When Can a Health Care Provider Fire an Employee for Refusing a Flu Shot?
Employment law experts say private health care employers may fire employees for failing to comply with a mandatory flu vaccination policy provided it allows exemptions for medical and religious reasons.
December 01, 2017 at 12:17 PM
3 minute read
Flu season is upon us, and many health care institutions have required employees to be vaccinated against the virus.
In fact, Minnesota-based Essentia Health last month reportedly fired about 50 employees for refusing to comply with the hospital system's mandatory flu vaccine policy.
In health care settings, where germs are rampant and high immunity is not, there is strong medical policy in favor of vaccinating workers, said employment law experts who provide guidance to general counsel at health care companies about implementing a mandatory flu shot policy.
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 18 states statutorily require flu shots for health care workers. These laws may vary, however, based on the hospital type and other factors, so general counsel should explore whether any laws govern the matter in their states, said Albert Randall, a labor lawyer at Franklin & Prokopik in Maryland.
Some of those laws may even allow for vaccination exemptions, according to the CDC. But even if they don't, exceptions must always be considered to ensure that policies do not run afoul of state and federal disability and anti-discrimination laws, the legal experts said.
Specifically, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibit discrimination based on disability and religious beliefs, respectively.
In such circumstances, the employer would have to engage in an “interactive process” in order to determine if there were a reasonable accommodation that is not unduly burdensome to the employer, said Richard Cohen, a New York-based attorney at the firm FisherBroyles.
“The cases where this comes up are cases where someone says, 'I have a religious exemption,' and the employer simply fires them,” he said.
But that wasn't the case at Essentia, where employees reportedly were told in October that they had until Nov. 20 to receive a flu shot or be fired. The policy also applied to students who train, vendors who operate and volunteers who donate time at any of Essentia's 15 hospitals and 75 clinics in Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota and Wisconsin. The company excluded from the policy employees who obtained religious or medical exemptions. Some 99.5 percent of the 13,900 eligible employees required to get a flu shot either complied or asserted an exemption, the hospital reported.
“I don't see any proscription against the private employer terminating them,” Cohen said, “They seemed to have covered the bases by covering those who would object on medical or Title VII grounds.”
In addition to ensuring the existence of accommodations, Franklin & Prokopik's Randall suggested two other pointers for GCs considering implementation of a mandatory flu shot policy:
♦ Make sure to work with human resources representatives to ensure that the company's policy regarding exemptions in such circumstances outlines the steps employees must take if they are going to make such a claim; and
♦ Be sure to provide ample education to employees about the practical risks of receiving a flu vaccination. Randall said he could foresee a situation in which an employee injured by a flu shot could bring a negligence claim, alleging that the employer did not notify him or her of the risks associated with the required vaccination.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readEx-Twitter Exec Sues for $20M, Says Musk Fired Her as 'Petty Retribution'
Trending Stories
- 1Litera Acquires Document Automation Startup Offices & Dragons
- 2Patent Trolls Come Under Increasing Fire in Federal Courts
- 3Transforming Dispute Processes in Law: The Impact of Large Language Models
- 4Daniel Habib to Serve as Next Attorney-in-Charge of NY Federal Defender Appeals Unit
- 5Protecting Attorney-Client Privilege in the Modern Age of Communications
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250