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.
I'm not of the opinion there wouldn't be a huge legal battle over it and I don't know which side would win, but both your answers hinge on the disease being communicable, which would queue the argument over whether asymptomatic spread occurs, which I think even establishment medicine has admitted doesn't really happen.
It's because the NPCs dont want to acknowledge that the masks and lockdowns were 100% about political control and 0% about the sniffles.
It doesnt spread asymptomatically, and if the symptoms were actually nigh unto death as claimed, NO ONE would spread it because they'd be too sick to leave their house. QED it's a bad flu at most and the masks do jack shit to stop it.
re no possibility of a reasonable accomodation, they'd have to argue that masks and distancing don't work even if CDC says it does
The CDC itself argues that they don't work by recommending people avoid gathering indoors, even with masks.
Example, CDC requires people to wear masks on airplanes, trains, schools, a big masked gathering that's allowed because CDC says it 'works'
(post is archived)