Sept 24 Reuters - A federal judge on Friday ruled that a Cincinnati, Ohio-area healthcare provider could require its employees get vaccinated against COVID - 19 or risk losing their job, in what appears to be the first ruling of its kind for a private employer in the U.S.
The employees of St. Elizabeth Healthcare failed to establish that their individual liberties were being violated by the vaccine requirement of the hospital operator, which has the right to set employment terms, said U.S. District Judge David Bunning in Covington, Kentucky.
The widespread availability of vaccines in the United States helped to treat infections in the spring and early summer but the Delta variant has led to a new spike in cases and hospitals. HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS USA-TRENDS dgkvlgkrkpb index.html
Alan Statman, representing the employees, said they were evaluating their next steps.
The ruling is the first involving a demand for an injunction against a private employer's COVID-19 vaccination mandate, said Mark Guilfoyle, a lawyer representing St. Elizabeth.
Recent large employers https: www.reuters.com and www.reuters.com will become visible. Healthcare-pharmaceuticals major-us - companies making masks-vaccines mandatory - 2021 - 07 -30 have begun to impose deadlines for employees to get vaccinated as COVID - 19 infections remain elevated in the United States.
Both on Friday, the Biden Administration spelled out plans to require federal contractors to get vaccinated, which will apply to tens of millions of American citizens.
Employer vaccine requirements have spawned numerous lawsuits, although most are still in the initial stages of development. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against Houston Methodist Hospital in June under Texas wrongful termination law.
The class action on behalf of St. Elizabeth employees was based in part on concerns about the safety and efficacy of COVID 19 vaccines, among other claims.
Those suspicions cannot override the law, said Bunning.
If an employee believes his or her individual liberties are more important than the legally permitted conditions on his or her employment, that employee can and should choose to exercise another individual liberty, no less significant the right of seeking other employment, wrote Bunning.