Texas Court Approves Mandatory Vaccination Policy
Many employers who are in the process of reopening their workplaces are considering whether to mandate, or simply encourage, vaccination against COVID-19. The EEOC has recently issued guidance which permits employers to mandate vaccination without violating the federal anti-discrimination laws, provided that the employer grants reasonable accommodations for disability, religious, and pregnancy-based needs. However, the potential for litigation on other grounds has still given employers pause. A recent decision from Texas provides further support for employers contemplating mandatory vaccination policies.
Earlier this month, Houston Methodist Hospital announced that it would be requiring employees to receive the COVID-19 vaccine. In response, 117 employees sued claiming wrongful termination and violation of public policy. Specifically, in support of their claimed violation of public policy, the plaintiffs cited to the fact that the vaccines were currently only approved under an Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”), which requires that vaccine recipients understand the “potential benefits and risks of use” and “the option to accept or refuse” the vaccine. In dismissing the plaintiffs’ claims, the Court noted that the statute authorizing the use of EUAs speaks only to the responsibilities of the Secretary of Health and Human Services and does not apply at all to private employers. The Court also rejected the argument that the vaccination requirement turned the employees into human test subjects and violated the Nuremberg Code. The Court made a point of noting that the choice between receiving the vaccine or being fired is not coercion, stating that “[e]very employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain.”
Although the wrongful termination claims are specific to Texas law, the decision on that point offers several useful takeaways. For example, the decision calls the plaintiffs’ claim that the vaccines are experimental and dangerous “false” and further notes that the United States Supreme Court “has held that . . . state-imposed requirements of mandatory vaccination do not violate due process.”
Though the decision is not binding outside of the Southern District of Texas, and the plaintiffs have indicated an intent to appeal, the decision serves as a useful roadmap for employers who may be threatened with vaccine-related lawsuits. The decision whether to mandate vaccination is still a complicated one, involving various other state and local requirements as well as employee relations issues, and legal claims remain pending elsewhere – including in New York State. Employers who wish to mandate or encourage vaccination should discuss the matter first with qualified counsel as this issue continues to evolve. Individuals with questions should feel free to contact Kristina Grimshaw at kgrimshaw@fglawllc.com or any other attorney at the Firm.
DISCLAIMER: This alert is provided to clients and friends of the firm for informational purposes only and the distribution of this alert is not intended to, and does not, establish an attorney-client relationship. This alert also does not provide or offer legal advice or opinions on any specific factual situations or matters. This communication may be considered Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.