![COVID office reopen](http://images.law.com/contrib/content/uploads/sites/399/2021/08/Office-Reopening-Article-202108170850.jpg)
COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates and the Dawn of Delta: Counseling Employers in an Age of Uncertainty
With the Delta variant now spreading rapidly, many employers are wary of having unvaccinated employees return to the workplace and, therefore, are evaluating whether to mandate that employees become vaccinated. The legal issues raised require careful, individualized and ongoing analysis for each employer.
August 17, 2021 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
Just about one year after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine seemed like a beacon of hope for many. Indeed, accessibility of the vaccine to millions across New Jersey and the world led to a decrease in the spread of the virus. It seemed to be the light at the end of the proverbial tunnel, especially for employers that want or need to have employees return to the workplace. The introduction of the vaccine, and its proven efficacy in fighting COVID-19, has posed many questions surrounding the issue of whether employers can mandate that employees become vaccinated to return to the workplace. With the Delta variant now spreading rapidly, many employers are wary of having unvaccinated employees return to the workplace and, therefore, are evaluating whether to mandate that employees become vaccinated.
The legal issues raised by mandating vaccines in the workplace require careful and individualized analysis for each employer as this is an ever-evolving legal issue. On Dec. 16, 2020, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) issued guidance on this very question, which was recently updated on May 28, 2021. The EEOC has expressly stated that an employer may require all employees who physically enter the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19. See "What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws." Nonetheless, employers that elect to mandate vaccines are obligated to comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.A. §2000e et seq., the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2101 et seq., and other applicable state and local laws, including, the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 et seq. (the LAD).
This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 All![Was $1.3M in 'Incentive' Payments Commission? NJ Justices Weigh Arguments Was $1.3M in 'Incentive' Payments Commission? NJ Justices Weigh Arguments](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/52/06/81abc0aa43d3b124dba4cb604722/adobestock-435322344-767x633.jpg)
Was $1.3M in 'Incentive' Payments Commission? NJ Justices Weigh Arguments
3 minute read![Starbucks Sues Ex-Executive to Recover $1M Signing Bonus Starbucks Sues Ex-Executive to Recover $1M Signing Bonus](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://images.law.com/corpcounsel/contrib/content/uploads/sites/403/2024/03/Starbucks-Sign-767x633.jpg)
![After DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality After DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/97/61/3629ec92467296216ec80b4820ca/schwartz-mattiacci-mann-iii-767x633.jpg)
After DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
7 minute read![NJ Courts Have Hostile Work Environment, Ex-Employee Claims NJ Courts Have Hostile Work Environment, Ex-Employee Claims](https://images.law.com/cdn-cgi/image/format=auto,fit=contain/https://k2-prod-alm.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/brightspot/f6/1d/7195396646419d7cd5518c7d2cae/essex-county-courthouse-767x633.jpg)
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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