In 2018, Yvonne Bair, a worker at Memorial Healthcare Hospital in Owosso, Michigan, was fired after she refused to get a flu shot because it contradicted her religious beliefs as a follower of Jesus Christ. Bair told the hospital that her religious beliefs prohibited her from “the injection or ingestion of foreign substances and require her to rely on natural methods to maintain her health”. As an alternative, Bair offered to wear a mask, but the Hospital rejected this offer.
On February 13th, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit to the Detroit U.S. District Court on behalf of Bair. They claimed that the hospital’s failure to accommodate her religious beliefs against receiving flu shots violated her First Amendment Rights. The Free Exercise Clause states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”. But Memorial Healthcare Hospital defended its opposition to the lawsuit stating that firing this employee followed proper protocol. The hospital states “In this case, Memorial Healthcare’s position is that the applicant refused to follow policies intended to protect and safeguard patient and staff health and safety”.
Recently in June, Memorial Healthcare was ordered to pay $74,418--$34,418 in back-pay to Bair, $20,000 each for compensatory and punitive damages--to settle the lawsuit filed by the EEOC regarding religious discrimination. Along with this, the hospital was required to post its revised policy and procedures, as well as train hospital staff regarding religious discrimination. After a long year of dispute, the hospital decided to pay these fines and give this lawsuit a rest.
I found this case to very closely resemble Jacob’s New York Supreme Court case that upheld the ban on religious exemptions to vaccinations for school children in response to an extensive measles epidemic. This law required children to get their first shot within two weeks of school and show documentation within the first month of school that they have follow-up appointments, or else they will be kicked out of school. Although children can still receive medical exemptions, New York state has made it much harder to get them. Justice Denise Hartman of Albany ruled that this decision was based on the “magnitude of disruption and potential harm” to the community.
Cases regarding mandatory vaccinations and whether or not they are lawful have been going on for a very long time. Dating all the way back to 1904, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Jacobson refused to abide by a Massachusetts law which allowed cities to require residents to be vaccinated against smallpox. He was fined five dollars. However, the case went to The Supreme Court which upheld the state’s authority to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The ruling claimed that this law was a legitimate exercise of the state’s power to protect the health and society of the community.
In my opinion, both this New York Supreme Court case decision banning religious exemptions and the Jacobson v. Massachusetts case rest on too much precedence. I believe that Memorial Healthcare’s decision was correct at first because the government has a compelling state health interest that outweighs Bair’s personal religious beliefs. I do believe that this is a slippery slope because not only has this and similar issues been seen in other First Amendment cases, but also it does not just affect one person but the community as a whole for both their health and safety. If refusing to get these vaccinations did not affect the society’s health and safety as a whole, then it would be a completely different story.
While I do strongly believe in the free exercise of religion, I think the case of mandatory vaccinations may be an area where public interest outweighs the benefits of offering free exercise to anti-vax communities. Due to the large amount of negative externalities that come with unvaccinated individuals, I think the government is in the right to require the procedure.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author's and Will's opinions that this situation lies on a lot of precedent, and that the public interest of health and safety should be protected over the employees' free exercise rights. Not only does the company expect its employees to comply with its regulations, but the patients do as well, since they would be at risk of contracting the illness from the employees. I worked at Geisinger this summer for an internship, and having a flu shot is one of the first questions asked upon employment, which should come at no surprise. The employees should be aware of the company's interests and support them since they represent the company.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the idea that public safety should be prioritized over Free Exercise rights. Exemptions should never be made for those who cite their religious beliefs as a reason to refuse vaccination. Allowing this to happen could potentially be harmful to many. Setting a precedent which favors religious exemptions over public health concerns is incredibly dangerous. In my opinion, while the freedom to believe should be absolute, the freedom to act on those said beliefs should contain certain restrictions.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this post as well as the above comments. I am curious to see if this is a precedent that the courts will cease to use because of public health concerns. If this were to happen, however, I believe that it would be favoring the secular over the religious, causing many issues for the establishment clause.
ReplyDeleteThe public interest of health and safety should be protected over the employees free exercise rights, this is because their refusal to vaccinate directly affects and puts others at risk. I believe that there is a compelling state interest to maintain a safe and healthy society which overrides the burden that may be placed upon the free exercise clause of the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think that the hospital had every right to fire an employee that was a risk to public health. Their decision to terminate her employment was not a direct targeting of her religion, but rather a protection of (very) compelling state interest. This also does not keep her from practicing her religion, it just makes her find employment elsewhere (preferably not a hospital) in order to do so. Although that may technically pose a financial burden on her, there is no Constitutional guarantee that says being part of a religion should be free.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author and the comments that follow claiming the hospital had a duty to fire the employee that posed as a health risk. A hospital's job is to tend to the sick, and they cannot do their job to the fullest if all of their employees do not follow health protocol. I agree with Selby's comment that firing this individual does not keep her from practicing her religion, and she should have understood what working in a hospital entailed. The hospital must do what is necessary to do their job and keep the public healthy.
ReplyDeleteI think that the general health of society is more important than someone's religious freedoms, especially if that person works at a hospital. I think that, since the flu is such a prominent and oftentimes serious illness, the worker's refusal to get the vaccine could have had serious health impacts at the hospital -- a place where most of the people there already have lowered immune systems. I agree with Ben's statement that the worker should have understood what working in a hospital entailed. It is incredibly important that hospital workers stay healthy in order to help the people who go to the hospital. I also think that, had the hospital allowed her to refuse the vaccine on religious grounds, that would have created a slippery slope in relation to religious exemptions from vaccines in hospital workers and could have potentially led to hospital workers wanting to be released from vaccine mandates for more serious illnesses like measles.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that people who work in public areas should be forced to get vaccinations. Her being fired was not based on her religion, but on her safety and the safety of others. I do believe that citizens should be able to exercise their rights, but health I believe overrides this. If the other employees have to follow the protocol of getting a flu shot, then she should as well.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, I believe that people who work in public areas should not be forced to get vaccinations. The act of being fired was based upon the idea that getting the vaccination went against her religion which goes against the establishment clause of the first amendment. However, I do see this is a slippery slope because it affects the community as a whole for their health and safety.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the woman should have been fired. People in the healthcase industry should be required to get vaccinations because the patients that they work with are or could be vulnerable to multiple pathogens or viruses that they might be carrying. However, I can sympathize with individuals that want a relgious exemption for vaccinations. These people would not be putting anyone in any real danger because they would be average people that do not work with other sick individuals. If they are average people that do not work in the healthcare industry, then I think they should be able to get religious exemptions from vaccinations.
ReplyDelete