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.
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.
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
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)