That's good info. "demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).)"
Don't mess with our ADA rights
I am a remote employee, so around the time covid hit the news big, my employer (large healthcare company) decided the flu vaxx was a 'condition of employment'. I went doctor shopping because my naturepath doesn't count even though she is an MD and found a doc (actually his PA) to give me a medical exemption note. I told her that I didn't want my employer to know about my previous vaxx injury or my autoimmune problems. She wrote a vague note citing 'allergies' because I am allergic to a huge list of stuff and she said that was enough for her.
My employer asked me to speak to an employee health RN (I'm sure for intimidation) and I just ignored the request. I noticed a few months ago that I am marked as 'disabled' on the HR portal. I'm guessing they are marking that they are applying ADA to me and to be careful?
I don't know how much it will mean when they start requiring the covid ones. As of now it's just a lot of pressure and asking on team meetings and the like.
I've had mandatory (very NON-informative covid webinars) and put in a question during that webinar and they DIDNT answer my question, just ignored it completely asking for easier other questions but no one was asking and they never got back to me. I'm still not vaxxed and no one is saying anything so far.
But it's wrong. Employers can require disclosure when there's a direct business necessity. For example, they can require proof of a negative TB test. Likewise, they can require you disclose your vaccination status in the midst of a "pandemic." They will not have any problem convincing a judge that preventing the spread of the Wuhan virus is a business necessity.
Interesting points, yet there's always 2 sides in a court. In hiring if they require a vax, I think a lawyer could make an argument for the business not being in the wuflu business and having no business acting as a health dept for the state. For those already employed, they can ask if they show business necessity to know, but they can't use info to fire you C.(2) "Information obtained under paragraph (c) of this section regarding the medical condition or history of any employee shall not be used for any purpose inconsistent with this part." other parts of the law c(1)(i) say they have to make the necessary accommodations for you . I'd imagine that is the part they can use to require a mask be worn in states that didn't outlaw mask rules
If it ever goes to a jury, guess who will sit on the jury? It will be 12 vaxholes/maskholes who will side with your employer.
I think a lawyer could make an argument for the business not being in the wuflu business and having no business acting as a health dept for the state.
The question isn't whether they're in the health business, the question is whether there's a legitimate business interest in making sure their employees don't have communicable diseases. No lawyer is going to convince any judge or jury that it's not a legitimate business interest.
For those already employed, they can ask if they show business necessity to know, but they can't use info to fire you
Sure they can. All they have to do is show that there's no possibility of a reasonable accommodation for somebody that is at a high risk of infection with a communicable disease. This has already been litigated and decided with requirements for TB testing, flu vaccines, etc.
A badger is not actually the baddest motherfucker in the forest. But the fact that he clearly does not give a single shit about getting into a fight with any other predator means he can back down a bear pretty easily.
(post is archived)