Supreme Court Rejects Case Worker Denied Jobless Benefits After Refusing Vaccine

[Big Chudungus]

She was fired because of a "medical condition" made her unemployable in the non-medical opinion of the employer.

How that happened shouldn't much matter. Maybe she shoulda got "Disability" but if not then as far as CA EDD I'd say it would be like:

"Why no longer working?" Laid off because they have no work for unVaxxed.

"Any reason you can't except work?" No, I'm perfectly able and willing, etc.

Work requirements changed, and she wasn't meeting requirements.

For example, if the position of desk clerk ends and becomes Big Rig trucker, but you can't pass the physical for Class A DL, you get Unemployment, because you got Laid Off Due To Lack Of Work. Her position as unVaxxed employee ended.

Maybe this was a case of wrong presentation of case and she ONLY took the "religion" route, and SCOTUS plays dumb, because courts will do that and ONLY consider the case as presented (when they want, I means this ain't like Gay Marriage where Justice Roberts cums diving in from the top rope and writes the whole thing out of whole cloth without being prompted).

[Dan_Eastvale]

Private companies has broad discretion on what they can mandate. They tell you when to start work. If you are a health care worker, they can mandate you get your flu shot every year and that you are current on all your vaccines as a requirement for a job offer. For every teacher in CA, public or private, you have to be tested for TB every three years. In my school district, before you will be hired, you have to show proof of hepatitis B vaccination. You cannot get a religious exemption because that has to be submitted as part of the application process. My district has a large number of immigrants and hepatitis is an issue so they can mandate that vaccine as a health and safety measure. They are not violating a First Amendment Right because those who have a religious reason for not getting it can go to another district to apply. Many nearby districts do not have a large immigrant population and so do not have that requirement.

This specific vax was fast tracked and never proven to be safe or effective. Should not have been allowed to mandate it. Private or not. I believe in some regulation of private companies.

[EM2]

This specific vax was fast tracked and never proven to be safe or effective. Should not have been allowed to mandate it. Private or not. I believe in some regulation of private companies.

Let us not forget that the "vax" was NEVER put through the full course of testing and approval, and still to this day is only available in the USA under an illegally placed EUA.


So, how is it possible that ANYONE (gov or private) can MANDATE the use of an experimental and EUA "vax"?

[TrappedinCalifornia]

Let us not forget that the "vax" was NEVER put through the full course of testing and approval, and still to this day is only available in the USA under an illegally placed EUA.


So, how is it possible that ANYONE (gov or private) can MANDATE the use of an experimental and EUA "vax"?

From 2021, the argument for... Can Employers Mandate a Vaccine Under Emergency Use Authorization?

...Practically, the federal government has consistently seen products under emergency authorization as not suitable for mandating. The ethical argument is that these products are still experimental, and therefore should not be mandated.

However, the question has never been tested in court, and there are very strong legal arguments against this view...

Businesses that require vaccines under EUA are taking a legal risk, but, given the circumstances, also have good legal arguments for the mandates. And whether it is appropriate or not is very fact dependent. I do not expect many businesses to require a vaccine in these conditions; but claiming they cannot legally do so is inaccurate, and can increase harms.

Also from 2021 via the DOJ... Whether Section 564 of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act Prohibits Entities from Requiring the Use of a Vaccine Subject to an Emergency Use Authorization

...For the reasons set forth above, we conclude that section 564 of the FDCA does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements, even when the only vaccines available are those authorized under EUAs.

[Big Chudungus]

can an Employer REQUIRE Employees to eat pork, then fire them if they claim a religious conflict for being Jews, Muslims, Hindus(?), or if they are just Vegetarians AND deny them Unemployment?

I mean there could be jobs were eating port is a legit requirement, and its 100% up to the employer to mix and match tasks, like you might be part bus-boy and part dishwasher or part clerk and part delivery driver.

No reason you couldn't be part Unix guru and part Pork Rinds Quality Control Consultant, and PRQCC would include Full Alimentary Tract Processing and Expulsion Reporting (FATPER). I happen to know a guy with pretty much that "work structure".

Personally, I'm 110% opposed to US Govt even allowing itself to consider "religion" in just about anything, due to the simple and obvious fact "religion" is what any individual says it is. If "because I say so" wont work that should end it, one way or another. Shameful fact is our so called legal scholar judges are mentally on the level of dim-witted peasants and will issue rulings about if something is "religion" based on if they have fancy robes and other bling.