![]() ![]() are looking to vaccinate staff as part of reopening plans. Similarly, health care facilities and hospitals could claim “undue hardship” due to the greater risk an unvaccinated workforce poses toward the vulnerable populations they serve. In terms of COVID-19 vaccinations, workplaces such as bars, gyms and restaurants could conceivably claim “undue hardship” in accommodating religious exemptions to vaccinations on the grounds that doing so increases the spread of infection among their customers and employees. Previous court decisions make clear that “undue hardship” should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines do not provide specific examples of what constitutes a “de minimis” cost. ![]() ![]() In other words, in the case of COVID-19 vaccines, employers would not be required to incur even a minimal cost in accommodating an employee’s religious objection to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.īut there remains ambiguity. In that decision, which focused on an employee’s request for time off for religious observance, the Supreme Court defined “undue hardship” as any cost greater than “de minimis,” or too small to merit consideration. On this, the new guidelines abide by the standard established in a 1977 landmark Supreme Court case, TWA v. Whether an objection on religious grounds is accepted will depend on whether it is deemed to not cause the business “undue hardship” – a phrase that has long been the subject of court interpretation. There have also been legal challenges brought where employees state that their Christian beliefs require they avoid inoculation. For example some Christian Scientists and members of the Dutch Reformed Church are opposed to vaccination. The new guidelines echo earlier court rulings that take a broad definition of religion as including “ moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” that are held by the believer with the same sincerity as that of traditional religions.Īs such, opposition to mandatory vaccines could be made from members of smaller faith communities as well as from adherents of more mainstream religions. This legislation requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance – but only if the accommodation can be made without “undue hardship” on the employer’s business. In terms of religion, the commission points toward Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. But the commission warned that any such policy would be subject to certain anti-discrimination laws. Under the new guidelines, employers are allowed to adopt mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policies. Then, it advised employers that they should consider “ encouraging employees to get the influenza vaccine rather than requiring them to take it.” It was the first time that the commission has provided an update on vaccines since the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic. In December, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission – the body responsible for interpreting and enforcing federal anti-discrimination laws – issued guidelines addressing employees’ rights and COVID-19 vaccinations.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |