Judge: Florida and CDC Still At An Impass

[Buckeyefrank100]

54 minutes ago, BlerkOne said:

On Saturday, a federal court ruling upheld the right of private employers to require all of their employees to get the COVID-19 shots, just as employers have already been permitted to order employees to get flu shots and other vaccines.

 

The ruling in Texas is setting precedent nationwide, including in Georgia where two-thirds of the people are not fully vaccinated, and may not want the shots, ever.

As it is under the ruling, workers have no rights of refusal, at all, other than to prove they have a religious or medical exemption; or they can simply quit.

The problem with this ruling is that the vaccine is still experimental in status, not approved.  The flu vaccine is fully approved.  I remember reading about a federal ruling that stated the businesses cannot require employees to take experimental vaccines.  If I'm correct, I would assume a federal court will strike down the TX ruling.

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, Keys2Heaven said:

I'm not a lawyer, nor will I pretend to be, but I have a question for anyone who is or who at least knows more about legal issues than I do.

Regarding the decision of the federal judge this weekend to toss the lawsuit by unvaccinated workers employed by Houston Methodist, does this not set a precedent that unvaccinated workers are not a protected class. And, if that is the case, doesn't this led more weight towards the cruise lines following the CDC and therefore are o.k. with requiring proof of vaccination?

I find this quote by the judge interesting:

In the ruling, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes said, “This is not coercion. 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.”

After all, isn't this what the cruise lines are trying to do?

The ruling of this judge will be appealed, but it is in line with historic rulings concerning vaccines required to work and is also in line with the EEOC's determination that employers may require a COVID-19 vaccine.  The most impactful parts of the judge's decision were her rulings on the element of "coercion" (there legally was none) and the importance of the vaccine in a healthcare setting because of patient care. 

 

The only impact of this case on the State of Florida legal case against the CDC would be limited to an argument that the measures the CDC have taken are intended to protect public health.  But I don't believe the CDC would argue the Texas case or that the judge would consider it. 

 

As far as any challenge by the cruise lines against Florida on the vaccine requirement ban, they could certainly argue protection of health and safety of crew, passengers and the communities they visit, but whether any challenge will be filed based on the vaccine ban is still an open question.

Edited June 14, 2021 by harkinmr

[harkinmr]

1 hour ago, crewsweeper said:

If the judge is a Texas judge, not a Federal judge, and the suit is specific to Houston Methodist, doubtful a FL judge would pay any attention unless there are  statutes similar to Texas' statutes applicable in FL>

This was a case filed in federal court and heard by a federal judge.

[Buckeyefrank100]

1 minute ago, harkinmr said:

The ruling of this judge will be appealed, but it is in line with historic rulings concerning vaccines required to work and is also in line with the EEOC's determination that employers may require a COVID-19 vaccine.  The most impactful parts of the judge's decision were her rulings on the element of "coercion" (there legally was none) and the importance of the vaccine in a healthcare setting because of patient care. 

 

The only impact of this case on the State of Florida legal case against the CDC would be limited to an argument that the measures the CDC are intended to protect public health.  But I don't believe the CDC would argue the Texas case or that the judge would consider it. 

 

As far as any challenge by the cruise lines against Florida on the vaccine requirement ban, they could certainly argue protection of health and safety of crew, passengers and the communities they visit, but whether any challenge will be filed based on the vaccine ban is still an open question.

The EEOC's rulings were based on fully approved vaccines being required.  It is up in the air as to whether that ruling applies to unapproved vaccines.

[harkinmr]

3 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

The EEOC's rulings were based on fully approved vaccines being required.  It is up in the air as to whether that ruling applies to unapproved vaccines.

No.  The EEOC ruling was based on the EUA for the COVID-19 vaccine.  There have been numerous rulings in the past by the EEOC concerning fully approved vaccines.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, Keys2Heaven said:

Right, and since workers are "at will" employees for a private business and can go work someplace else if they don't like the rules, wouldn't the same apply to consumers who can take their business elsewhere if they don't like the rules enacted by a private business?

Wouldn't this essentially nullify what Florida is trying to do? I mean how is a private business mandating a vaccine in the name of public health and safety any different from the CDC who has established protocols for the cruising industry in the name of public health and safety. And how would the cruise lines be wrong in asking for proof as part of the screening protocols?

I feel this judge's decision is very important to the case in Florida.

Not a lawyer, but I feel this way as well.  It was a US district court, not a Texas state court, so without reading the pleadings, I would say it was a "discrimination" case, and therefore federal.  And, this does clarify the precedents that a private employer can require any screening process that they want, as long as it does not affect a "protected class".

[ontheweb]

58 minutes ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

The problem with this ruling is that the vaccine is still experimental in status, not approved.  The flu vaccine is fully approved.  I remember reading about a federal ruling that stated the businesses cannot require employees to take experimental vaccines.  If I'm correct, I would assume a federal court will strike down the TX ruling.

It is not experimental; it is authorized. I realized that is different than approved, but there has been rigorous clinical testing. Soon Moderna and Pfizer will be approved. I am waiting for the excuses then.

[Tippyton]

13 minutes ago, songbird1329 said:

Texas has very pro employer laws, employees have very few rights.  An at will employee can be fired for any reason except one that violates federal law, e.g. civil rights laws, the ADA, etc.

 

I haven’t read the pleadings, but my educated guess is that the suit was brought as a civil rights case.  
 

Prior case law supported the position that an employer mandating a vaccine was lawful.  Now we have a decision that extends to a vaccine approved for emergency use only.

 

And yes, as if May 2021 the EEOC has ruled that employers can mandate employees be vaccinated for Covid.

Hmmmm.  In Texas, have a great employer, and yes - at-will employment is a good thing. 

 

But....having had Covid and have no interest nor medical reason to...?  I know what my case would revolve around.

 

- The Forgotten 20

[BlerkOne]

29 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

 

We have a severe labor shortage down here, and it's because of the booming economy has more job openings than people to fill them.

Who doesn't have a labor shortage?

[TNcruising02]

35 minutes ago, Joe817 said:

Let's turn that around.  Texas has very pro employee laws. Prospective employees are not required to work for any company or person. Unions cannot tell an employee they MUST join the union in order to work at a company. Employees has the right to pick and choose where to work. They also have the  right to terminate their employment at any time, for any reason. An employer has many more restrictions they must adhere to, than an employee.  An 'at will' state benefits both the employee and the employer.  Maybe that's why Texas enjoys one of the strongest, robust economies in the U.S.  We have a severe labor shortage down here, and it's because of the booming economy has more job openings than people to fill them. Perhaps that's why people are immigrating to Texas more than any other state. 

[ok. off my soapbox. Flame suit on. ]

Well said!  Even people from California are moving to Texas.  When people are relocating to a state and not running from a state, that is the result of policies that work for the people who reside in that state.

[TNcruising02]

A lot of people hate on Florida, but it's not one of the states people are fleeing:

Key Takeaways from the 2020 Migration Report

• People are fleeing California for Texas and Idaho
• Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are the three states with the most outbound moves.
• The top five inbound states in 2020 are Idaho, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with Tennessee overtaking South Carolina from the 2019 results.
• Florida, Texas, and Colorado round out the top eight states for inbound moves.
• Despite pandemic, people continued to move at rates comparable to 2019
  
  https://www.northamerican.com/migration-map

[Joe817]

And like the Bartle's & James commercial: "We thank you for your support."  

[BlerkOne]

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

A lot of people hate on Florida, but it's not one of the states people are fleeing:

Key Takeaways from the 2020 Migration Report

• People are fleeing California for Texas and Idaho
• Illinois, New York, and New Jersey are the three states with the most outbound moves.
• The top five inbound states in 2020 are Idaho, Arizona, Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with Tennessee overtaking South Carolina from the 2019 results.
• Florida, Texas, and Colorado round out the top eight states for inbound moves.
• Despite pandemic, people continued to move at rates comparable to 2019
  
  https://www.northamerican.com/migration-map

People don't move to Idaho because of policies.

[firefly333]

2 hours ago, Joe817 said:

Let's turn that around.  Texas has very pro employee laws. Prospective employees are not required to work for any company or person. Unions cannot tell an employee they MUST join the union in order to work at a company. Employees has the right to pick and choose where to work. They also have the  right to terminate their employment at any time, for any reason. An employer has many more restrictions they must adhere to, than an employee.  An 'at will' state benefits both the employee and the employer.  Maybe that's why Texas enjoys one of the strongest, robust economies in the U.S.  We have a severe labor shortage down here, and it's because of the booming economy has more job openings than people to fill them. Perhaps that's why people are immigrating to Texas more than any other state. 

[ok. off my soapbox. Flame suit on. ]

A month ago 100 people a day were moving to the dfw area. We passed houston in population. Ft worth became the 12th largest city on it's own merit due to the influx. 

 

You can imagine what our property taxes are doing. 

[Joe817]

4 minutes ago, firefly333 said:

A month ago 100 people a day were moving to the dfw area. We passed houston in population. Ft worth became the 12th largest city on it's own merit due to the influx. 

 

You can imagine what our property taxes are doing. 

I can, because we are all living it. Prosperity cuts with a two edged sword.

[BoozinCroozin]

12 hours ago, Buckeyefrank100 said:

The problem with this ruling is that the vaccine is still experimental in status, not approved.  The flu vaccine is fully approved.  I remember reading about a federal ruling that stated the businesses cannot require employees to take experimental vaccines.  If I'm correct, I would assume a federal court will strike down the TX ruling.

Not true at all. Almost all states are At Will states. They may not be permitted to have proof of vaccine, but they can 100% terminate you without any cause for not providing it. There is nothing you would be able to do to fight it. There are simple things that can be done to protect themselves from violation. Security is the biggest one. Most businesses have badge readers and everyone is required to use their badge. Remember that time you held the door for your friend that didn't badge in? Your company surely does and has it on camera. You file suit for wrongful termination and the company hands the video to your attorney and the agreement to security requirements. Case closed.

[Buckeyefrank100]

3 hours ago, BoozinCroozin said:

Not true at all. Almost all states are At Will states. They may not be permitted to have proof of vaccine, but they can 100% terminate you without any cause for not providing it. There is nothing you would be able to do to fight it. There are simple things that can be done to protect themselves from violation. Security is the biggest one. Most businesses have badge readers and everyone is required to use their badge. Remember that time you held the door for your friend that didn't badge in? Your company surely does and has it on camera. You file suit for wrongful termination and the company hands the video to your attorney and the agreement to security requirements. Case closed.

I'm not arguing that point at all.  I completely agree with that, but Federal law trumps state law in almost every circumstance.  The Federal law is far from clear.

[ProgRockCruiser]

10 hours ago, Joe817 said:

Let's turn that around.  Texas has very pro employee laws. Prospective employees are not required to work for any company or person. Unions cannot tell an employee they MUST join the union in order to work at a company. Employees has the right to pick and choose where to work. They also have the  right to terminate their employment at any time, for any reason.

Other than the union thing (I honestly have no idea how common that is), aren't all of those employee rights rather universal in the US and frankly most western countries? 

 

Are there places in the US where I am required to work for a certain company?  Or that I cannot quit my job?

[deliver42]

Don't forget, a Federal judge just threw out a case where the employees at a hospital sued the hospital because they required employees to be vaccinated. The judge sided with the hospital. They can require vaccines for employees.

[ProgRockCruiser]

1 hour ago, deliver42 said:

Don't forget, a Federal judge just threw out a case where the employees at a hospital sued the hospital because they required employees to be vaccinated. The judge sided with the hospital. They can require vaccines for employees.

Yes, that was what post #69 was all about, and about a dozen subsequent posts.

[songbird1329]

13 hours ago, Joe817 said:

Let's turn that around.  Texas has very pro employee laws. Prospective employees are not required to work for any company or person. Unions cannot tell an employee they MUST join the union in order to work at a company. Employees has the right to pick and choose where to work. They also have the  right to terminate their employment at any time, for any reason. An employer has many more restrictions they must adhere to, than an employee.  An 'at will' state benefits both the employee and the employer.  Maybe that's why Texas enjoys one of the strongest, robust economies in the U.S.  We have a severe labor shortage down here, and it's because of the booming economy has more job openings than people to fill them. Perhaps that's why people are immigrating to Texas more than any other state. 

[ok. off my soapbox. Flame suit on. ]

 

Sweetie, you have no clue.

 

I’ll admit, I’ve only been handling labor and employment suits for a short time — my previous experience is primarily in mass tort and environmental claims — but …

 

Texas is a tight-to-work state.  That means it affords fewer protections to an employee than, let’s say, my home state of New York.  Fact, not opinion.  The laws in Texas heavily favors employer over employee.  Your “opinion”  is completely uninformed about the state if the law.  Your reasoning has no basis in what the law actually is.  You’re making a [bad] policy argument, not a legal one,

 

Not that the court’s decision would have been different here in New York.   Though we might see that tested here, one of our major hospitals announced  a mandatory vaccination policy for its employees.  And even given NY’s more generous employment law, federal law would still apply — and the employees are likely to lose.

 

 

 

 

[TNcruising02]

Both Texas and Florida are among the few states with no state income tax.  That makes those states very attractive to employees.  Since both of these states are high on the list of states that have people moving to them and not fleeing from them, their policies are working.

[broberts]

1 hour ago, songbird1329 said:

Sweetie, you have no clue.

 

 

Condescension tends to obviate a message.

[SCBarker]

1 hour ago, TNcruising02 said:

Both Texas and Florida are among the few states with no state income tax.  That makes those states very attractive to employees.  Since both of these states are high on the list of states that have people moving to them and not fleeing from them, their policies are working.

Unfortunately we have property taxes high enough to make up for it.  They're so high it puts us in 21st place for lowest tax burden state. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

[TNcruising02]

1 minute ago, SCBarker said:

Unfortunately we have property taxes high enough to make up for it.  They're so high it puts us in 21st place for lowest tax burden state. 

https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Your total tax burden is pretty good at 30.  Florida looks even better and my state of Tennessee looks good too.