- 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: Legal Recourse for Employer Vaccine Requirement
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:07 am to Indefatigable
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:07 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Both of which are specifically prohibited by law. Once again, totally irrelevant to what’s being discussed here. Getting the vaccine is not specifically prohibited by law, nor illegal. Hence, coercing you to do it is not illegal.
But could be still an issue for employers.
Nobody said it was illegal, once again, totally irrelevant to the thread.
0
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:08 am to Robin Masters
quote:
Well, it should be.
If we were running our country on “shoulds,” we would’ve been through this nonsense last summer.
We should’ve never shut down.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:08 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
Not sure what to tell you, you are painting with way too wide a brush. No, employers can't just ignore state employment laws, its not just a federal issue.
Every single vaccine mandate employment case will end with the same result. If you don’t know that by now, you haven’t been paying attention for the last 18 months, and you certainly haven’t paid attention to how the legal system has navigated covid issues.
In the employment context, anything reasonably related to or deriving from some type of governmental agency covid guidance is getting a thumbs up in court.
This post was edited on 8/4/21 at 9:09 am
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:08 am to Robin Masters
quote:
The law is pretty clear that a boss insisting you give him a blow job as a condition of employment IS coercion and definitely does not constitute a voluntary sexual relationship.
Correct…but this vaccine mandate is not the same thing as sexual harassment laws and criminal law already is in place as protections against this behavior you speak of. I have mentioned this aspect several times in the thread, that the vaccine mandate for employment is not addressed in any existing Federal statutes nor protections yet for the employee. The best bet could be massaging it as a religious protection but that’s about all there is right now. Later? Might be a different story as I am sure the issue will be forced into being addressed but as it is now you can quit and appeal to the unemployment board or find a new job and litigate on the side.
Sucky options but life isn’t fair…I admonish my daughter about ever getting caught up in that as well, what is deemed fair. Again this point of view I have is coming from someone who would be quitting myself due to not taking the vaccine if I were not an independent contracted employee. I don’t like the tactics being used but unfortunately that’s how it goes at this moment.
This post was edited on 8/4/21 at 9:10 am
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:10 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Every single vaccine mandate employment case will end with the same result. If you don’t know that by now, you haven’t been paying attention for the last 18 months, and you certainly haven’t paid attention to how the legal system has navigated covid issues.
In the employment context, anything reasonably related to or deriving from some type of governmental agency covid guidance is getting a thumbs up in court.
That is probably what someone said about evictions.
If one does not fight, than one never wins a suit.
He should seek legal advice from someone that is going to listen to the details, instead of what you are doing.
https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/coronavirus-workers-compensation-vaccine.aspx
This post was edited on 8/4/21 at 9:11 am
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:11 am to the808bass
quote:
If we were running our country on “shoulds,” we would’ve been through this nonsense last summer.
We should’ve never shut down.
Troof
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:13 am to GeauxFightingTigers1
quote:
He should seek legal advice from someone that is going to listen to the details, instead of what you are doing.
No shite dude. We’re on a message board.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:16 am to the808bass
quote:
We should’ve never shut down.
100% this.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:17 am to Catahoula20LSU
quote:
They cannot make you take an experimental vaccine as a requirement for employment
At this point yes they can unless there is a new protective law I am not aware of that specifically addresses the issue. Again, “at will” employment is a broadly brushed law. The “at will” applies to BOTH sides as well.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:22 am to boosiebadazz
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:25 am to Crimson1st
There are no laws currently that address this issue. An employer can require any number of things as a condition of employment as long as it does not break existing law. There aren't many, if any at all, protections for an employee who refuses to get the vaccine in an at will state. This is the sad truth. Maybe this changes as more companies are lining up to mandate the vaccine.
For the record, I'm very opposed to any of these mandates, but it's the world we live in right now. "Emergencies" give a lot of people power that do not normally wield it (or as much of it).
For the record, I'm very opposed to any of these mandates, but it's the world we live in right now. "Emergencies" give a lot of people power that do not normally wield it (or as much of it).
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:26 am to Indefatigable
quote:
quote:
There are state laws involved as well and people will be filing their claims in places like Orleans Parish Civil District Court. Do you really want a jury trial in Orleans Parish Civil District Court?
Everything involving the vaccine will end up in federal court. Every single one will also end up with the NVICP if it makes it that far.
The employer will not get the choice of where a claim involving state law is filed.
It's kind of funny that you're arguing that a state's "at will" employment laws are controlling but all the cases will end up in Federal court.
It's also pretty illuminating that while you're arguing that the law allows for employers to do this, in the end, you fall back on the corruption/politicization of the Federal courts (and politically appointed judges) as a means to protect these employers.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:31 am to the808bass
quote:
So an employer could mandate you drive a highly efficient car..
An employer, in Georgia, can absolutely fire an employee because of the car they drive. Unless otherwise stipulated in an employment contract.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:35 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
An employer, in Georgia, can absolutely fire an employee because of the car they drive. Unless otherwise stipulated in an employment contract.
Correct! It can literally be a termination over something totally made up. That gives the terminated employee the option to ask for unemployment compensation, find a new job, and/or litigate on the basis of a violation of Federal law if they feel a statute has been violated and they can locate an attorney who is willing to try.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:36 am to the808bass
quote:
quote:
Once any of the three get full FDA approval, then you are probably screwed.
Pfizer will be approved just after school starts. Completely coincidentally.
I believe the FDA is going to have a huge problem (and perhaps a legal challenge) in approving any of these drug while at the same time allowing these manufacturers to have complete f*cking immunity. SERIOUS QUESTION -- HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFORE???
And, we all know for a f*cking fact that if these manufacturers aren't given complete f*cking immunity, these experimental drugs will be pulled from the market faster than the luvGov can put his hands up an interns shirt.
Additionally, how is the FDA going to approve a drug without being able to tell you the potential short-term and long-term side effects. Again, this will almost certainly be subject to litigation.
Just from a PR perspective, approving these drug while at the same time allowing these drug manufacturers to maintain immunity, AND not being required to tell consumers the potential side effects (LIKE EVERY OTHER DRUG IS REQUIRED TO DO) will be disastrous.
This post was edited on 8/4/21 at 9:41 am
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:42 am to MMauler
quote:
I believe the FDA is going to have a huge problem (and perhaps a legal challenge) in approving any of these drug while at the same time allowing these manufacturers to have complete f*cking immunity. SERIOUS QUESTION -- HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFO RE?
PREP act, 2005.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:46 am to MMauler
quote:
And, we all know for a f*cking fact that if these manufacturers aren't given complete f*cking immunity, these experimental drugs will be pulled from the market faster than the luvGov can put his hands up an interns shirt.
If there is no accurate test as to who is infected, I have no idea how the manufacturers can even claim an effective rate. Let alone how the FDA could approve it.
?????
Posted on 8/4/21 at 9:55 am to Dawgfanman
quote:
quote:
I believe the FDA is going to have a huge problem (and perhaps a legal challenge) in approving any of these drug while at the same time allowing these manufacturers to have complete f*cking immunity. SERIOUS QUESTION -- HAS THAT EVER HAPPENED BEFO RE?
PREP act, 2005.
Admittedly, I had never heard of that before. But, from my reading, that is completely different than getting full FDA approval.
Perhaps it can be argued that we are in the Prep Act stage right now. And, you can understand the need for the Prep Act in that there isn't time to get approval or go through the proper trials and tests. But, I just don't see Covid being such an emergency. However, there is an argument.
FDA approval is something completely different. FDA approval basically involves telling the public that a drug is safe but listing all the possible side effects and those individuals who should avoid using the drug.
It would seem like once the FDA gives a drug its stamp of approval, the "emergency" period ends and the Prep Act is no longer applicable.
And, again, has the FDA approved any drug for non-Emergency Use while simultaneously allowing a drug manufacturer to retain full immunity?
Posted on 8/4/21 at 10:07 am to RoosterCogburn585
quote:
Also, I don't see what legal right they have to mandate a "vaccine" that is not only not fda approved, but also doesn't prevent infections or transmission.
They have the legal right to require whatever they want as long as it doesn't violate federal law for a protected case.
They can hire people who don't smoke.
They can hire only people that smoke.
They can hire only people born on Thursdays.
quote:
What exactly is the end game for the employer?
Well my guess is many are afraid they are going to be sued for not having it if someone who works for them catches it and dies.
Posted on 8/4/21 at 11:08 am to Indefatigable
This post was edited on 8/13/21 at 8:39 pm
Page 6 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News