The hospital requires that all employees receive the flu shot during flu season. Jeff Fraser, a lawyer representing the hospital, affirmed the necessity of this shot, stating “All Memorial Healthcare policies related to flu vaccines are intended to protect patient health and safety and to prevent the spread and transmission of and complications from the flu.” Bair offered to wear a mask instead of getting the shot, however; hospital officials told her this would not be sufficient, despite their policy that allows masks for workers who cannot receive the shot for medical reasons. It is also important to note that this job would involve Bair working at home. This case follows a similar religious discrimination lawsuit based in North Carolina. In this case, a North Carolina hospital had to pay $89,000 to settle a lawsuit after they fired three workers that requested religious accommodations. The EEOC now files suit again, on the grounds that revoking employment due to Bair's religious beliefs is in violation of her civil rights. Although the EEOC is suing because of their belief that this is a violation of the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, this case could equally be seen as a violation of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment, which states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
In order to decipher my thoughts on this case, I turned to Sherbert v. Verner (1963), another case that simultaneously tackles the issues of free exercise in relation to employment. In this case, the appellant could not work on Saturday, as this was the Sabbath day of her faith, and she was fired. Mr. Justice Brennan justified the majority opinion of the court, which ruled that this bridged the appellant's right to the free exercise of her religion, by stating “…to condition the availability of benefits upon this appellant's willingness to violate a cardinal principle of her religious faith effectively penalizes the free exercise of her constitutional liberties.” I see Bair’s situation to be strikingly similar to Sherbert’s, as essentially the hospital is conditioning her employment on her willingness to violate her religious belief that she cannot inject foreign substances in her body. In addition, this pressures Bair to forego her religious beliefs just for the sake of securing employment.
The key difference in this case then lies in the fact that Bair’s refusal to get the shot could risk the health of other hospital employees and patients. However, because of the hospital’s policy that allows those with medical reasons to forego getting the shot and to wear masks, I believe that this is in fact a violation of Bair’s free exercise of her religion. The hospital’s difference in handling medical and religious excuses makes it clear that they are prohibiting her from working based on her religious beliefs, not health and safety concerns. If it was a genuine health concern for her to be wearing a mask instead of receiving the shot, it would be disjointed to allow other health professionals to wear masks for medical reasons. Additionally, Bair would be working at home, so she would not be in frequent contact with other employees and patients. For these reasons, I side with the EEOC and believe this is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. In the future, however; I question how they will justify excusing those with a medical excuse to wear a mask if wearing a mask is not sufficient to prevent the spread of the flu.
6 comments:
Personally, I side with the hospital. I believe their policy is facially neutral and has no intent to discriminate. Potentially more importantly, however, is that they are a private institution who has the right to craft their own policies and hire/fire who they please. This policy, which was created for the well being of their patients, makes plenty of sense. If you cannot receive a shot for medical reasons, and are forced to wear a mask, so be it. The burden of being forced to receive a shot that could potentially do bodily harm to you is quite large.However, If the hospital, according to its policy, still wants to hire you then that is their decision. If you refuse to get a shot, which goes against their policy, and the case can certainly be made that the policy is in the interest of the general welfare of the patients, then they do not have to hire you. The burden of having to go find another job for an individual is a lot less then potentially exposing disease to the 30,000 plus patients the hospital serves annually. In reference to the precedent, I would image that there are other places that would hire this applicant regardless of the fact that she does not have her vaccinations, which varies from Sherbert, where no one would hire the applicant because they were not able to work on Saturdays. Finally, I would liken this situation to our enrollment at Bucknell. Our ability to come to class each day, and enroll in general, is contingent upon receiving an annual physical and receiving vaccinations for diseases like Meningitis. That policy is crafted in the name of public health. I am unaware of the school's policy towards religious exemptions, but I would venture to say that any institution should have the right to deny an applicant if they refuse to adhere to rules regarding the public good, much like Reynolds had to adhere to the federal anti-bigamy laws in the name of public good.
I agree with Will and I think he addresses many of the objections I have with the EEOC's position. It seems unreasonable to compare an immunization exemption for people who are unable to be vaccinated due health reasons to an exemption for religious vaccine objectors. There is a compelling interest by this hospital to keep their patients safe and in good health and refusing vaccines jeopardizes that interest. Therefore, a member of their medical staff to refusing a vaccine seems to be a practical reason to fire them. I imagine if a hospital began issuing exemptions to every religious anti-vaxxer it would significantly impact the number of people going there for treatment.
I agree with the above two comments on the grounds of compelling interest of the hospital and that the policy is facially neutral. The policy invoked at the hospital serves to promote overall achievement of public health and allow for staff members as well as patients to stay healthy in the midst of viral epidemics. In order for the hospital to continue to provide public health services the employee's need to abide by regulations that ensure the health and safety of patients that instill their trust in the hospital when they go there. Although, I find what you said about Bair having to work from home be quite compelling for her to potentially receive an exemption. If she is not entering the hospital than she should be granted an exemption because she is only exposing herself and no one else to risk. Although, once again the possibility of exemption opens up pandora's box, many people may claim to hold religious beliefs in order to receive such.
I side with the hospital on this case. As Will argued, since this is a neutral policy, not made with any direct intent to discriminate, and also considering this is a private company, they are allowed to implement such a policy. The fact the Bair has to work from home furthers the argument that she does not need to receive an exemption, as she is only potentially harming herself. I think by granting her an exemption, the doors for a very slippery slope open up with different people claiming religious beliefs to match Bair's case.
I agree with the comments in this thread, I find that the hospital was not forcing her into undue burden by asking her to get a vaccine that everyone that the hospital employees must get. The policy is neutral and doesn't target her religion. The matter of her working at home and wanting an exception is not a constitutional matter, it is a private matter between her and the hospital. The hospital has an image and health standards that its employees must respect if they wish to work there regardless of religion.
I agree with the prior comments arguing that the hospital was well within its jurisdiction to require all staff members to receive the flu vaccination. The rule in itself is entirely neutral as every person working within the establishment is required to be vaccinated no matter their religious beliefs. Bair was treated in the exact same manner as every other one of her colleagues who all signed a contract with the hospital (which is a private institution) who have this rule enabled to protect patients from other potential harm. Finally, to determine Bair’s religious belief more important than her colleagues would also lead to a slippery slope regarding the importance of each individual beliefs.
Post a Comment