Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah silly me. I forgot the New York TIMES was the middle-of-the-road publication, even despite firing editors for publishing counter narratives to the democratic platform.
You make so many moronic assumptions about me. I do not read the NYT. Nor did I suggest anyone do so. I simply pointed out that this came from the right wing rag and not the lefty one.
Let’s play a game shall we? You respond to what I actually post and not your silly misguided premonitions.
It is settled law unless an objection is made based upon religious beliefs. I will note there is a distinction between a personal desire (not to vaccinate) and a bonafide religious belief.
https://www.aarp.org/work/working-at...d-vaccine.html
On Dec. 16, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed that a COVID-19 vaccination requirement by itself would not violate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That law prohibits employers from conducting some types of medical examinations. On May 28, the EEOC reaffirmed that employers can require workers who are returning to offices to be vaccinated for COVID-19.
“If a vaccine is administered to an employee by an employer for protection against contracting COVID-19, the employer is not seeking information about an individual’s impairments or current health status and, therefore, it is not a medical examination,” the EEOC says. The U.S. Department of Justice also has determined that it considers employer vaccine mandates to be legally permissible.
But some employees may be exempted from mandatory vaccinations based on potential concerns related to any disability you may have and for religious beliefs that prohibit vaccinations. And experts say that employers are more likely to simply encourage their workers to get immunized rather that issue a company-wide mandate.
The EEOC, like the DOJ, is composed of partisan political appointees. Not the same as a court.
The EEOC, like the DOJ, is composed of partisan political appointees. Not the same as a court.
Well, there is this court decision. Its actually not a tough decision to reach under the "employment at will" doctrine which is followed in most states. Non-government employees can be hired or fired for no reason or any reason at all (the exceptions being race, religion, sex, national origin, or attempting to organize or join a union). I will also note this decision occurred before Pfizer's vaccine won full approval.
A federal judge in Texas has thrown out a lawsuit filed by 117 employees of Houston's Methodist Hospital system targeting its COVID-19 vaccine requirement.
According to the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston said that lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges' claims that vaccines are "experimental and dangerous" were "false" and "irrelevant." Hughes also said that COVID-19 vaccines being a condition of employment is not coercion, as Bridges and the other plaintiffs contended.
MORE THAN 170 HOSPITAL WORKERS SUSPENDED OVER REFUSING VACCINE
"Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID -19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer," Hughes wrote. "Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID -19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain."
Well, there is this court decision. Its actually not a tough decision to reach under the "employment at will" doctrine which is followed in most states. Non-government employees can be hired or fired for no reason or any reason at all (the exceptions being race, religion, sex, national origin, or attempting to organize or join a union). I will also note this decision occurred before Pfizer's vaccine won full approval.
A federal judge in Texas has thrown out a lawsuit filed by 117 employees of Houston's Methodist Hospital system targeting its COVID-19 vaccine requirement.
According to the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston said that lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges' claims that vaccines are "experimental and dangerous" were "false" and "irrelevant." Hughes also said that COVID-19 vaccines being a condition of employment is not coercion, as Bridges and the other plaintiffs contended.
MORE THAN 170 HOSPITAL WORKERS SUSPENDED OVER REFUSING VACCINE
"Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID -19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer," Hughes wrote. "Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID -19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain."
This sounds like a judge overstepping his bounds. I'll bet he will be overruled.
Well, there is this court decision. Its actually not a tough decision to reach under the "employment at will" doctrine which is followed in most states. Non-government employees can be hired or fired for no reason or any reason at all (the exceptions being race, religion, sex, national origin, or attempting to organize or join a union). I will also note this decision occurred before Pfizer's vaccine won full approval.
A federal judge in Texas has thrown out a lawsuit filed by 117 employees of Houston's Methodist Hospital system targeting its COVID-19 vaccine requirement.
According to the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston said that lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges' claims that vaccines are "experimental and dangerous" were "false" and "irrelevant." Hughes also said that COVID-19 vaccines being a condition of employment is not coercion, as Bridges and the other plaintiffs contended.
MORE THAN 170 HOSPITAL WORKERS SUSPENDED OVER REFUSING VACCINE
"Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID -19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer," Hughes wrote. "Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID -19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain."
How is this related to the aviation topic and Delta airlines? This thread is now similar to the other 200+ covid threads. Psychology forum even has a covid thread.
How is this related to the aviation topic and Delta airlines? This thread is now similar to the other 200+ covid threads. Psychology forum even has a covid thread.
Its closely related. The question is: Can an employer fire an employee if they refuse the covid vaccine? This court decision says that they can if the employment relationship is an "at-will employment" relationship.
Its closely related. The question is: Can an employer fire an employee if they refuse the covid vaccine? This court decision says that they can if the employment relationship is an "at-will employment" relationship.
Then Delta union leadership is asleep at the wheel. Already in Oregon, fire and police unions have filed lawsuits for mandatory vaccinations. Remember that 25% of Deltas employees are unvaccinated, which is roughly 20,000 employees. Delta taking a big chance here.
Fun fact: the Pfizer vaccine being administered today is not the same one that received FDA approval. Pfizer hasn’t released the vaccine that received FDA approval. Small detail but everyone is hanging on Pfizer’s vaccine is FDA approved!!!! But it’s a different vaccine. Small detail,
More misinformation being spread.
It is EXACTLY the same vaccine. It is being marketed with a new name.
I thought HIPAA prevented employers from knowing medical histories of employees.
The whole vax demand is fear on the part of the Covidictors.
Right now we can't count on anything science says as recommendations on what to do, because science keeps getting it wrong.
They promised us that the whole thing would be over before the 2020 election. BROKEN!
They promised us that masking would slow the spread until the virus was gone. BROKEN!
They promised us that if we got the vaccines, we could abandon the masks. BROKEN!
They promised us that the vaccine would keep us from getting the virus. BROKEN!
Democrats want to keep the panicdemic going so they can boss people around more.
They are using fear to coerce us.
Uh.... No.
HIPAA doesn't prohibit your employers (or anyone) from asking for your private health information.
It simply (in this example) prevents healthcare providers from disclosing that information freely or without your consent.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
