Mothering Forums - Reply to Topic

Thread: a WIN for the medical community who refuse flu vaccines Reply to Thread
Title:
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
06-30-2014 07:33 AM
serenbat I thought I would add this here since this occurred not far from this nurse in PA

http://articles.mcall.com/2014-06-10...urers-flu-shot

"The government bitterly contests these cases. They don't often concede them," Carney said.
06-20-2014 04:44 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post

Do you think companies are ready to pay out for damages from vaccine reactions?

I think sooner or later they will not want to and that will put an end to this! When the know the vaccine manufacture can't be sued but they can it will end
06-20-2014 01:57 PM
applejuice There was a man in Chicago who was told to get a flu vaccine for his job. He had been there for yrs, but went ahead and got the vaccine. He was a good employee who did what he was told. He had a terrible reaction, Guillan Barre, and he sued the employer for workmen's compensation, saying that since the vaccine was required for the job and made him so ill he could no longer do his job, he was entitled to compensation.

The company backed off and said that the flu vaccine was merely recommended, not required. http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/...from-flu-shot/

Do you think companies are ready to pay out for damages from vaccine reactions?
06-12-2014 01:03 PM
serenbat
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
To be clear, this ruling was not about whether or not a hospital can fire a nurse for refusing to vaccinate. As another recent article put it:

"The question before the court was not whether a hospital can require flu shots or lawfully fire an employee who refuses to get one. The ruling concerned whether under New Jersey law such a refusal is "misconduct connected with the work" that would disqualify the terminated employee from collecting unemployment compensation benefits for eight weeks. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court decided in Valent v. Board of Review, No. A-4980-11T2 (June 5, 2014) that no such disqualification was warranted. The decision has gained attention because the court commented in its decision that it would be "unconstitutional" for New Jersey to call an employee's refusal to be immunized for secular reasons misconduct when it knew the hospital would have accommodated the employee if her refusal had been based on religious grounds."

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...ey+Court+Rules

I'm not sure why you think this is such a "win". From my perspective, it would seem like the logical thing for hospitals to do now is to just remove religious exemptions as well and only allow medical ones. That way any refusal could be grounds for "misconduct"and thus not applicable for unemployment benefits.

So she may have won the battle, but has probably lost the war.

You must be unaware of how employment laws works. In "most" states you first must win the right to collect (as she did), and after that your chances of wining when you sue increases - so yes, it's a WIN for her, she didn't loose a war, any lawyer would want her to wait for that ruling to proceed. She won!

It is a WIN - IMO because it show employers they are held accountable for their "rules" as in this case the employer will end up paying, they pay for your unemployment compensation by the way.

Knowing you can't fire people based on religious reason certainly will (again IMO) open up an employers eyes to their "rules" and the legality of such "rules" and in the end money talks.

It's going to be quite hard for an employer to deny a person an exemption for something when the state does allow it, as in the case with a religious exemption and by removing it that too will open them up to a legal challenge. We see this constantly being challenged, an employer going again someone when the state allows it........a win!
06-12-2014 12:25 PM
teacozy
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warr...cart_most-read



The appellate judges concluded that the hospital violated Valent's right to freedom of expression by endorsing the religious-based exemption while denying her secular choice.
"By denying appellant's application to receive unemployment benefits based only on her unwillingness to submit to the employer's religion-based policy, the Board violated appellant's rights under the First Amendment," the panel wrote.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0EH00320140606
To be clear, this ruling was not about whether or not a hospital can fire a nurse for refusing to vaccinate. As another recent article put it:

"The question before the court was not whether a hospital can require flu shots or lawfully fire an employee who refuses to get one. The ruling concerned whether under New Jersey law such a refusal is "misconduct connected with the work" that would disqualify the terminated employee from collecting unemployment compensation benefits for eight weeks. The Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court decided in Valent v. Board of Review, No. A-4980-11T2 (June 5, 2014) that no such disqualification was warranted. The decision has gained attention because the court commented in its decision that it would be "unconstitutional" for New Jersey to call an employee's refusal to be immunized for secular reasons misconduct when it knew the hospital would have accommodated the employee if her refusal had been based on religious grounds."

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x...ey+Court+Rules

I'm not sure why you think this is such a "win". From my perspective, it would seem like the logical thing for hospitals to do now is to just remove religious exemptions as well and only allow medical ones. That way any refusal could be grounds for "misconduct"and thus not applicable for unemployment benefits.

So she may have won the battle, but has probably lost the war.
06-08-2014 04:30 PM
serenbat
a WIN for the medical community who refuse flu vaccines

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/warr...cart_most-read



The appellate judges concluded that the hospital violated Valent's right to freedom of expression by endorsing the religious-based exemption while denying her secular choice.
"By denying appellant's application to receive unemployment benefits based only on her unwillingness to submit to the employer's religion-based policy, the Board violated appellant's rights under the First Amendment," the panel wrote.



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/...0EH00320140606

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off