Refusing a flu shot permissible under religious exemption, court rules

[rug]

by Tim Gould
January 4, 2017

Protection from religious bias casts a wide net under federal law — all the way to whether or not a healthcare facility can require employees to receive a flu shot.

Pennsylvania-based Saint Vincent Health Center will pay $300,000 in back pay and compensatory damages to six former employees to settle a religious discrimination lawsuit that centered on the health center’s mandatory flu shot program, the EEOC announced.

In its lawsuit, the agency charged that Saint Vincent required a seasonal flu vaccination for its employees unless they were granted an exemption for medical or religious reasons. Under the policy, employees who received an exemption were required to wear a face mask while having patient contact.

According to the EEOC, the Health Center granted 14 vaccination exemption requests based on medical reasons. Six employees identified in the agency complaint requested religious exemptions from the vaccination requirement based on sincerely held religious beliefs. The Health Center denied all six.

http://www.hrmorning.com/refusing-a-flu-shot-permissible-under-religious-exemption-court-rules/

[1965Comet]

1. So long as any religious employee can be sued individually

for any disease they transmit due to not be vaccinated, I am fine with it!

[rug]

2. That's an interesting legal theory.

The cause of action would have to be negligence, making the employer liable as well.

I wonder if rulings like this wold shield either from liability.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. What religion prohibits flu shots?

[rug]

4. Depends on the vaccine.