Federal Influenza Mandates (Hospitals)

Federal Influenza Mandates for Hospitals

Case Name/NumberPartiesYearJurisdictionIssueHoldingMain Arguments
Robinson v. Children's Hospital Boston, U.S. District LEXIS 46024; Civil Action No. 14-10263-DJCLeontine K. Robinson, Plaintiff v. Children's Hospital Boston, Defendant2016United States District Court for the District of Massachusettswhether the Hospital violated a state statute when it terminated P's employment after she refused an Influenza vaccination because of her religious beliefsGranted the Hospital's motion for summary judgmentP's Claim fails b/c: (1) Hospital reasonably accomodated P; (2) any accomodation would have been an undue hardship; and (3) no reasonable jury could find that P had a bona fide religious belief that precluded vaccination
Tibbs v. Sebelius, U.S. District LEXIS 42464; Case No: 2:09-cv-773Clark Tibbs, Plaintiff v. Kathleen Sebelius, in her capacity as Secretary of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants2010United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division whether D's knowledge and financial support of the slow and ineffective egg-based technologies that maintain the short supply of the influenza vaccine foreseeably placed the lives of US citizens, including P, in imminent harm of contracting the H1N1 virus (swine flu).D's Motion to Dismiss is granted. P's Motion to Amend Complaint is Denied. P did not have standing or an injury-in-fact. The alleged injury is of future harm and not a concrete and particularized harm. It rests solely on the possibility of exposure and contraction of the H1N1 virus.
Va. Mason Hosp. v. Wash. State Nurses Ass'n, 511 F. 3d 908Virginia Mason Hospital, Plaintiff-Appellant; Washington State Nurses Association, labor union, Defendant-Appellee. 2007United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuitwhether to uphold district court's decision to grant summary judgment to defendant-union and uphold arbitral award prohibiting plaintiff-hospital from implementing a mandatory flu immunization regime for all nurses/other employees. Affirm summary judgment and uphold abritration decision to prohibit plaintiff-hospital from unilaterally impose a flu vaccination mandate on all nurses/other employees.Arbitrator is entitled to considerable deference and his decision may be vacated only if it failed to "draw its essence" from the CBA or violated an "explicit, well defined and dominant" public policy. Neither of these standards of vacation were met here.
Seiu v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111489Seiu, Local 121RN v. Los Robles Regional Medical Center2009California Northern District CourtUnion seeks injunction to prevent hospital from implementing mandatory H1N1 and seasonal flu vaccination policy for Registered Nurses and other healthcare workers (excluding physicians). againstThe Hospitals argue that the strengthened influenza policy does not mandate vaccination, but expresses management's desire that all employees be vaccinated. The new policy requires empoyees who are not vaccinated to wear a mask in patient care areas. The Union argues that the hospital's new policy stigmatizes employees who chose not to vaccinate by making them visible through masks and badges.
Wolfe v. United States, 604 F. Supp. 726Cherri Wolfe, Plaintiff v. United States of America, Defendant1985California Southern District Courtwhether the federal government is liable under the Federal Tort Claims Act for negligence for the negative effects of the Swine Flu Vaccination plaintiff experiencedJudgment for defendants.The Government argues that the dispensing physician was not an agent of the state and the limited liability forms sufficiently exempt Government responsibility for side effects from the vaccine. The government argues that the plaintiff experienced negative effects due to personal and family problems, not from the vaccine.
EEOC v. Saint Vincent Health Center; case number: 1:16-cv-00234U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff; Saint Vincent Health Center, Defendant2016U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvaniawhether the termination of six employees after their request for religious exemption from the flu vaccine was discriminatoryThe parties settled out of court. St. Vincent will pay $300k to the six aggrieved former employees bringing suit and will provide substantial injunctive relief. Senior U.S. District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein entered a consent decree on December 23, 2016.EEOC argues that "absent proof establishing an undue hardship, federal law requires an employer to provide reasonable accomodations for sincerely held employee religous beliefs, even if some may consider those beliefs idiosyncratic." St. Vincent had granted fourteen vaccination exemption requests based on medical reasons while denying all religion-based exemption requests during this period.
EEOC v. Baystate Medical Center, Inc.; case number: 3:16-cv-30086U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff; Baystate Medical Center, Inc., Defendant2016U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusettswhether the unpaid leave and termination of an employee because she sought a religious accomodation from hospital's mandatory influenza immunization policy for employees is discriminatory*the lawsuit was filed under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. EEOC says there is no case law precedent. No holding has been issued in this case, yet. EEOC argues D's actions violate federal anti-bias laws; Hospital argues that they terminated employee's employment because she failed to wear a face mask, which is required of all employees who refused immunization. The employee never worked around patients and she occassionaly pulled down the mask when people said they couldn't understand her.
EEOC v. Mission Hospital, Inc.; case number: 1:16-CV-00118U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff; Mission Hospital, Inc., Defendant2016U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolinawhether hospital violated federal law when it failed to accomodate employees' religious beliefs and terminated their employment because of their religions *No holding has been issued in this case, yet.EEOC argues 3 former employees were denied exemption from vaccine because they requested religious exemption after the deadline of September 1, which the EEOC argues is an arbitrary deadline that does not protect an employer from its obligation to provide a religious accomodation. Employer must consider, at the time it receives a request, whether the request can be granted without undue burden.

Comments are closed.