Coinciding with the official end of the COVID public health emergency, several vaccine mandates, including those for federal employees and contractors, ended in May 2023. From the time such mandates were issued, they have been the subject of controversy and, in turn, litigation. And, while data suggests the vast majority of those working for or in contract with the federal government were either vaccinated or in the process of seeking an exemption, government requirements regarding these immunizations raised inevitable questions over government overreach even when in the role of employer.

Notably, enforcement of these mandates was largely suspended because of legal challenges. The 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision enjoining the vaccine mandate that was applicable to more than 3.5 million federal workers.[i] One of the points of contention with the mandate was the lack of a testing option as an alternative. Such an option was only available to those workers who received an approved religious or medical exemption. Critics of the mandate argue that workers were forced to choose between vaccinations and their jobs. The Biden-Harris administration contended, in part, the executive branch of the federal government was acting as any other employer that may elect to require immunizations for its workforce.

While enforcement of the mandates for federal workers became somewhat of a non-issue due to injunctive relief granted in litigation, there will undoubtedly be lingering questions regarding the ability of the federal government to institute such mandates and, in effect, its ability to be treated like other employers. While it varies by state, many private employers can and do require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID, although the changed circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic have caused some employers, large and small, to revisit their policies in this regard.

Going forward, the federal government’s decision to end vaccine mandates for its contractors and employees certainly may indeed influence private employers’ policies regarding vaccines, which considerations inevitably spill over into often controversial issues associated with exemptions and accommodations (religious, medical, disability) from vaccine requirements.

Set to be decided this term in the US Supreme Court is the case of Groff v. DeJoy,[ii] which involves a United States Postal Service employee’s claim of a violation of Title VII associated with a religious accommodation for Sunday work. And, while not directly related to the vaccine mandate, the decision in that case may nonetheless provide further clarity on the availability of religious accommodations and exemptions to workers. One of the issues in the Groff case is the “undue hardship” defense regularly utilized by employers in Title VII discrimination cases. A claimed hardship can serve to justify an employer’s denial of an accommodation request, and the high court is poised to weigh in on that which constitutes an undue hardship. Should the Court change the standards in this regard, employers may need to revisit their own policies and procedures associated with accommodation requests, including those associated with any COVID-19 vaccination requirements.

It also bears mentioning that in addition to the lifting of the mandate for federal workers, the federal government also eliminated the mandate for international travelers entering the U.S. and in settings certified by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”). The requirement for CMS facilities applies to some 10 million workers in the United States and it is anticipated the COVID-19 mandate will end in August 2023. Some of these facilities contend the vaccine requirement has created additional challenges in filling open jobs. And, unlike the vaccine requirement as applied to federal workers, the CMS mandate was upheld by the Supreme Court in a January 2022 decision in Biden v. Missouri.[iii] Separately, the vaccine mandate applicable to the military was repealed upon the passage of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act.

As COVID-19 emergency measures wind down, legal developments and varied public opinion will most certainly persist. This will undoubtedly include differing views on the government’s ability to issue mandates, particularly as they relate to medical intervention. For employers, it remains vital to monitor the oft-changing landscape of the laws applicable to every aspect of the employment relationship.

Keep Reading

Cannabis Workers Allege Quota to Trim 4 Pounds a Day Violates the California Labor Code The Ninth Circuit Reminds Us: Every Word Matters NO WAY, PRO SE! The Consequences of Abusing the Judicial System as a Pro Se Litigant in Colorado Victim of Financial Mismanagement or Unlawful Retaliation? New Jersey City University Program Founder Claims School Retaliated After Reporting Alleged Sexual Harassment “Real Housewives” Gets a Reality Check Missing a Chapter: Insufficiency of Expert Deposition Testimony in Medical Malpractice Litigation Crash Course: Why Summary Judgment Misses the Mark in Illinois Multi-Cause Limousine Crash Collision Bitter Truths: Lead, Cadmium, and Defective Pleadings in California Chocolate Class Action The Law of Unintended Consequences: Including Insurance Brokers in Litigation Strategy Communication May Waive the Attorney-Client Privilege

More by this author

The End of Vaccination Requirements by The Federal Government and Beyond: What Does It Mean for Employers? The Tragic and Curious Case of A Train vs. Pedestrian Collision Gone Nuclear California Deemed It Was Time: Bereavement Leave for Employees How Broad is Too Broad When Interpreting Insurance Policy Provisions?  NJ Supreme Court Weighs In “Use It or Lose It” No More – Colorado Supreme Court Weighs in on Employee’s Rights to Compensation for Accrued Vacation Pay The Constitutionality of Caps – The High Court in Tennessee Upholds Statutory Limits on Noneconomic Damages Impacted Florida Businesses – Are they Covered for COVID-19-Related Business Losses? Pre-Employment Drug Testing: What Nevada Employers and EPL Insurers Need to Know The Nevada Gaming Commission Takes Aim at Workplace Sexual Harassment and Discrimination, Increase Penalties for Violations

Sources

[i] Feds for Medical Freedom v. Biden, No. 22-40043 (5th Cir. 2022)

[ii] Groff v. DeJoy, No. 22-174 (OT 2022) [Civil Action No. 19-1879 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2021), aff’d, Groff v. Dejoy, 35 F.4th 162 (3d Cir. 2022).]

[iii] Biden v. Missouri, 142 S.Ct. 647 (2022).