- 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 5:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:26 pm to SlowFlowPro
He’s misrepresenting or misreading this part of the opinion:
quote:
Employment-at-will is firmly established in Louisiana law. This default rule is contained in La.Civ.Code art. 2747, which states: “A man is at liberty to dismiss a hired servant attached to his person or family, without assigning any reason for so doing. The servant is also free to depart without assigning any cause.”
Without a specific contract or agreement which establishes a fixed term of employment, an “at will” employee is free to quit at any time without liability to his or her employer and, likewise, may be terminated by the employer at any time, provided the termination does not violate any statutory or constitutional provision. See Fauntleroy v. Rainbow Marketers, 04–926, pp. 2–3 (La.App. 3 Cir. 11/10/04), 888 So.2d 1045, 1048.
0
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:32 pm to Homesick Tiger
I think the Oschner case is before Tommy Frederick.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:34 pm to DotBling
What is to prevent a company from telling all pregnant women that they must get an abortion to keep their job?
What about HIPAA?
What about HIPAA?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:38 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Where did all of this talk of standing come from?
Standing has nothing to do with this case.
Was standing mentioned in news reports or what?
Is standing the reason why the injunction was denied?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:45 pm to Epaminondas
fricking bullshite.
Fed G mandates it to employers.
Employers, private business, feel they have no choice but to comply.
fricking courts reject it as if the Fed G simply had nothing to do with it.
Clown banana republic. fricking TYRANNY!
Fed G mandates it to employers.
Employers, private business, feel they have no choice but to comply.
fricking courts reject it as if the Fed G simply had nothing to do with it.
Clown banana republic. fricking TYRANNY!
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:47 pm to DotBling
I'm not an attorney, so forgive me if I seem ignorant, but is that pretty much the end of the road for this lawsuit, or is there an appeals process where it goes to a higher court now?
This post was edited on 9/23/21 at 5:48 pm
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:48 pm to navy
quote:
Fed G mandates it to employers.
Uh hospitals were putting in mandates long before Biden did his BS EO
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:50 pm to obdobd918
quote:
What is to prevent a company from telling all pregnant women that they must get an abortion to keep their job?
They could i guess but why would they?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 5:52 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
That’s not what that case says at all
Then it needs to be.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:05 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).
I'm with boosie on this one. That case isn't on point, and I can't find that exact language anywhere. At first, I assumed that you had miscited it, but I'm not finding it. Got a link? I'm #team refusal of treatment should be a fundamental right BTW.
Has this type of case ever went to the lasc on 40:1159.7 or its predecessor?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:06 pm to Cosmo
quote:
They could i guess but why would they?
Lower their insurance costs.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:08 pm to the808bass
quote:
Lower their insurance costs.
Do you public policy, baw?
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:08 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
You don’t have a vested property interest in your job in an at-will state.
This is not true.
quote:
vested property interest
Are you saying their vested interest in employment gives them no standing? What a worthless benefit it is to be vested then. How do teachers and others benefit so greatly from vested status?
This post was edited on 9/23/21 at 6:13 pm
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:10 pm to NineLineBind
quote:
People file frivolous lawsuits all the damn time looking for a cheap score. I’ve only heard the phrase “no standing” used infrequently for decades. Now, all of a sudden, not one swinging dick in America has standing anymore.
There was no standing issue in this case, period. Someone made a, I assume, joking connection to the myriad of election cases that were thrown out on lack of standing and people ran with it.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:11 pm to Homesick Tiger
1000% chance if the judge ruled against the way the media wants for any case they would name the judge.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:18 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Standing has nothing to do with this case. The hospitals are private employers and are free to mandate conditions of employment in an at-will state.
At the risk of many downvotes, this is correct.
Unless the employment agreement is different, they can require. The response is for every non vaxxed to walk and shut down the hospital
Power is with the people with courage
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:18 pm to NineLineBind
quote:
Someone please explain this to me like I’m a recently-formed gamete.
First and foremost, there doesn't appear to be any standing issue in this case. As a general matter, there are requirements for initiating a lawsuit. One of which is whether the party has "standing" or more colloquially "a dog in the fight" More specifically, someone must have harm to their own legal interests. For example, I can't sue one of your suppliers if they breach a contract with you and I don't have any harm.
Its not often that an issue of standing is the basis of a court decision. Nevertheless, it did occur a few times in the last United States Supreme Court term. Most famously, probably in California v. Texas where the Supreme Court ruled that the states challenging the constitutionality of the ACA lacked standing to bring the suit.
Since that decision, you have had a few people derisively refer to any unfavorable outcome in a court case as "lacks standing." even when the issue of standing isn't part of the decision
This post was edited on 9/23/21 at 6:21 pm
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:20 pm to boosiebadazz
It’s going to be fun when Oschner and Lourdes have to shut down wards, because they don’t have personnel.
These nurses are going to be travel nurses, make much more money, and eventually not return to Louisiana.
frick out this stupid arse state
These nurses are going to be travel nurses, make much more money, and eventually not return to Louisiana.
frick out this stupid arse state
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:23 pm to CoachChappy
quote:
have to shut down wards, because they don’t have personnel.
The hospitals would rather have people die from lack of healthcare personnel than accept natural immunity as a form of protection against Covid.
It’s a runaway freight train of stupid.
Posted on 9/23/21 at 6:29 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
There was no standing issue in this case, period. Someone made a, I assume, joking connection to the myriad of election cases that were thrown out on lack of standing and people ran with it.
Fine and dandy. frick the courts, frick Fauci, and frick every leftist who perverted the American system for their own personal greed.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News