[robr2]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

For one it will be ruled a HIPPA violation. I have formally worked at self-insured corps btw, and NO ONE was allowed to see what medical services were provided, paid for by the employer, and including the patient's name. That is also a HIPPA violation.

First, it's HIPAA - two A's, not two P's.

Second, HIPAA applies to the release of your medical information from certain organizations without your consent. An company asking someone "are you vaccinated" is not violating HIPPA. If they were to call someone's physician and ask the same question is not violating HIPPA. If the physician tells them without your consent, then it's a violation.

You have the absolute right to not answer and they have the absolute right to deny you entrance or employment.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by robr2

First, it's HIPAA - two A's, not two P's.

Second, HIPAA applies to the release of your medical information from certain organizations without your consent. An company asking someone "are you vaccinated" is not violating HIPPA. If they were to call someone's physician and ask the same question is not violating HIPPA. If the physician tells them without your consent, then it's a violation.

You have the absolute right to not answer and they have the absolute right to deny you entrance or employment.

Excellent post...Amen. I really see this as where we're headed after the formality of FDA approval is in hand.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by robr2

First, it's HIPAA - two A's, not two P's.

Second, HIPAA applies to the release of your medical information from certain organizations without your consent. An company asking someone "are you vaccinated" is not violating HIPPA. If they were to call someone's physician and ask the same question is not violating HIPPA. If the physician tells them without your consent, then it's a violation.

You have the absolute right to not answer and they have the absolute right to deny you entrance or employment.

Requiring it may be viewed as violating privacy. I certainly think many courts would find it as such.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by JayCT

Is that death rate current, meaning for the past seven days? I doubt it. Please post your source.

Short way down to daily trend chart.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/healt...-2020-n1177936

[Reilly1017]

I’m not an expert on this but vaccines are already mandated for school age children for like 5+ diseases, right? Also, I have friends that got deployed to Desert Storm and they had to line up and literally get 10+ shots for all sorts of Middle East stuff. All of a sudden this country is all up in arms over a scientific vaccine to prevent severe illness and death over a virus that is ravaging the whole world?

It is your choice, that’s fine but give me a break thinking we are all suddenly doctors and scientists

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Requiring it may be viewed as violating privacy. I certainly think many courts would find it as such.

Talk about timing. Justice ACB, the darling of the right, just upheld Indiana University's vaccine requirement. Let the slippery slope begin now, towards widespread vaccine requirements!

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Reilly1017

I’m not an expert on this but vaccines are already mandated for school age children for like 5+ diseases, right? Also, I have friends that got deployed to Desert Storm and they had to line up and literally get 10+ shots for all sorts of Middle East stuff. All of a sudden this country is all up in arms over a scientific vaccine to prevent severe illness and death over a virus that is ravaging the whole world?

It is your choice, that’s fine but give me a break thinking we are all suddenly doctors and scientists

Ditto, wish I could rep you again. If you enroll your kid in a public school or university, you absolutely need to submit a long exhaustive vaccination record going all the way back to childhood. Heck even as an adult, I needed to produce it for international travel...to my own employer...several times.

Yeah, amazing how many hacks...including on this forum...claiming to know more than experts about a disease which is 20 months old and is constantly evolving.

[mdovell]

Some might cite ADA but basically it boils down to this.

1) Can the job be done remotely or in a hybrid form?

2) Is the employer willing to do that?

If the answer to #1 is No then they can mandate the shot. If the answer to that is yes and the employee refuses to work remotely then they can not only get fired but they could also not qualify for unemployment. Vaccination by itself is a personal choice and as such it is NOT a protected class so the argument that it can be considered discrimination by itself is slim to none (see below)

Reasonable accommodations being the key word here. Think about ADA. Can someone deaf work in an office? Yes as long as you write everything down and have emails in lieu of phone calls, simple enough. Now if it actually is dependent on hearing very specific things that would be harder (i.e. an audio engineer for a radio station or music industry). A elevator can obviously assist those that cannot climb stairs but they wouldn't be working on say cell phone towers.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...nt/5518818001/

Some offices have opened up and some jobs do have both. If you are an attorney and you don't show up to court but your client does I don't think that would work well (especially in criminal cases).

As for having cards and passports there are diseases in other areas of the planet like yellow fever
https://www.passporthealthglobal.com...ow-fever-card/

In all due respect I'd say CT has done a pretty good job, especially the universities.

[BobNJ1960]

Originally Posted by htfdcolt

Talk about timing. Justice ACB, the darling of the right, just upheld Indiana University's vaccine requirement. Let the slippery slope begin now, towards widespread vaccine requirements!

Saw headline. Was it 5-4?

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Saw headline. Was it 5-4?

9-0 is how I've heard it interpreted. ACB presides over the appeals court whose ruling was being challenged.