![]() ![]() In reaching these conclusions, the court made findings that the use of masks, even surgical masks, were not sufficient accommodations to the vaccination policy because they were less effective at preventing spread of Covid-19 than vaccination. 2021), that the risks that unvaccinated healthcare workers posed in a workplace represented an undue burden to employers under the religious tests of Title VII. For example, a Massachusetts District Court held in Together Employees v. ![]() Unsurprisingly, employers and courts across the country are answering these tough questions differently. ![]() Therefore, for healthcare employers operating under EEOC guidance and assuming the religious observance is sincerely held, the crux of the issues remaining for employers and lower courts are: (1) are there reasonable accommodations to the vaccination policy? And, (2) if so, do those reasonable accommodations pose an undue hardship to employers? Importantly, employers should not require clergy attestations when evaluating requests. An objective basis could be that an employee has previously complied with vaccination policies, or that the belief seems more to be a personal preference, like adhering to veganism without tying the practice to a religious belief. Only then is an employer justified in making a limited fact intensive inquiry into the professed belief. Missouri opinion reinforced previous guidance that requests for religious exemptions need no “magic words” like Title VII or “accommodation”, and that employers should generally proceed under an assumption that a request for accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief unless the employer has an objective basis for questioning the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief. This includes sincerely held religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, or not even part of an organized sect. Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance, practice, and beliefs. The primary source of requests for exceptions to mandatory vaccination policies appear to be religious requests under Title VII. As a result, these debates are raging on in Human Resources groups and lower courts alike across the country. Missouri resolved the threshold issue of whether or not the vaccine mandate for health care employers was lawful, it gave no guidance to healthcare employers on how to handle requests for vaccination exemptions under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or religious accommodation requests under Title VII. _ (2022) provided clarity for hospitals and healthcare facilities when it preliminarily upheld a vaccine mandate for health care workers who are employed by organizations receiving federal funding. Earlier this year, the United States Supreme Court in Biden v. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |