SF mandates all employees get vaxxed

[Citadelgrad87]

This is not true.
And F anyone who thinks forcing one to wear a mask indefinitely is reasonable!

It absolutely IS true, and has nothing to do with a mask. Stay on point, please.

[WWDHD?]

I work for a large municipality as well, and there's only 2 permanent positions in my classification (mine being one of the two). I've been working remotely since the scamdemic began and actually get much more work done than when reporting to work. If they'd like me to stay away for the next 7 years til I retire, I'm cool with that.

Then your golden- congrats you win the game

[Citadelgrad87]

A couple of honest questions.

The employer can still be sued for it, yes?

At that point it's up to the employee to establish that not being vaccinated was the reason for their termination? Assuming there were glowing reviews, character references, etc. it could be assumed that there was no reason for termination other than vaccination status. Is a jury involved in this sort of case?

I'm just thinking there will be so many people terminated due to their vaccine status that we're likely to see lots of lawsuits and I'm curious how they would all be thrown out or ruled against because the employer decided to terminate them because it's "Wednesday".

I'm honestly curious since I'm no lawyer...I'd rather go to Heaven.

No, an employer in CA can't successfully be sued, that's my point. People often misunderstand my point on "any or no reason". That appears to be on me.

From the top, I will try to be more clear. I've been doing this so long, it seems second nature to me, so I will try to not skip any steps.

An employer in CA can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason. The ONLY restriction on that is if the reason is an illegal reason. Illegal reasons are defined by the legislature. Certain people fall into protected classes. Once the legislature establishes a protected class, that BECOMES an illegal reason.

Way back when, it was legal to fire someone because they are gay. Until the legislature said "sexual preference is now a protected class,", it was legal to say to someone's face, "get out, you're fired because you are gay".

I use "because it's Tuesday" as a ridiculous, but accurate, example of a valid reason to fire someone that is perfectly legal in CA. Now, someone who IS in a protected class can claim that's not the REAL reason, but without that legislatively defined protected class ( and evidence to prove it was the real reason), "You're fired because it's Tuesday" will hold up in court, all day long.

Now, the issue people have with that is that they think an employers is going to fire you for not getting the shot, but claim they fired you "Because it's Tuesday".

That's the miscommunication on my part. SINCE covid vaccine status is not, and not likely to be, a protected class, the employer would not, and does not need to, lie and say you're fired for some other reason.

AS the law stands right now, "You're fired because you won't get the shot" is what they would say, and it would hold up. They don't need to give a false pretext.

The legislature can jump in at any time and say "covid vaccination status is a protected class for purposes of employment decisions", and boom, you're protected.

But let's remember a few things. One, CA is a dem supermajority. Two, Dems WANT you to get the shot, even more than they want to protect workers. So this is highly unlikely. The law needs to change to make this illegal, and it's unlikely to in this political climate.

A court MIGHT buy into the "immoral/experimental" angle, but it's supposed to be the legislature that defines what is a protected class.

[numpty]

No, an employer in CA can't successfully be sued, that's my point. People often misunderstand my point on "any or no reason". That appears to be on me.

From the top, I will try to be more clear. I've been doing this so long, it seems second nature to me, so I will try to not skip any steps.

An employer in CA can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason. The ONLY restriction on that is if the reason is an illegal reason. Illegal reasons are defined by the legislature. Certain people fall into protected classes. Once the legislature establishes a protected class, that BECOMES an illegal reason.

Way back when, it was legal to fire someone because they are gay. Until the legislature said "sexual preference is now a protected class,", it was legal to say to someone's face, "get out, you're fired because you are gay".

I use "because it's Tuesday" as a ridiculous, but accurate, example of a valid reason to fire someone that is perfectly legal in CA. Now, someone who IS in a protected class can claim that's not the REAL reason, but without that legislatively defined protected class ( and evidence to prove it was the real reason), "You're fired because it's Tuesday" will hold up in court, all day long.

Now, the issue people have with that is that they think an employers is going to fire you for not getting the shot, but claim they fired you "Because it's Tuesday".

That's the miscommunication on my part. SINCE covid vaccine status is not, and not likely to be, a protected class, the employer would not, and does not need to, lie and say you're fired for some other reason.

AS the law stands right now, "You're fired because you won't get the shot" is what they would say, and it would hold up. They don't need to give a false pretext.

The legislature can jump in at any time and say "covid vaccination status is a protected class for purposes of employment decisions", and boom, you're protected.

But let's remember a few things. One, CA is a dem supermajority. Two, Dems WANT you to get the shot, even more than they want to protect workers. So this is highly unlikely. The law needs to change to make this illegal, and it's unlikely to in this political climate.

A court MIGHT buy into the "immoral/experimental" angle, but it's supposed to be the legislature that defines what is a protected class.

Understand all the rest, but the bold is exactly what I wasn't clear on.

Thank you for clarifying.

[The Tiger]

CG87

But what about public sector employees? They are not at-will

[SPUTTER]

You can certainly sue an employer for forcing you to take an experimental medical intervention. I've sued for much less.

[BillSmith]

There's a reason...

There's a reason for this protocol to be in place specifically within The City of San Francisco. Given the conditions, it is not only appropriate, but a necessity.

What if you had symptoms? What if you had the need for either over-the-counter or Rx drugs? What would you do? Nearly all the Walgreen's in San Francisco are closed. This is merely a step in keepingstep with current state of affairs.

It's a Real Men of Genius move from where I sit!

[Den60]

No, an employer in CA can't successfully be sued, that's my point. People often misunderstand my point on "any or no reason". That appears to be on me.

From the top, I will try to be more clear. I've been doing this so long, it seems second nature to me, so I will try to not skip any steps.

An employer in CA can fire an employee for any reason, or no reason. The ONLY restriction on that is if the reason is an illegal reason. Illegal reasons are defined by the legislature. Certain people fall into protected classes. Once the legislature establishes a protected class, that BECOMES an illegal reason.

Way back when, it was legal to fire someone because they are gay. Until the legislature said "sexual preference is now a protected class,", it was legal to say to someone's face, "get out, you're fired because you are gay".

I use "because it's Tuesday" as a ridiculous, but accurate, example of a valid reason to fire someone that is perfectly legal in CA. Now, someone who IS in a protected class can claim that's not the REAL reason, but without that legislatively defined protected class ( and evidence to prove it was the real reason), "You're fired because it's Tuesday" will hold up in court, all day long.

Now, the issue people have with that is that they think an employers is going to fire you for not getting the shot, but claim they fired you "Because it's Tuesday".

That's the miscommunication on my part. SINCE covid vaccine status is not, and not likely to be, a protected class, the employer would not, and does not need to, lie and say you're fired for some other reason.

AS the law stands right now, "You're fired because you won't get the shot" is what they would say, and it would hold up. They don't need to give a false pretext.

The legislature can jump in at any time and say "covid vaccination status is a protected class for purposes of employment decisions", and boom, you're protected.

But let's remember a few things. One, CA is a dem supermajority. Two, Dems WANT you to get the shot, even more than they want to protect workers. So this is highly unlikely. The law needs to change to make this illegal, and it's unlikely to in this political climate.

A court MIGHT buy into the "immoral/experimental" angle, but it's supposed to be the legislature that defines what is a protected class.

Questions:

1. If my employer demands I get vaccinated and I have a severe reaction can I file a worker's comp claim?

2. What if I die due to the vaccination, can family members sue the company for their mandate which resulted in my death? I know, anyone can sue but do they have a chance to settle or win their case?

[Citadelgrad87]

Questions:

1. If my employer demands I get vaccinated and I have a severe reaction can I file a worker's comp claim?

2. What if I die due to the vaccination, can family members sue the company for their mandate which resulted in my death? I know, anyone can sue but do they have a chance to settle or win their case?

Workers comp is not my area, and is actually a separate area of law, but I believe that any adverse reaction would be a workers comp matter.

I also believe your family can sue at a minimum in the worker's comp arena, but a wrongful death lawsuit outside worker's comp is a possibility, depending on the circumstances.

[Citadelgrad87]

You can certainly sue an employer for forcing you to take an experimental medical intervention. I've sued for much less.

I can sue you, right now, for forcing me to take an experimental vaccine.

Prevailing is entirely another matter, and "I've sued for less" is meaningless. That's not how it works.

[Romeo_alpha01]

Maybe, maybe not. Could just as easily be the crappiest post you can think of on the midnight shift too.
The order of how Big Bro gets us to do what it wants is: 1. The nudge. "free vax available". 2. The Push. Get a vax and win a prize!" 3. The Shove. "Get the vax or you loose everything".
This is how I see it.

[LBDamned]

I find it odd that they haven't mandated people in prison to get the shot. Doesn't that seem strange?

Those are people that obviously don't follow the rules - so they don't bother with them...

The focus is on the ones willing to ask how high when they are told to jump.

[Foothills]

I for one appreciate the SF Government and their fellow travelers helping out the recall effort by continuing to think up new restrictions and requirements. Recall elections are low-turnout affairs.

[lastinline]

Exactly my point. If they can force this experimental drug on everyone, then they can force any future experimental drug on us. All they need is an "emergency" excuse to do it, and maybe not even that. The Nazis are now in control.

Off you go for “disinfection showers. Breath deep, it will be over quicker.” The Zondercalifornio will then shovel your remains into the thermal processor.

[lastinline]

There's a reason for this protocol to be in place specifically within The City of San Francisco. Given the conditions, it is not only appropriate, but a necessity.