The Year 2021 saw an unprecedented climate of fear regarding the Covid virus. With employers facing pressure to take measures to protect their workforce from the threat of Covid, a number of them did introduce workplace policies mandating Covid vaccines as a condition of employment. Those that did implement the vaccine mandates tended to fall into two groups. The first group liberally recognized exemptions and provided accommodations, which ranged from working from home to masking or other measures. The second group was much more restrictive, denying exemptions outright or claiming Undue Hardship to justify not offering accommodations. This second group terminated those employees that did not agree to the Covid shot.
Presently, Covid vaccine policies have been largely abandoned nationwide. However, employers are just now, in 2024, facing an increasing amount of lawsuits from those terminated in the fall of 2021 before the policies were repealed. A number of recent rulings have set precedent in the direction that such Covid vaccine related terminations were in fact Wrongful. In terminating those that declined the Covid shots, employers commonly used language that termination was for “non-compliance with company policy.” That is the crux of the issue. Did employers have the authority to demand compliance in the first place, to retaliate for non-compliance, and did they take every step on their end to honor exemptions and provide accommodations to meet legal obligations?
The following summarizes the most common arguments made by employers embroiled in Covid-19 Wrongful Termination lawsuits and the weaknesses of their arguments
ARGUMENTS IN DEFENSE OF TERMINATION
In defense of terminating employees over COVID-19 vaccine mandates, several legal arguments have emerged. The “Undue Hardship” defense requires employers to show that accommodating an unvaccinated employee would pose substantial financial burden to their operations. This entails exploring alternative accommodations like mask-wearing or regular testing, with courts demanding evidence of these efforts and their financial impact to substantiate claims of undue hardship. Failing to assess these alternatives weakens an employer’s defense.
Regarding the “Religious Beliefs Not Sincerely Held” defense, recent court rulings affirm that individuals claiming religious exemptions from vaccine mandates are protected under Title VII. Courts emphasize that personal religious beliefs, even if not universally shared within a religious group, can qualify for accommodation. Cases such as Ringhofer v. Mayo and Carlson v. Centene underscore the importance of considering the entirety of an individual’s religious beliefs.
The “Rational Basis” defense, once widely accepted, is now increasingly contested due to doubts about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness in preventing transmission. Courts have noted inconsistencies and lack of scientific support behind claims supporting mandates, leading to challenges like those seen in Health Freedom Fund v. LAUSD and Garvey v. City of New York, where mandates were deemed arbitrary and capricious.
Lastly, the “Failure to Exhaust Administrative Remedies” defense holds that employees must typically file with the EEOC before suing under Title VII. However, the Supreme Court ruled in Fort Bend County v. Davis that failure to file with the EEOC does not necessarily bar a lawsuit. This means employees can pursue wrongful termination claims in court even without exhausting administrative avenues first, challenging employers seeking quick dismissal on procedural grounds.