Supreme Court Leaves Ninth Circuit COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Ruling in Place: What Curtis v. Inslee Means for Employers

June 2, 2026

Employers that adopted or are evaluating mandatory vaccination, testing, or other health-and-safety conditions of employment should take note of the implications of the Supreme Court’s June 1, 2026 decision to deny certification of a Ninth Circuit ruling that narrows the federal claims workers can bring to challenge vaccination requirements.

On June 1, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari in Curtis v. Inslee (Order List, 608 U.S., June 1, 2026), leaving in place the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s published decision in Curtis v. Inslee, No. 24-1869 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025). In Curtis v. Inslee, the Ninth Circuit had rejected the federal claims of more than 80 former employees of a nonprofit health care system who were terminated for refusing COVID-19 vaccination required under Washington State Proclamation 21-14.

Because a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits and sets no nationwide precedent, the practical effect is limited but meaningful: within the Ninth Circuit, the appellate decision stands as controlling authority foreclosing the federal theories the workers advanced. The decision is a useful roadmap of the federal claims that do not lie against employers and government officials who impose vaccination requirements—and, by contrast, a reminder of the claims that may still remain available under other laws.

Background

On August 20, 2021, then-Governor Jay Inslee issued Proclamation 21-14, which, absent an approved exemption, required covered Washington health care workers to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The nonprofit health care system PeaceHealth adopted a corresponding policy, and it terminated employees who refused to comply. Aila Curtis and more than 80 other former at-will employees sued PeaceHealth and the Governor for damages, asserting a wide range of statutory, treaty, regulatory, contractual, and constitutional theories. As the Ninth Circuit summarized, the plaintiffs contended the only vaccine available before the deadline was an “investigational” product authorized only for emergency use, and that they were not adequately informed of an option to refuse it. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed all claims, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed. See Curtis v. Inslee, No. 24-1869 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2025).

No Federal Statutory or “Informed Consent” Right Enforceable Under Section 1983

The court first held that none of the plaintiffs’ statutory and non-constitutional sources created a “specific and definite” right enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Central to the workers’ case was the “right to refuse” theory premised on the emergency use authorization provision of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, which directs that recipients of an emergency-use product be informed of “the option to accept or refuse administration.” The Ninth Circuit explained that Congress confined enforcement of the Act to public actions brought in the name of the United States under 21 U.S.C. § 337(a), and that courts may not judicially create an implied private right of action. The statute therefore confers no privately enforceable right under Section 1983.

The court rejected the remaining non-constitutional sources on the same rationale—none supplied rights-creating language enforceable by these plaintiffs:

  • The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6, which at most imposes an educational obligation on a federal agency rather than on the employer or the State;
  • 10 U.S.C. § 980 (restricting use of Department of Defense funds for human-subject research), a spending-power provision “especially unlikely” to confer an enforceable right;
  • Article VII of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which the United States ratified as non-self-executing and which Congress has not implemented;
  • 45 C.F.R. Part 46 (the “Common Rule” on human-subjects research), the Belmont Report, the Federal Wide Assurance agreement, the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program Provider Agreement, and the FDA Emergency Use Authorization letters—none of which create privately enforceable rights, and none of which make these employees third-party beneficiaries. As the court observed, the plaintiffs were “vaccine refusers” rather than the “vaccine recipients” who might benefit from such agreements.

Constitutional Claims Foreclosed by Longstanding Vaccination Precedent

Turning to the constitutional theories, the court held that neither the Spending Clause nor the Supremacy Clause supplied a freestanding Section 1983 right. It then rejected the Fourteenth Amendment claims:

  • Substantive due process. The asserted “right to refuse an investigational drug without penalty” was foreclosed by Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), and the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Health Freedom Defense Fund, Inc. v. Carvalho, 148 F.4th 1020 (9th Cir. 2025) (en banc), under which COVID-19 vaccine mandates are reviewed for a rational basis and upheld where decisionmakers could rationally conclude the mandate protects public health and safety.
  • Procedural due process. The plaintiffs’ at-will employment was not a constitutionally protected property interest, and the proclamation’s notice and individualized religious and medical exemption process supplied any process due.
  • Equal protection. Because the workers did not constitute a suspect class, the mandate needed only survive rational-basis review—which it readily did. The court invoked the Supreme Court’s recognition of the public-health rationale for health care worker vaccination requirements in Biden v. Missouri, 595 U.S. 87 (2022).

State-Law Claims Were Left for the State Courts

Employers should not read the decision as resolving every claim. The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims against the Governor, but it upheld the district court’s discretionary decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law contract and tort claims against PeaceHealth under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The court expressly did not decide whether those state-law claims state a claim; it left the merits to the Washington state courts. The federal ruling thus disposes of the federal theories without insulating employers from potential state-law exposure.

What the Cert Denial Does—and Does Not—Mean for Employers

While the Supreme Court’s refusal to review the Ninth Circuit decision in Curtis v. Islee decision for now leaves in place that Court’s ruling that employees don’t havec a federal statutory or informed consent right to challenge vaccination requirements under Section 1983, employers also should keep in mind that these rulings do not mean that vaccination or other health-and-safety mandates are immune from challenge. Rather, Curtis and the now-final disposition confirm that the most commonly asserted federal theories—an implied “right to refuse” under the EUA statute, the PREP Act, and substantive due process—generally do not provide workers a damages remedy against employers or officials for vaccination requirements, at least in the Ninth Circuit. Employers nonetheless should keep the following in mind:

  • Future Supreme Court Decision Could Reach a Different Conclusion. Employers should keep in mind that the Supreme Court’s current decision denying certification does not guarantee it will not take up another case in the future that could reject or qualify the precedent set by the Ninth Circuit. In addition to the continued need to manage these and other potential exposures arising from the establishment and enforcement of vaccination requirements on non-Section 1983 grounds, employers also should use care to avoid engaging in conduct that could create facts that employees might rely upon to charge their employer with retaliation for the employee’s good faith exercise of rights that the employee believed she or he possessed.
  • Other laws still apply. This decision addresses Section 1983, constitutional, and EUA-based theories. It does not displace obligations or exposure under Title VII religious-accommodation and the Americans With Disabilities Act disability-accommodation requirements, the Family and Medical Leave Act and state and local leave laws, state and local civil rights and other laws, or collective bargaining or other contractual requirements. Mandate-related litigation increasingly proceeds on accommodation and contract theories rather than the theories rejected here.
  • Document the exemption and accommodation process. The court emphasized that the proclamation provided notice and an “individualized” religious and medical exemption process. Employers that maintain clear notice, a documented individualized interactive process, and consistent administration are better positioned to defend both constitutional and accommodation challenges.
  • Mind jurisdictional differences. A denial of certiorari leaves circuit law in place without creating a uniform national rule. Multistate employers should confirm how the controlling circuit and applicable state law treat these theories before relying on any single decision.
  • Preserve the public-health record. Rational-basis review turns on what decisionmakers could rationally conclude. Employers adopting health-and-safety requirements should document the legitimate business and safety rationale supporting the requirement at the time it is adopted.

Considering these and other risks, employers using or responding to challenges to employee or service provider vaccination requirements should seek assistance of experience legal counsel in designing and administering those policies to minimize discrimination and retaliation liability risks.

For Help or More Information

The author of this update, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an attorney Board Certified in Labor and Employment Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization with decades of experience advising and assisting health industry and other employers to design, audit, and defend their employment and other risk management and compliance practices, including conducting audits and investigations, designing and updating compliance and risk management programs, responding to government investigations, conducting transaction, governance, and other due diligence, and assisting with other legal and operational compliance and risk management and legislative and regulatory affairs. She is available to assist your organization in assessing the impact of these developments and navigating the compliance and strategic steps that follow. For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer, contact Ms. Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is an American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) attorney and advisor board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization peer peer celebrated as “Top Rated Lawyer” and “LEGAL LEADER™ “Top Rated Lawyer” and “Best Lawyer” for her work in ERISA & Employee Benefits Law, Health Care Law, Labor and Employment Law, and Business and Commercial Law.

Nationally recognised for her decades of leading edge workforce, health and other employee benefits and insurance, compensation, regulatory affairs and compliance, and other human resources and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications, Ms. Stamer’s work throughout her career has focused heavily on working with health care and managed care, health and other employee benefit plan, insurance and financial services and other public and private highly regulated and performance dependent organizations and their technology, data, and other service providers and advisors domestically and internationally with legal and operational compliance and risk management, performance and workforce management, regulatory and public policy and other legal and operational concerns.  As a a key focus of this work, she has continuously and extensively worked with domestic and international health plans, their sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators, and insurers; managed care and insurance organizations on workforce and performance management, employee benefits, compensation, regulatory and operational compliance, and other related concerns.

Her experience includes more than 35 years of leading edge work experience helping health care systems and organizations, group and individual health care providers, government contractors and other performance dependent employers; health plans and insurers, and a broad range of other businesses design and administer workforce, compensation and benefits, compliance and risk management and other practices and policies, and operate and defend organizations and practices to prevent, investigate, manage and resolve performance and behavior; manage civil rights, discrimination and accommodation, and other regulatory, contractual and other compliance responsibilities and risks; vendors and suppliers; conducting and defending investigations, audits, investigations, and other actions; crisis preparedness and response; to establish, administer and defend workforce and staffing, quality, and other compliance, risk management and operational practices, policies and actions; comply with requirements; investigate and respond to Department of Insurance, Board of Medicine, Health, Nursing, Pharmacy, Chiropractic, trucking, alcohol and firearm, and other licensing agencies, Department of Aging & Disability, FDA, Drug Enforcement Agency, OCR Privacy and Civil Rights, Department of Labor, IRS, HHS, DOD, FTC, SEC, CDC and other public health, Department of Justice and state attorneys’ general and other federal and state agencies; JCHO and other accreditation and quality organizations; private litigation and other federal and state health care industry actions: regulatory and public policy advocacy; training and discipline; enforcement;  and other strategic and operational concerns.

Former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its Social Security Privatization reform, Ms. Stamer also has extensive international, federal and state legislative and regulatory affairs experience on federal, state and international workforce, employee benefits, healthcare, education, insurance, data privacy and security, antitrust, and other regulations and reforms.

In addition, Ms. Stamer also is widely celebrated for her leadership in the American Bar Association (“ABA”) and a multitude of other policy, professional, civic, educational, community and other organizations. Ms. Stamer currently or previously served as the the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Joint Committee on Employee Benefits (“JCEB”) leadership council, Scribe leading the Department of Health and Human Services annual agency meeting and a representative to other annual agency meetings, speaker, author and faculty; the ABA International Section International Employment Law Committee and International Life Sciences Committee Chair; the ABA Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Section Medicine and Law Committee Chair, SCOPE member, and Employee Benefits and Worker’s Compensation Committees Vice Chair; the ABA Health Law Section Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group Chair and Risk Management Interest Group Vice Chair; the ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Welfare Benefit, Fiduciary Responsibility, and Plan Terminations and Transactions Committees Chair; the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association Vice President and Executive Director; a Southwest Benefits Association Board Member, Treasurer and Continuing Education Committee Chair; a SHRM Consultants National and Region IV Board Chair; a WEB National Board Member and Dallas Chapter President; the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas Board Member and Compliance Chair; the Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency Board President; a North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member; and in many other leadership roles in a broad range of other professional and civic organizations.

Along with these activities, Ms. Stamer also has earned national recognition for her authorship of thousands of highly regarded works, presentations as a knowledgeable speaker, testimony and other input of regulators and legislators, and media interviews on health and other benefits, human resources and other workforce, health care, insurance, data privacy and security and other related concerns. 

For more information about Ms. Stamer or her health industry and other experience and involvements, see www.cynthiastamer.com or contact Ms. Stamer via telephone at (214) 452-8297 or via e-mail here.

Comments Off on Supreme Court Leaves Ninth Circuit COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Ruling in Place: What Curtis v. Inslee Means for Employers | Civil Rights, Corporate Compliance, Disability, Disability Discrimination, Discrimination, Disease Management, Drug Testign, Drug Testing, EEOC, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, HR, Human Resources, Management, OCR, OFCCP, OFCCP, OSHA, Rehabilitation Act, religious accommodation, Religious Organization, Religous Discrimination, Retaliation, Retaliation, Safety, Section 1557, Swine Flu, vaccination mandate, Whistleblower, Workforce | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Temporary Stay Of OSHA Vaccine ETS Fuels Continued Employer Risk & Uncertainty

November 22, 2021

The Occupational Safety & Health Administration (“OSHA”) has suspended implementation and enforcement of COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard(“Rule”) in response to the November 12, 2021 5th Circuit Court of Appeals order staying implementation of the Rule – for now. While the action delays the deadline for covered employers to comply with the Rule, employers still remain exposed to other COVID-related discrimination, retaliation, safety and other claims.

One of a series of new federal rules adopted over the past few months that require businesses employing more than 100 employees, government contractors and subcontractors and health care providers participating in Medicare or Medicaid to implement and enforce COVID-19 vaccination and other safeguards, the Rule ordered covered employers to adopt and enforce requirements that employees to get vaccinated or undergo regular testing and wear masks unless the employee qualifies for a religious or disability exception. Similar but tighter vaccination mandates are required in a separate OSHA emergency temporary standards for health care workers, a new condition of participation requirement for covered health care organizations to participate in Medicare or Medicaid, and conditions of eligibility to enter into federal government contracts over $250,000.

Last week, the 5th Circuit ordered that OSHA “take no steps to implement or enforce” the ETS “until further court order.” The Rule also faces challenges in several other Circuit Courts of Appeals. Ultimately, the Supreme Court is expected to decide the fate of the Rule. 

While OSHA remains confident in its authority to protect workers in emergencies, OSHA has suspended activities related to the implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending future developments in the litigation.

Pending final resolution of court challenges to the Rule, the 5th Circuit stay temporarily puts on hold the Rule OSHA published November 5, 2021, which generally requires employers with at least 100 employees to adopt and enforce COVID-19 vaccination or alternative testing and masking requirements for all employees in their workplaces by December 4, 2021.

Regardless of the ultimate outcome of challenges to the OSHA Rule, employees face significant risk negotiating vaccine and other COVID-19 safety policies from employee discrimination, retaliation and safety challenges and inquiries. The suspension adds more uncertainty and controversy to employers struggling to develop and administer Covid-19 vaccination and other safety policies around often conflicting federal and state rules in a highly charged political and litigious environment fraught with discrimination and retaliation claims risks fueled to new heights by new OSHA and EEOC retaliation guidance published last week.

Aside from OSHA’s announced confidence that the 5th Circuit’s temporary stay will be removed as litigation over the Rule progresses, the 5th Circuit order technically does not stop implementation of OSHA’s separate emergency temporary standard requiring vaccination for health care workers or new rules adding COVID-19 vaccination requirements as conditions of program participation for government contractors and Medicare participating health care providers.

Regardless of the outcome of the 5th Circuit ordered stay, the uncertainty created from differences among these federal and state rules and the 5th Circuit ordered stay provides tinder for retaliation claims against employers regardless of how the business chooses to respond to the stay.

Even if the mandates are enjoined are inapplicable to an organization, opposition to compliance, questions, expressions of concern, and other activity can support retaliation claims. That means retaliation and interference claims present as big or bigger threat as the rules themselves and last beyond the reach and validity of the rules.

Facing peril from all sides, employers must tread carefully in developing and administering their workplace COVID-19 vaccination and other safety policies to manage the exposures created from the resulting Catch-22 legal and political environment. Employees of course must will monitor the litigation and other regulatory developments. At the same time, employers should use when dealing with worker and other inquiries, expressions of concern and other dealings with employees and applicants regarding COVID-19 SAFETY, leave, accommodation and other concerns as well as to document carefully and preserve other evidence necessary to support performance and other business justified employment actions against potential retaliation or discrimination challenges.

More Information

The author of this update, employment lawyer Cynthia Marcotte Stamer, conducted a briefing on these and other federal COVID-19 vaccination and other workforce requirements as a panelist on the “COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates & Incentives” virtual seminar the American Bar Association Joint Committee on Employee Benefits hosted on November 12, 2021. To purchase a recording of the program, see here. For information about obtaining Ms. Stamer’s slides, email here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. also invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

For help developing, administering or defending your organization’s COVID-19 Mandatory Vaccine Policy or other workforce, employee benefits, compensation or compliance practices, contact the author.  Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com,  on  Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns.

©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Temporary Stay Of OSHA Vaccine ETS Fuels Continued Employer Risk & Uncertainty | ADA, Affirmative Action, compliance, Corporate Compliance, COVID, COVID-19, Disaster, Disease Management, Diversity, EEOC, Employee Benefits, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, Employment Discrimination, Employment Policies, Employment Termination, Government Contractors, health Care, HR, Human Resources, Joint Employer, Labor Management Relations, Management, OFCCP, OSHA, Pandemic, vaccination mandate, vaccine mandate, Worker Classification, Workforce | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer

Biden-Harris To Require many Employers To Mandate Employee Vaccinations

September 9, 2021

The Biden- Harris Administration today announced it will require a multitude of US employees to adopt and enforce workplace COVID-19 vaccination mandates for their workers.

The mandate requirement generally will apply to all federal workers, government contractors and subcontractors, health care workers of facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid And any employer with more than 100 employees.All Medicare and Medicaid certified health care facilities, and a broad range of other employers must prepare to meet impending new federal COVID-19 vaccine mandates announced by the Biden-Harris Administration today.

According to today’s announcements all healthcare facilities participating in Medicare or Medicaid, Federal government employees, federal government contractors or subcontractors and any business employing 100 or more employees will be required to ensure all staff are vaccinated against COVID-19.

The Biden-Harris Administration says the new health industry COVID-19 vaccine will be implemented through emergency regulations to be issued in October.

According to today’s announcement, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service (“CMS”) in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) will issue an Interim Final Rule with Comment Period for health care providers in October that will apply vaccine mandates hospitals, dialysis facilities, ambulatory surgical settings, nursing homes and home health agencies, among others, as a condition for participating in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. This announcement expends the healthcare industry mandate beyond it’s originally planned applicability to nursing homes when announced last month.

In addition to the health industry mandate, the Biden-Harris Administration also announcementI it would impose new vaccine mandates for all federal government workers, government contractors and subcontractors, and all employers employing more than 100 employees.

In it’s announcement of the impending vaccination requirements, CDC urged health care facilities to prepare now to meet the new mandate in October. CMS expects certified Medicare and Medicaid facilities to act in the best interest of patients and staff by complying with new COVID-19 vaccination requirements. 

The Administration is urging covered workers not currently vaccinated to begin the vaccination process immediately and facilities and employers to use all available resources to support employee vaccinations, including employee education and clinics, as they work to meet new federal requirements.

Beyond potential federal program participation losses, the new vaccine mandates likely adds vaccination to the list of safety safeguards that employers can expect to be required to enforce as part of the occupational safety rules of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (“OSHA”).

While legal challenges to the mandate requirements are likely, most business andw that have not already adopted vaccine mandates are expected to adopt these mandates rather than face business losses and other sanctions.

Businesses that were supportive of mandates but fearful of the burdens of administering required accommodations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (”ADA”) or other civil rights laws are likely to welcome the Administration‘s new position. Unlike voluntary mandates, the ADA accommodation requirements do not apply to vaccination requirements required by law.

The new mandates also mean that businesses generally need to be concerned about potential OSHA exposure for failing to implement or enforce the mandates. OSHA already is sanctioning employers for violating COVID-19 related OSHA requirements. For instance, OSHA nailed Lakewood Resource and Referral Center Inc., dba Center for Education Medicine and Dentistry (CHEMED) with heavy fines for allegedly violating applicable COVID-19 safety guidelines in January, 2021.

In a July 23, 2021 citation letter, OSH proposes to fine CHEMED $273,064.00 for willfully violating OSHA by not providing a medical evaluation to determine each employee’s ability to use a N95 respirator, before the employee was fit tested or required to use the respirator in the workplace to protect against SARS-CoV-2 virus while testing suspected COVID-19 individuals.

In addition to the proposed fine, the citation also orders CHEMED to take a series of corrective actions and to post notices in the workplace informing workers of the violation. 

Along with the CHEMED citation, OSH also cited a staffing agency contracted to provide nursing staffing to CHEMED, Homecare Therapies for also failing to conduct medical evaluations and fit tests. It received two violations and a proposed fine of $13,653.

In the face of these potential consequences, most covered health care facilities and other employers impacted by the mandate are likely to implement mandates unless and until these requirements are struct down by the courts or withdrawn.

Assuming the Administration follows appropriate procedures to adopt the rules, most legal commentators do not expect the legal challenges opposing the mandate orders to be successful in the courts particularly after the Supreme Court refused to overturn or hear arguments for overturning a unanimous decision of a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Klassen v. Trustees of Indiana University that refused to enjoin a vaccine mandate imposed by Indiana University as a condition of student or staff in person participation in classes or other activities.

While most healthcare and other covered businesses are not expected to challenge the rules, compliance us likely to trigger backlash from some unvaccinated workers strongly opposed to becoming vaccinated. Employers may find that some employees will resign their employment or take other tactics to avoid becoming vaccinated. Even those who elect to become vaccinated to retain their employment are likely to express opposition and dissatisfaction that could create liability exposures for the employers if it becomes a basis for retaliation claim.

Employers in Texas and certain other states that have adopted rules restricting or prohibiting vaccine, mask or other mandates also may face challenges based on the state rules. 

In light of these and other uncertainties and challenges, Healthcare and Other or Employers generally should seek legal advice and assistance from legal counsel experienced with the relevant health care, labor and employment, privacy and other concerns. 

More Information

This article is republished by permission of the author, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer.  To review the original work, see here.

Solutions Law Press, Inc. invites you to receive future updates by registering here and participating and contributing to the discussions in our Solutions Law Press, Inc. LinkedIn SLP Health Care Risk Management & Operations Group, HR & Benefits Update Compliance Group, and/or Coalition for Responsible Health Care Policy. If you or someone else you know would like to receive future updates about developments on these and other concerns, please be sure that we have your current contact information including your preferred e-mail by creating your profile here. For specific information about the these or other legal, management or public policy developments, please contact the author Cynthia Marcotte Stamer via e-mail or via telephone at (214) 452 -8297.

About the Author

Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: ERISA & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years working as an on demand, special project, consulting, general counsel or other basis with domestic and international business, charitable, community and government organizations of all types, sizes and industries and their leaders on labor and employment and other workforce compliance, performance management, internal controls and governance, compensation and benefits, regulatory compliance, investigations and audits, change management and restructuring, disaster preparedness and response and other operational, risk management and tactical concerns.

Most widely recognized for her work with health care, life sciences, insurance and data and technology organizations, she also has worked extensively with health plan and insurance, employee benefits, financial, transportation, manufacturing, energy, real estate, accounting and other services, public and private academic and other education, hospitality, charitable, civic and other business, government and community organizations. and their leaders.

Ms. Stamer has extensive experience advising, representing, defending, and training domestic and international public and private business, charitable, community and governmental organizations and their leaders, employers, employee benefit plans, their fiduciaries and service providers, insurers, and others has published and spoken extensively on these concerns. As part of these involvements, she has worked, published and spoken extensively on these and other human resources, employee benefits, compensation, worker classification and other workforce and other services; insurance; health care; workers’ compensation and occupational disease; business reengineering, disaster and distress; and many other performance, risk management, compliance, public policy and regulatory affairs, and other operational concerns. 

A former lead advisor to the Government of Bolivia on its pension  project, Ms. Stamer also has worked internationally and domestically as an advisor to business, community and government leaders on these and other legislative, regulatory and other legislative and regulatory design, drafting, interpretation and enforcement, as well as regularly advises and represents organizations on the design, administration and defense of workforce, employee benefit and compensation, safety, discipline, reengineering, regulatory and operational compliance and other management practices and actions.

Ms. Stamer also serves in leadership of a broad range of professional and civic organizations and provides insights and thought leadership through her extensive publications, public speaking and volunteer service with a diverse range of organizations including as Chair of the American Bar Association (“ABA”) Intellectual Property Section Law Practice Management Committee, Vice Chair of the International Section Life Sciences and Health Committee, Past ABA RPTE Employee Benefits & Other Compensation Group Chair and Council Representative and current Welfare Benefit Committee Co-Chair, Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, past Region IV Chair and national Society of Human Resources Management Consultant Forum Board Member,  past Texas Association of Business BACPAC Chair, Regional Chair and Dallas Chapter Chair, former Vice President and Executive Director of the North Texas Health Care Compliance Professionals Association, past Board President of Richardson Development Center (now Warren Center) for Children Early Childhood Intervention Agency, past North Texas United Way Long Range Planning Committee Member, past Board Member and Compliance Chair of the National Kidney Foundation of North Texas, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation and many others.

For more information about these concerns or Ms. Stamer’s work, experience, involvements, other publications, or programs, see www.cynthiastamer.com,  on  Facebook, on LinkedIn or Twitter or e-mail here.

About Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ provides human resources and employee benefit and other business risk management, legal compliance, management effectiveness and other coaching, tools and other resources, training and education on leadership, governance, human resources, employee benefits, data security and privacy, insurance, health care and other key compliance, risk management, internal controls and operational concerns.

©2021 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™

Comments Off on Biden-Harris To Require many Employers To Mandate Employee Vaccinations | Accommodation, ADA, board of directors, Civil Rights, Construction, Corporate Compliance, corporate governance, COVID, COVID-19, EEOC, employee, Employee Handbook, Employer, Employers, Employment, health Care, Hiring, Hospitality, HR, Human Resources, Internal Controls, Internal Investigations, Joint Employer, Management, OFCCP, Pandemic, Privacy, vaccination mandate, Worker, Workforce | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Cynthia Marcotte Stamer