Delta Déjà Vu: What's Changed (or Not) About COVID Vaccinations in the Workplace?
Many employers are now revisiting plans to implement COVID-19 vaccination policies. Employers may encourage and mandate that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, subject to the exceptions provided for employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and sincerely held religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).
August 27, 2021 at 11:27 AM
6 minute read
As the summer of 2021 began, masks were coming off and vaccinations were risings. Many individuals began traveling again for the first time in over a year. Most thought that we had reached the light at the end of the tunnel. Fast forward to the end of summer and COVID-19 hospitalizations are surging, particularly among America's deep south states. According to recent data from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, hospitalizations are up to 2,500 patients per day. The surge has even led some of country's most notable cities, including San Francisco and New Orleans, to require proof of vaccination for entry into certain indoor settings. Many employers are now revisiting plans to implement COVID-19 vaccination policies. Employers may encourage and mandate that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccination, subject to the exceptions provided for employees with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and sincerely held religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII). However, before implementing a mandatory vaccination policy, it is critical that employers develop a strategy to address several key areas of consideration. The strategy should include risk assessment, the development of clearly defined policies, protocols for collecting documentation, processes for reviewing exemption requests and processes for employees who lie about their vaccination status.
Recent Vaccination Decisions
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has been consistent with its position that employers may mandate vaccinations. A Texas federal court recently affirmed this position on June 12, in Bridges v. Houston Methodist Hospital, Docket No. 4:21-cv-01774 (S.D. Tex. Jun 01, 2021). In Bridges, the court dismissed the case, which challenged the hospital's mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy for employees. The court held that the vaccination policy was "consistent with public policy" and not unlawful. This case is notable because it is the first court opinion addressing the ability of employers to require employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The decision is also notable in that it rejects the argument, which has been advanced in other cases challenging mandatory vaccination policies in the employment context, that such policies are prohibited by the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).
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 AllBest Practices for Conducting Workplace Investigations: A Legal and HR Perspective
9 minute readThe Intersection of Labor Law and Politics Following the Presidential Election
8 minute readSanctioned Penn Law Professor Amy Wax Sues University, Alleging Discrimination
5 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
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