Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 11:44 AM Jun 2014

New Jersey court rules for nurse who refused vaccine on non-religious grounds

By Bruce Konviser
GREEN BROOK N.J.
Thu Jun 5, 2014 8:03pm EDT

(Reuters) - A New Jersey appeals court ruled on Thursday that First Amendment protections allowing people to refuse medical procedures on religious grounds also extends to those opting out of treatment for secular reasons.

The Superior Court of New Jersey's appellate division said the state's Department of Labor erred in refusing to pay unemployment insurance to a nurse fired for declining to receive a flu vaccine out of personal conviction, rather than on religious or medical grounds.

"The Board's ruling unconstitutionally violated appellant's freedom of expression," said the three-judge panel.

June Valent was a nurse at the Hackettstown Community Hospital in September 2010 when the company issued a policy requiring employees to get a flu vaccination. The rule allowed workers to claim an exemption on religious or medical grounds provided they submitted a note from a religious leader or a doctor.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/06/us-usa-new-jersey-firstamendment-idUSKBN0EH00320140606

The opinion is at the link below under Docket No. A-4980-11, published yesterday.

http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/opinions/

31 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
New Jersey court rules for nurse who refused vaccine on non-religious grounds (Original Post) rug Jun 2014 OP
Hmm….. complicated issue. cbayer Jun 2014 #1
this only connected to health Leme Jun 2014 #3
As I read it, there were two reasons one could refuse. cbayer Jun 2014 #4
yes, two reasons Leme Jun 2014 #6
Terminated with cause employees are not entitled to unemployment. cbayer Jun 2014 #7
yes, Leme Jun 2014 #13
Actually, I don't see anything that said there was anyone who refused and cbayer Jun 2014 #15
Regardless of its merits, the Court by this is acknowledging a secular conscience clause. rug Jun 2014 #17
What do you think about that? cbayer Jun 2014 #19
I think it's fine. Religious objections, at their core, are themselves objections of conscience. rug Jun 2014 #20
Then I guess the only reasonable solution is to remove the religious exemption. cbayer Jun 2014 #21
The refusal would be under one's conscience, whether formed by secular or religious reasons. rug Jun 2014 #23
OTOH, a lot of vaccination refusal is based on unscientifically supported misinformation. cbayer Jun 2014 #25
It depends. Misinformation, by itself, does not make a well-formed conscience. rug Jun 2014 #26
I thought the decision itself was pretty persuasive in it's argument cbayer Jun 2014 #27
I didn't notice that. It would give her an additional argument but, as you said, she did fine. rug Jun 2014 #29
As someone who is failing pretty miserable at representing myself in a case, cbayer Jun 2014 #31
Fired for insubordination? Jim__ Jun 2014 #2
As I noted above, vaccination policies in healthcare facilities cbayer Jun 2014 #5
an institution deciding Leme Jun 2014 #8
This is specifically about the flu vaccine and is a very common cbayer Jun 2014 #9
the court made an unemplyment pay dispute..not vaccinations Leme Jun 2014 #10
I understand that, but, as I said, their claim cbayer Jun 2014 #11
I am not saying the health institution is wrong for Leme Jun 2014 #12
So, do you think anyone should be able to refuse for any reason? cbayer Jun 2014 #14
Yes, but it's not just about not allowing her to refuse the vaccination. Jim__ Jun 2014 #28
The case is clearly about why she was fired, I agree. cbayer Jun 2014 #30
During my time in Public Health we were required to get a flu vaccine annually. pinto Jun 2014 #16
It's pretty common and, as I noted above, the Joint Commission cbayer Jun 2014 #18
Agree. I doubt the court considered the bottom line public health aspect very well. pinto Jun 2014 #22
I just read the opinion itself and it's a pretty convincing argument in her favor cbayer Jun 2014 #24

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
1. Hmm….. complicated issue.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 01:26 PM
Jun 2014

The issue of vaccination of healthcare employees is not just about them infecting others. It's about the staff not becoming incapacited during a major outbreak and the facility being short-staffed.

It seems that very, very few could claim a religious exemption, but if everyone is allowed to refuse for rather vague reasons, like "freedom of expression", it could conceivably lead to a real crisis.

OTOH, should a religious exemption be permitted in those circumstances? I would guess they are talking pretty exclusively about Christian Scientists, but perhaps there are other groups as well.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
3. this only connected to health
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:20 PM
Jun 2014

it was a unemployment pay case.
-
the employers said, get a vaccine... she refused and was fired
-
so far...ok
-
the company refused her unemployment claim... that's their problem.. fire someone for "no reason"... pay the unemployment.
-
There is no law requiring people to be vaccinated. Perhaps there should be, but that is not the issue before that court.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
4. As I read it, there were two reasons one could refuse.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:27 PM
Jun 2014

Religious or medical. The medical reason required documentation from a physician. She didn't supply it but refused the vaccine.

She was fired. She is not entitled to unemployment, imo, but the court did not agree with me.

There are not laws, but there are certain situations where vaccination is a condition for employment and healthcare facilities are generally in that situation.

It's a very slippery slope to allow people to refuse for no particular reason.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
6. yes, two reasons
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:32 PM
Jun 2014

but the two reasons were defined by the employer.
-
No one says the employer could not fire whoever they choose.
-
Just that they have to pay unemployment.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
13. yes,
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:04 PM
Jun 2014

and the court decided that was not the case here, others were not terminated who refused the vaccine.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
15. Actually, I don't see anything that said there was anyone who refused and
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:08 PM
Jun 2014

was not terminated.

Where did you get that information?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
20. I think it's fine. Religious objections, at their core, are themselves objections of conscience.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:25 PM
Jun 2014

It clarifies what the arguments are about.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
21. Then I guess the only reasonable solution is to remove the religious exemption.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:31 PM
Jun 2014

Which is going to run afoul of some other Joint Commission requirements most likely.

But allowing people to refuse for purely secular reasons is a really, really bad idea.

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
23. The refusal would be under one's conscience, whether formed by secular or religious reasons.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:34 PM
Jun 2014

I think a society should give wide latitude to the consciences of its citizens. But then, I remember very clearly the days of the draft.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
25. OTOH, a lot of vaccination refusal is based on unscientifically supported misinformation.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:38 PM
Jun 2014

Would that be considered a matter of conscience?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
26. It depends. Misinformation, by itself, does not make a well-formed conscience.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:00 PM
Jun 2014

In any event, this decision did not address the merits of the objection. It's not a vaccination decision. It did say this on page two:

"The Board's decision upholding appellant's termination unconstitutionally discriminated against appellant's freedom of expression by improperly endorsing the employer's religion-based exemption to the flu vaccination policy and rejecting the secular choice proffered by the appellant."

It reversed because it found the stated reason for denying unemployment insurance to be unreasonable and unconstitutional.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
27. I thought the decision itself was pretty persuasive in it's argument
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:03 PM
Jun 2014

in her favor.

They are going to have to remove the religious exemption, imo.

Interestingly, this policy was put in place after she was already employed. They probably should have put a grandfather clause in, then it seems they would have better standing for making it a condition of employment.

Or do I have that wrong?

 

rug

(82,333 posts)
29. I didn't notice that. It would give her an additional argument but, as you said, she did fine.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:06 PM
Jun 2014

And she represented herself!

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
31. As someone who is failing pretty miserable at representing myself in a case,
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:10 PM
Jun 2014

that part caught my eye as well and I have to give her a lot of credit for that.

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
2. Fired for insubordination?
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:09 PM
Jun 2014
Valent, who argued on behalf of herself, rejected that claim, saying she agreed to wear a face mask, which was part of the new policy for those who chose to forgo the vaccination on religious grounds.


It seems like if face mask is sufficient protection based on rejecting the vaccination on religious grounds, then that has to be sufficient protection based on rejecting the vaccination on non-religious grounds.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
5. As I noted above, vaccination policies in healthcare facilities
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:30 PM
Jun 2014

are not just about protecting patients from infection. They are also about doing what you need to ensure you have an adequate work force if there is a significant outbreak.

It's not sufficient protection in that case, but the number of people who would decline for religious reasons is likely very, very small.

Allowing people to refuse for any reason they feel like places the institution in jeopardy.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
8. an institution deciding
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:38 PM
Jun 2014

what vaccinations are needed also creates problems. Why not this vaccination or that one...or this medication or that one? Especially when some people get exceptions. And just because it is a medical institution THIS time... what about other institutions.
-
The court made a good decision imo

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
9. This is specifically about the flu vaccine and is a very common
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:43 PM
Jun 2014

policy in healthcare settings. They generally do not require other kinds of vaccinations and I've never heard of one requiring any kind of medication, unless someone is diagnosed with a communicable illness.

This may also be a part of accreditation requirements, though I am not certain about that.

In general, it's a very good policy in terms of public health.

The court made a very bad decision, imo, and this is a very slippery slope.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
11. I understand that, but, as I said, their claim
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 02:57 PM
Jun 2014

was that they fired her for cause and hers was that they had no cause.

She won. I disagree with their decision.

 

Leme

(1,092 posts)
12. I am not saying the health institution is wrong for
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:01 PM
Jun 2014

wanting it's personnel to have vaccinations.
-
I am saying that if they refuse... pay their unemployment

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
14. So, do you think anyone should be able to refuse for any reason?
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:07 PM
Jun 2014

I just did some research and found out that the Joint Commission (which accredits hospitals and other healthcare institutions in this country) established a new set of requirements in 2012 that require hospitals to have a program for influenza vaccination with the goal of reaching 90% compliance.

Allowing people to decline for not particular reason will prevent the hospital from doing this. Do you want your treatment in an accredited or non-accredited institution.

Having it as a condition for employment with only narrow exceptions is the only way to go. There are a lot of people in this country who refuse vaccines for completely unsubstantiated and non-scientifcallly based reasons.

That's very bad medicine.

Jim__

(14,045 posts)
28. Yes, but it's not just about not allowing her to refuse the vaccination.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:05 PM
Jun 2014

It's also about firing her for insubordination and denying her unemployment benefits.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
30. The case is clearly about why she was fired, I agree.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 04:09 PM
Jun 2014

As rug explained, the court said she was entitled to a secular basis for refusing because of conscience and therefore did not meet the criteria for termination.

It's a really interesting case and has some very significant ramifications in several areas.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
16. During my time in Public Health we were required to get a flu vaccine annually.
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:19 PM
Jun 2014

It was generally understood as par for the course in a public health setting. Just as the signs on the door alerting parents to ring the buzzer if a child is being brought in with a possible case of measles. A PHN would meet them outside and do an evaluation.

I guess there was a religious exemption clause in the case of vaccinations, but I never heard much of a to-do about it.

Public health is about limiting infectious diseases in a community. Vaccination is a key component in that. Probably one of the biggest successes in general overall health this country has ever seen. Coupled with numerous other actions.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
18. It's pretty common and, as I noted above, the Joint Commission
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:22 PM
Jun 2014

began a real push to get it to 90% in 2012.

I think there are generally religious and medical exceptions, but they are rarely utilized in my experience.

I think the court allowing exemptions without good reason is a reflection of their lack of understanding about the public health risks.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
24. I just read the opinion itself and it's a pretty convincing argument in her favor
Fri Jun 6, 2014, 03:37 PM
Jun 2014

I think the only solution is to remove the religious exemption and make clinical accommodations for those that refuse (like working in a room with little contact with others and wearing the mask).

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»New Jersey court rules fo...