Can Vaccination Requirements be Enforced in the Workplace?

Amanda Milgrom
Amanda Milgrom

Share Post:

As COVID-19 continues to rage across the country, the question of vaccines – and whether they can be imposed on an individual or not – is a hotly debated topic. Folks have strong opinions on both sides of the discussion. Some stand for individual liberties, arguing the individual’s choice is more important. Others argue for the collective, contending that one person’s liberty should not come at the expense of exposing the group. As an employment lawyer, I get a lot of questions from my clients asking whether they can force their employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. As we’ve written about in prior blog posts, the answer is a qualified yes.

Another way to analyze the question of imposing vaccine mandates is to ask: what would the Supreme Court do? Notably, the Supreme Court was forced to confront this issue back in 1905 during the smallpox epidemic. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the Supreme Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. In a majority opinion written by Justice Harlan, the Court concluded that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state. There, the plaintiff had a bad reaction to a vaccine as a child, and so when the smallpox vaccine was made available, he was fined $5 for not getting it. The case wound its way through the courts until it reached our highest court. There, the Supreme Court declared in a 7-2 ruling that one man’s liberty could not deprive his community of their own liberty (i.e., avoiding disease).

The Plaintiff’s arguments were very similar to those we are hearing today: that the U.S. Constitution protects your right to decide whether to inject a vaccine into your body; that the government does not have the authority to intervene and impose it on you. These challenges have not yet come before a court regarding the COVID vaccine. However, as more employers are imposing a vaccine requirement on their employees, (see Delta Airlines, for example), we can expect that they will. Particularly now that the vaccine has passed full FDA approval. At that time, it will be interesting to see how Courts apply Jacobson and its precedential ruling that a state can impose a vaccine requirement.

While the structure of the Court is quite different today compared to 1905, the Jacobson case offers us significant insight into how a challenge against a vaccine mandate would be handled and can provide employers further assurance that a mandate is permissible under the law.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

PARTNER & EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

Amanda Milgrom represents individuals and businesses of all sizes in various litigation matters regarding employment, intellectual property, and business disputes. She practices employment law, representing employees in discrimination lawsuits and counseling employers on best practices, drafting employee handbooks, and putting together suites of employment contracts.

More Articles

Business & Corporate Law

The Small Business Reorganization Act and Its Prolonged Adoption Through June of 2024

Chapter 11 bankruptcy code generally provides businesses with avenues and protections to reorganize and restructure obligations. This form of bankruptcy is very often more favorable than chapter 7 bankruptcy because it allows business owners to stay in the driver’s seat while attempting to negotiate a plan that complies with the bankruptcy code. In contrast, filing a chapter 7 petition results in full relinquishment of control of the business and the appointment of a third-party trustee whose primary obligation to is to liquidate estate assets for the benefit of unsecured creditors.

Read More »
Business & Corporate Law

Beneficial Ownership Disclosure: New Reporting Requirements for Small Businesses

On September 30, 2022, the U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) issued its highly anticipated Final Rule establishing a beneficial ownership information (BOI) reporting requirement under the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) of 2019. These rules significantly change the obligations of business entities to disclose previously private information regarding the ownership and control of these entities. The primary purpose of the CTA, enacted as part of the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2020 is to protect the US financial system from being used for illicit purposes, including preventing corrupt actors, terrorists, and criminals from hiding assets in anonymous shell companies. Background for this rule was addressed in prior blog posts including The Corporate Transparency Act (1/31/22) and FinCEN and Real Estate (8/2/22).

Read More »
Miscellaneous

When Shares are Not Cares

As attorneys representing startups, Milgrom & Daskam knows that early-stage businesses often have many needs and not much capital to meet them. This often results in startups bartering for services using whatever currency they have. Sometimes this results in interesting exchanges (two hundred pounds of Valencia oranges in exchange for a logo design being our personal benchmark); more often it results in founders giving away the most freely available form of credit they have—equity in their company.

Read More »