- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Rejects Lawsuit Against Lafayette Hospital Vaccine Mandate
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:59 pm to boosiebadazz
Posted on 9/23/21 at 4:59 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Bet you wish you had a Union to protect you right about now.
I know you are lumping me in the category of anti-union but if you check my post history I've always had a soft spot for private unions. They have there place. Public unions, not so much.
This post was edited on 9/23/21 at 5:00 pm
0
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:02 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
They are free to refuse the vaccine. They are then free to work somewhere else. You don’t have a vested property interest in your job in an at-will state.
I haven't researched it, but I'm thinking you are meshing new employees and current employees.
My ignorant opinion would be they can absolutely require a person being hired to be "vaccinated," but they might not be able to fire a current employee for refusing to get vaccinated.
What does the louisiana constitution say about the rights of the citizens as far as medical treatment goes?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:04 pm to TSLG
quote:
What does the louisiana constitution say about the rights of the citizens as far as medical treatment goes?
I read the original statement from the Lafayette lawyers bringing this suit and they cited multiple Louisiana laws protecting people's freedom to choose Medical treatment in various situations
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:04 pm to DotBling
nothing about the brief report suggests that the issue was decided on standing.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:04 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
sex, gender,
What's the difference?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:06 pm to udtiger
quote:
If it was anything similar to the legal arguments set forth in the letter, it should have been a slam dunk.
I don't think these arguments were enough for a restraining order
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:07 pm to CDawson
I dunno but it’s not germane to the federal categories. I just misspoke when typing them from memory. Should have said sexual orientation (not sure if SCOTUS ruled on that one but it’s kicking around the appellate courts based on an inventive reading of sex). I
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
I’ll see if I can get permission to send you response letter from BSW. Super strong
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't think these arguments were enough for a restraining order
So not enough for the restraining order but the hospital has to have some legal trepidation to move forward with their mandates, right?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:10 pm to boosiebadazz
Don't worry about it. I believe you. I won't read it 
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:10 pm to TSLG
"I haven't researched it, but I'm thinking you are meshing new employees and current employees."
This simply is not correct. Louisiana is an at-will state. Either side--employer or employee--can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason so long as the reason is not prohibited. Vax status is not a prohibited reason. Things could get more complex if discrimination on the basis of religion or disability were claimed, but I did not see anything to suggest that was the case.
This simply is not correct. Louisiana is an at-will state. Either side--employer or employee--can terminate the employment relationship at any time and for any reason so long as the reason is not prohibited. Vax status is not a prohibited reason. Things could get more complex if discrimination on the basis of religion or disability were claimed, but I did not see anything to suggest that was the case.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:10 pm to GumboPot
I imagine there will be an emergency writ filed with the appellate court tomorrow or Saturday.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:10 pm to GumboPot
quote:
but the hospital has to have some legal trepidation to move forward with their mandates, right?
I imagine it's possible. IIRC, the stuff cited wasn't really for restraining orders
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
Terminating an employee for exercising his or her rights to refuse medical care is facially unlawful, regardless of the nature of employment. This even applies to "at will" employees, who are the least protected by law. See Newsom v Glob Data Sys., Inc. 2012-412 p. 4 (LA. App. 3 Cir. 12/12/12).
This is a current ruling. It seems the judge had no interest in precedent based on what I am reading here.
This is a current ruling. It seems the judge had no interest in precedent based on what I am reading here.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:13 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I imagine there will be an emergency writ filed with the appellate court tomorrow or Saturday.
If what SFP is saying this may be a waste of time.
Is is possible for lawyers to talk to judges before they file suit so they have some foresight of how to present the case before the judge for the best chance of success? I mean, they can do it over dinner or a fishing trip weekend.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:15 pm to GumboPot
quote:
Is is possible for lawyers to talk to judges before they file suit so they have some foresight of how to present the case before the judge for the best chance of success? I
Absolutely not
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:16 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Absolutely not
That never happens.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:16 pm to DotBling
If 5% of front line workers quit or are let go, the hospital is in a world of hurt. I don’t know anyone who is fully staffed.
frick the hospitals.
frick the hospitals.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:19 pm to CDawson
That’s not what that case says at all
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:23 pm to CDawson
quote:
Terminating an employee for exercising his or her rights to refuse medical care is facially unlawful, regardless of the nature of employment. This even applies to "at will" employees, who are the least protected by law. See Newsom v Glob Data Sys., Inc. 2012-412 p. 4 (LA. App. 3 Cir. 12/12/12).
From the case:
quote:
Newsom and Pavlu made written demands and, subsequently, filed suit under La.R.S. 23:631 for their final wages. These petitions for damages were consolidated for trial.
This is a lost wage case. NOT a TRO case.
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News