A Letter To Employers Mandating Vaccines

OscarW

New Member
Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing.

This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )

This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).

As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).

An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.

The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines. Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,
Employee of the Year
 

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing.

This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )

This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).

As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/...ance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).

An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.

The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines. Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,
Employee of the Year
So even after the vaccines become FDA approved and if employers insist employee's get vaccinated or lose their jobs, the employers risk law suits and would lose if they could not prove substantial evidence under the ADA guidelines, or they could be breaking the law according to the Supreme Court.
 
Dear Boss,
Interesting, but it seems a bit at odd with what the EEOC says (in part, see https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-updated-covid-19-technical-assistance for all):

Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations. Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers. From an EEO perspective, employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.

It is a sticky issue...
 

In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason. Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum.

Most employees in states that are not right to work states can still be fired for a variety of reasons. The fix is in 😂.
 
Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum
Same thing for a vaccinated employee... For the most part we rely on the market to sort out employers who make bad decisions. An employer who fires people for bad reasons ends up being less competitive than smarter employers. That usually works, and is less burdensome than regulation. There are however lots of exceptions.
 
Interesting, but it seems a bit at odd with what the EEOC says (in part, see https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-issues-updated-covid-19-technical-assistance for all):

Federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, so long as employers comply with the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other EEO considerations. Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers. From an EEO perspective, employers should keep in mind that because some individuals or demographic groups may face greater barriers to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination than others, some employees may be more likely to be negatively impacted by a vaccination requirement.

It is a sticky issue...
But it also states "Other laws, not in EEOC’s jurisdiction, may place additional restrictions on employers." So that whole thing was a waste of keystrokes, imo. At the very least, it makes the issue a lot less sticky.
 
The longer this virus lingers, and more people continue to get infected, we are quite likely to see a lot more "restrictions" placed upon society. If people won't take "voluntary" actions to protect themselves, and others, businesses and governments will have no other choice but to impose invasive rules against those who are contributing to the spread of Covid.
 
In right to work states any employee can be fired for any reason. Therefore, an employee who refuses to be vaccinated could be fired for walking and chewing gum and/or walking and not chewing gum.
An employee can file a legal complaint against an employer if the employee feels s/he was fired unfairly or illegally. And should a court rule against the employee, s/he can file an unlimited number of appeals.
 
The longer this virus lingers, and more people continue to get infected, we are quite likely to see a lot more "restrictions" placed upon society. If people won't take "voluntary" actions to protect themselves, and others, businesses and governments will have no other choice but to impose invasive rules against those who are contributing to the spread of Covid.
Authoritarian communists countries are already doing that.
 
Dream on
Dream o-on (screaming)
Dream until your dreams come true ~Aerosmith
Ugh. Aerosmith.
ShitpostBot 5000
 
I believe everyone who can should get vaccinated, I did and I encourage people to vaccinate. I also wear a mask when it seems to make sense. However in most cases I do not support government mandates except perhaps for individuals who are highly exposed to the public. Where I think the US government has failed us is in getting out good, understandable, and consistent data and messaging on this topic. I believe most people would make the right decision if they had information they could trust.

The reason I don't support government mandates this time is I just don't think this thing is bad enough to justify it. The death rate just isn't high enough. However this should be a good opportunity for us to look carefully at how bad a pandemic would have to be to justify mandatory restrictions. If the death rate was 50% I think most people would support mandatory restrictions, but where is the breakpoint and how do we decide. Its a good time to start thinking about that, leaving the decision until a worse pandemic comes along will make that decision process a lot harder to get right, and slower.

In the US we also need to think about the legalities of mandating things. Right now the government has limited authority, when a really bad one hits that could be a problem. Discussing it openly now would be better. I suspect most of the "mandatory" orders we saw and are still seeing may not be legally enforceable.

My touchstone on this were the "mandatory" evacuations that the government issued for hurricanes in Florida. I lived on the Florida coast for many years and soon learned that these were meaningless and unenforceable. I even found that you could drive around road blocks set up to keep people away from low lying areas. Just thank the officers and drive around is what I did.

The mandatory evacuation orders were often issued irresponsibly, most people ordered to leave did not really have to for safety. Result was many people who should have stayed home clogged the highways and filled all the motel rooms for hundreds of miles... You rarely hear the statistics but in most storms I believe more people were killed in evacuation traffic than by the storms.

This also lead to the crying wolf thing, ask people to evacuate too many times when after the fact it was obviously unnecessary people are less likely to listen when it really is. I think the orders were mostly CYA things to protect the authorities from later being accused of not doing enough. Never got any flack for issuing an unnecessary order, but not issuing one when it was called for was a big political problem.

We need to figure out how to get it better before the really bad pandemic.
 
I believe everyone who can should get vaccinated, I did and I encourage people to vaccinate. I also wear a mask when it seems to make sense. However in most cases I do not support government mandates except perhaps for individuals who are highly exposed to the public. Where I think the US government has failed us is in getting out good, understandable, and consistent data and messaging on this topic. I believe most people would make the right decision if they had information they could trust.

The reason I don't support government mandates this time is I just don't think this thing is bad enough to justify it. The death rate just isn't high enough. However this should be a good opportunity for us to look carefully at how bad a pandemic would have to be to justify mandatory restrictions. If the death rate was 50% I think most people would support mandatory restrictions, but where is the breakpoint and how do we decide. Its a good time to start thinking about that, leaving the decision until a worse pandemic comes along will make that decision process a lot harder to get right, and slower.

In the US we also need to think about the legalities of mandating things. Right now the government has limited authority, when a really bad one hits that could be a problem. Discussing it openly now would be better. I suspect most of the "mandatory" orders we saw and are still seeing may not be legally enforceable.

My touchstone on this were the "mandatory" evacuations that the government issued for hurricanes in Florida. I lived on the Florida coast for many years and soon learned that these were meaningless and unenforceable. I even found that you could drive around road blocks set up to keep people away from low lying areas. Just thank the officers and drive around is what I did.

The mandatory evacuation orders were often issued irresponsibly, most people ordered to leave did not really have to for safety. Result was many people who should have stayed home clogged the highways and filled all the motel rooms for hundreds of miles... You rarely hear the statistics but in most storms I believe more people were killed in evacuation traffic than by the storms.

This also lead to the crying wolf thing, ask people to evacuate too many times when after the fact it was obviously unnecessary people are less likely to listen when it really is. I think the orders were mostly CYA things to protect the authorities from later being accused of not doing enough. Never got any flack for issuing an unnecessary order, but not issuing one when it was called for was a big political problem.

We need to figure out how to get it better before the really bad pandemic.
Well, if it’s not your family members that have died then, sure, the pandemic is not bad. But if it’s your family members that have died than the pandemic is horrific.

As your baby, preschooler, child, pre teen, teenager, young adult child lays dying while you beg whatever God there is to take you, TAKE YOU, you will go willingly; but it’s in vain. The babe is dead.

Then, tell mom and dad, grandma and grandpa, brother and sister, and the rest of the family that the pandemic was not bad enough. That mandatory masking was not necessary. That the virus is a hoax. That the vaccine doesn’t work. And watch them bury their child. Putting a child in the ground is hard, very hard, I know.
 
Putting a child in the ground is hard, very hard, I know.
I am sorry you have that knowledge directly, I am lucky not to have. I know it has to effect how you see things, understandably so.

People I know have died of Covid, but so far all were older and with pre-existing conditions. Still, people who would probably be alive were it not for Covid. However I have known many more who died in automobile accidents, children included, no less tragic. The point is we have always accepted some risk in return for freedom of action. Its a good time to talk about this relative to pandemics...
 
The really bad thing about this pandemic is that our hospitals are overwhelmed. Selective surgeries, even those which are eventually life or death, are being postponed, ignored.
Is this still true? It was once, but no longer is here. I have a niece in Florida who has been a nurse in a Covid unit, she tells me their business is so far down that folks are being transferred elsewhere.

What is the current situation in NYC?
 


Back
Top