the burden shifts to the employee to “cooperate in achieving accommodation of his or her religious beliefs, and must be flexible in achieving that end.” (Bruff v. N. Miss. Health Servs. (5th Cir.2001) 244 F.3d 495, 503.) In Horvath v. City of Leander (W.D. TX.) 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 236718, a member of the Fire Department objected to the Department’s mandatory prophylactic flu and DTAP vaccines as violative of his religious beliefs. Conceding that Horvath had made a prima facie case for religious discrimination, the City offered him two accommodations: (1) reassignment to a different position, which offered the same pay and benefits and did not require a vaccine, and the City would cover the cost of training; or (2) remaining in his current position while wearing personal protective equipment, including a respirator, at all times while on duty, submitting to testing for possible diseases when his health condition justified, and keeping a log of his temperature. Horvath rejected both offers, and urged an alternative, which was deemed unacceptable. After Horvath was terminated, he claimed that the City fired him in retaliation for his letter seeking an alternative accommodation for his beliefs. The court rejected this position, finding that the City “proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Horvath’s firing—his defiance of a direct order by failing to select an accommodation.”

It is important to note that “religious” beliefs are not equivalent to moral or ethical secular beliefs. Although certain anti-vaccination beliefs can be part of a broader religious faith – it is well documented that Christian Scientists and other religious organizations are opposed to vaccination – these faith-based convictions are distinguishable from a personal belief. For example, in Friedman v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group (2002) 102 Cal.App. 4th 39, a prospective employee refused to take a mandatory mumps vaccine because it was grown in a chicken embryo and thus, he claimed, would violate his religious beliefs as a vegan. Among other things, the court found that veganism reflects a moral and secular, rather than religious, philosophy.

As COVID-19 and the accompanying emergency orders issued by state and local governments have become highly politicized, many have come to question the safety and efficacy of the anticipated vaccines which have been developed in an unprecedented period of time. Employees should be aware, however, that Title VII is unlikely to uphold such safety and efficacy concerns as a protected religious belief. (See e.g., Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Med. Ctr. (3d Cir.2017) 877 F.3d 487) Moreover, before any vaccine is distributed in the United States, it will have been reviewed by countless regulatory bodies, including the Food and Drug Administration, thus marginalizing an individual belief based upon speculation and conjecture.

Finally, an employer’s decision to mandate vaccination must comply with labor laws, including the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, as the proposed implementation of an employer-mandated vaccination policy is a mandatory subject of bargaining. As the Ninth Circuit has held, while there is a clear public policy “favor[ing] effective infection controls in hospitals,” for example, “[t]here is also clearly established public policy requiring employers to bargain with their union-represented employees over conditions of employment, and this comes into high relief where…employment can be terminated for failure to satisfy a condition. This policy favoring bargaining is at least as well defined and explicit as the policies regarding infection control.” (Va. Mason Hosp. v. Wash. State Nurses Ass’n (9th Cir.2007) 511 F.3d 908, 916-17.)

When bargaining with respect to the implementation of any mandatory vaccination, employee organizations should ensure such vaccinations will occur on duty and at the employer’s sole expense. Employee organizations should also remind the employers of their liability in the event an employee experiences complications from the vaccine, help develop reasonable accommodations for those who are exempt from the mandatory vaccination policy (and even perhaps those who simply wish to adhere to alternative safeguards in lieu of receiving the vaccination), determine the applicability of any vaccination mandates to employees that have previously tested positive for COVID-19 (or have been tested to show the presence of COVID-19 antibodies), establish that the mandate is applied in a consistent manner to all similarly situated employees (including management), and ensure that employees are provided adequate notice of any proposed rules and access to the vaccine so that compliance with the mandate is not frustrated by external factors.

Disclaimer: Case law and analysis can change over time. The information in this article is accurate as of the date the article was written and should not constitute legal advice. Always consult with an attorney.

Filed Under: Bulletins Tagged With: COVID, elizabeth-s-tourgeman, Gidian-R-Mellk, peter-hoffmann, robert-m-wexler, timothy-k-talbot, Vaccine, zachery-a-lopes

Consultation Form

Offices across California to serve you.
Contact us now to schedule a consultation.
Contact form not loading? Click here!
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC publishes this website as a service to our clients and other friends for informational purposes only. It is not intended to be used as a substitute for specific legal advice or opinions, and the transmission of information through this website is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between sender and receiver. Internet subscribers and online readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel.

© 2023 Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver, PC. All Rights Reserved. | Disclaimer

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “Accept”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies.
Do not sell my personal information.
Cookie settingsACCEPTREJECT
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these cookies, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may have an effect on your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT
  • Contact Us

  • News Alerts

Official logo for Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver
Rains Lucia Stern St. Phalle & Silver Logo
  • About Us
  • Practice Areas
    ▼
    • Labor Representation
    • Civil Litigation
    • Personal Injury
      ▼
      • Example of Case Results
    • Workers’ Compensation
    • Maritime Law
    • Estate Planning
    • DOE Security Clearance Hearings
    • Peace Officers
    • Firefighters
    • EMS Agency Investigations
    • Criminal Defense
    • CalPERS Appeals
  • Our Team
  • Classes
  • Media
    ▼
    • Bulletins
    • RLS in the News
  • Resources
    ▼
    • Links
    • Resources
    • Newsletters
  • Clients
  • Career Opportunities
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
Hotline phone numbers. Northern California: 925-609-1699. Southern California: 310-393-1486.