Skip to main content

United States Supreme Court Rejects Vaccine Mandate Appeal…Would a Similar Ruling Be Expected in the Employment Context?


In recent weeks, United States Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett rejected an appeal from Indiana University students that sought to contest the lawfulness of Indiana University’s coronavirus vaccine mandate as a condition of enrollment for the fall 2021 semester.

As readers might have likely seen, vaccine mandates in the workplace (and elsewhere) have become a hot button issue.  With the rejection of the appeal, Indiana University can lawfully require students to be vaccinated in order to attend classes this fall.  However, the fact that Justice Barrett did not comment on the rejection of the appeal has left some questions as to whether the Supreme Court is indicating its agreement with vaccine mandates…or if this rejection of the appeal was more focused on the specific facts of the Indiana University case and would not necessarily apply to other related situations.

Although the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission had released guidance earlier this year that employers could mandate vaccines as a condition of employment (with exceptions for religious or medical reasons), these mandates have been relatively untested in court so far.  (Notwithstanding a decision from a court in Texas finding vaccine mandates for employees at a hospital to be lawful.)  With that being said, there is some precedent, that vaccine mandates are lawful (as set out in a 1905 Supreme Court opinion in Jacobson v. Massachusetts.)  However, whether a rather dusty case from over a century ago would still hold up in regard to a mandatory coronavirus vaccine policy in the workplace remains to be seen.

Something tells me that sooner or later, the Supreme Court is likely going to weigh in on the matter rather than simply rejecting an appeal without comment, as happened in this case.


For additional information:  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/us/supreme-court-indiana-university-covid-vaccine-mandate.html

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more