Tag: vaccine mandate

COVID Vaccine Class Action Reminds Employers to Individually Consider Accommodations

Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”) is no stranger to religious accommodation lawsuits over the impact of its COVID-19 vaccine mandate given its continued efforts to operate through the height of the pandemic in 2021—but the battle just heated up with a proposed class action complaint filed in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Tyson’s recent troubles derive from its 2021 vaccine mandate (the “Vaccine Mandate”) requiring all leadership team members to be vaccinated by September 24, 2021, all corporate team members to be vaccinated by October 1, 2021, and all other team members to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021. The Vaccine Mandate coincided with an OSHA rule (which the Supreme Court subsequently ruled unconstitutional) requiring workers with at least 100 workers to be vaccinated or to produce weekly test results showing that they were virus-free. Tyson, a huge company with warehouse operations, clearly fell within its ambit and had strong incentives to keep its workforce safe.

Notably, while in place, the OSHA rule required employers to grant medical and religious exemptions from the mandate. Likewise, Tyson’s Vaccine Mandate required Tyson to afford reasonable accommodations to employees with sincerely-held religious beliefs that prevented them from receiving the vaccine, as required by the OSHA rule. However, various plaintiffs have alleged that the only accommodation typically offered to religious objectors was to be placed on an unpaid leave of absence called LOA+, which lasted approximately one year. Plaintiffs claim that requests to telework were refused in favor of this unpaid leave.

One of the first suits to be filed was Reed, et al., v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-CV-01155-STA-JAY, 2022 WL 2134410 (W.D. Tenn. June 14, 2022), in which several plaintiffs sought injunctive relief against the Vaccine Mandate in part on religious and disability theories under Title VII and the ADA. Though parts of the case were allowed to proceed, these specific claims were dismissed without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Tyson also succeeded on defeating religious claims based on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”) on a motion to dismiss in another Tennessee case, after failing to secure dismissal in another, similar case based on Title VII and the RFRA. Compare Johnson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 21-CV-01161-STA-JAY, 2023 WL 3901485 (W.D. Tenn. June 8, 2023) with Hayslett v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 636 F. Supp. 3d 900 (W.D. Tenn. 2022). The latter case settled out-of-court in July 2023.

Beyond these, Tyson also faced other single-plaintiff suits on religious vaccine accommodation grounds in Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri, with varying results. Matthews v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-1192-STA-JAY, 2023 WL 25733 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 3, 2023)(motion to dismiss denied under Tennessee state law); Collins v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-00076-GNS, 2023 WL 2731047 (W.D. Ky. Mar. 30, 2023)(motion to dismiss granted under RFRA, ADA, and Kentucky state law, but denied under Title VII); Reese v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 3:21-05087-CV-RK, 2021 WL 5625411 (W.D. Mo. Nov. 30, 2021) (motion to dismiss granted as to public policy and invasion of privacy claims, but denied under state discrimination law). Some of these cases were subsequently settled, as well.

On November 16, 2023, plaintiff Sarah Pearson brought a proposed class action complaint in Pearson v. Tyson Foods Inc., 4:23CV01080, purporting to represent:

All Arkansas based Tyson employees or former Arkansas based Tyson employees who worked remotely (telework) prior to August 3, 2021, who requested a religious accommodation to continue working remotely (telework) in response to Tyson’s COVID Vaccine Mandate, and who were instead placed on LOA+ by Tyson;

and

All Arkansas based Tyson employees or former Arkansas based Tyson employees who worked remotely (telework) prior to August 3, 2021, who requested a religious accommodation when Tyson ended its COVID Vaccine Mandate on October 31, 2022, and who were subsequently not reinstated to the same job and terminated.

For each, Pearson recites the allegations required to sustain a class action: numerosity (in excess of 50 putative class members, per her complaint), commonality, typicality, and adequacy. These allegations can prove tricky in the case of sincerely-held religious beliefs and leaves of absence, but not necessarily impossible. Compare Robinson v. Gen. Motors Co., No. 4:15-CV-158-Y, 2015 WL 13731154 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 21, 2015) (denying class certification in part because “determining individual class members would require the Court to wade through thousands of leave requests and evaluate each individual’s circumstance . . . to determine whether a GM employee even qualifies . . .”) with Jennings v. St. Luke’s Health Network, Inc., No. 5:23-CV-1229, 2023 WL 5938755 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 12, 2023) (denying without prejudice motion to strike class action allegations in religious discrimination vaccine case, pending discovery).

Here, Pearson’s complaint reveals numerous specific allegations which are likely specific to her, including that Tyson offered her an in-person job in a different city once the Vaccine Mandate ended, which she declined.  However, it remains to be seen if Tyson’s alleged policy of placing all religious objectors on leave may break through the barriers to commonality, typicality, and adequacy otherwise posed by, e.g., different religions, belief systems, communications with human resources, and leave requests.

Following these recent developments, employers are advised to remember that religious discrimination accommodation requests should not be taken lightly, and should result in an individualized interactive process with each employee. Even apparently implausible religious beliefs, associated with religions that do not otherwise espouse such beliefs, may be (or be deemed by a court to be) sincerely-held.

Copyright © 2023, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. All Rights Reserved.
For more news on COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates, visit the NLR Labor & Employment section.

CMS Reduces COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Surveys and Rescinds Surveyor Vaccination Requirements

In two recent memoranda, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) made changes to previously issued survey guidance related to COVID-19 vaccination issues.

In QSO-22-17-ALL, CMS modified the frequency by which State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations will survey for compliance with the federal staff vaccine mandate applicable to health care providers and suppliers (discussed in a prior post).  Noting that 95% of providers and suppliers surveyed have been found in substantial compliance with the rule, CMS is eliminating the previous requirement that State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations survey for compliance with the vaccine mandate during every survey.  Review of compliance with vaccine mandate is still required, however, during initial surveys, recertification surveys, and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  This means that a State Agency or Accreditation Organization is not required to review compliance with the staff vaccination requirement during, for example, a validation survey or a complaint survey unrelated to compliance with the staff vaccination requirement.  A State Agency or Accreditation Organization may still choose to expand any survey to include review of vaccine mandate compliance; however, the new guidance should result in a reduction in survey frequency of this issue for providers and suppliers.

In QSO-22-18-ALL, CMS rescinded, in its entirety, the previously issued QSO-22-10-ALL memorandum, which had mandated that surveyors of State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations be vaccinated for COVID-19.  However, CMS noted that the State Agencies and Accreditation Organizations were responsible for compliance and prohibited providers and suppliers from asking surveyors for proof of vaccination.  While CMS is now encouraging vaccination of surveyors performing federal oversight surveys, the mandate for vaccination is no longer in effect.

Article By Allen R. Killworth of Epstein Becker & Green, P.C.

For more coronavirus legal news, click here to visit the National Law Review.

©2022 Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights reserved.

SCOTUS’s HOUSE CALL on Healthcare Industry: The Economic Impact of Mandatory Vaccination

The Supreme Court of the United States in a per curiam opinion on Jan. 13 ruled that the Secretary of HHS (United States Department of Health and Human Services) did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement, all healthcare providers except for physician offices not regulated by CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services), organ procurement organizations, portable X-Ray suppliers and certain healthcare professionals solely engaged in fully remote telehealth, must insure that their employees be vaccinated against Covid-19. The Court in a 5-4 decision maintained that the Secretary had adequately examined alternatives to mandatory vaccination even though the Final Interim Rule went into effect immediately with no sunset provision nor any revisions or assessment of public comment which is usually required under 5 U.S.C. Sections 553(b), 553(c). Interestingly, the Court, both in its decision and its dissent, failed to consider the scientific data on natural immunity, the incident of Covid infection and recovery among healthcare workers, or the significant easing of both hospitalizations and mortality data from the most recent Covid mutation, which is now considered the dominant strain of infection, Omicron.[1] Of even greater concern coming from its decision is a possible grave consequence (unintended or not) of having nearly 3 million healthcare workers fired between the end of January and end of March 2022.

The decision will spur many healthcare providers to either consider downsizing its healthcare platform (eliminating elective surgeries, closing maternity wards, diverting critical patients to other facilities, moving patients into home care more rapidly, etc.) or seeking protection under the bankruptcy code to obtain some breathing room. According to the American Hospital Association (“AHA”), post-pandemic, and even before the Mandate decision, the collective turnover across ICU’s, nursing units and emergency departments has risen from 18% to 30%.[2] There is no doubt that when a nurse leaves a healthcare organization, the vacancy affects the cost of operation many more times the amount of salary paid to the nurse. According to Nursing Solutions, Inc., the average period of time it takes to fill a nursing position is 85 days — and more than three months for a specialized nursing position. While a replacement nurse is located, the healthcare organization must rely on “travelers” and direct care staffing agencies charging super competitive rates. Just in the last year the use of costly employment agencies to cover gaps in staffing is up by 250% over the last year, according to the Florida Health Care Association, Oct. 25, 2021. A turnover of a single nurse whose salary ranges from $28,800 to $51,700 can translate to an average of $3.6-$6.5 million cost to the healthcare organization, given such factors as the cost of reduced productivity of an employee in the weeks leading up to their departure, time between the departure and employee’s replacement, paid overtime to cover the replacement, hi-cost outside staffing agency fees, advertising for open positions, conducting background checks and credential verifications, training onboard new employees and climbing the learning curve on the new clinical culture.[3]

None of the above costs take into account additional expense burdens for healthcare organizations coming from the mounting labor shortage at the nursing assistant and home health aides level, which are considering leaving the healthcare setting in droves and making more money and less aggravation in the retail field. Bloomberg reports that there will be a shortfall of 3.2 million lower-wage workers among all the healthcare organizations by 2026.[4] What is the economic effect of the mandate on healthcare organizations? Well, it’s obvious that by early Spring of this year, there will be fewer healthcare workers and the costs of providing healthcare will go up in spite of an injection of an additional $10 billion of Phase 4 Provider Relief Funds under the CARES ACT. Will the economic stress create more interest in turning to bankruptcy alternatives to allow these organizations time to adjust to the new normal? Even before the mandate was issued, the AHA projected that hospitals would lose over $54 billion dollars in net income during 2021. That loss comes after accounting for the infusion of $176 billion in CARES ACT funding, which didn’t directly address the current dilemma of loss of manpower. It would be likely that the losses for 2022 will be even more dramatic. Additionally, what is not taken into account in these figures is the deepening insolvency affecting the Long Term Care Industry, where 86% of nursing homes and 77% of assisted living facilities have indicated that their workforce situation has gotten worse over the last three months.[5]

Certainly, the upcoming additional economic stress among heath care organizations from potential depletion of manpower will present several challenges within a bankruptcy setting. For one, practitioners will need to navigate how best to utilize post-petition cash between important manpower related objectives such as retention bonuses, paid time off, overtime payments, staffing agencies’ fees, recruiting, advertising, credentialling, and new employee policies, and equally demanding needs such as rent and other critical healthcare vendors. Particular attention will be given to carefully tailored DIP financing to insure the viability of the organization while in bankruptcy and through its exit. While private equity has taken larger and larger roles in healthcare, and its desire to utilize roll-ups and consolidations, specialists in healthcare financial advising will have to be employed to assist the economic constituencies in understanding the mechanism for exiting the bankruptcy, given the balancing act between workforce equilibrium and quality of continued care. Ultimately, more healthcare organizations will require strong healthcare insolvency professional guidance to find an appropriate refuge and fresh start in the trying months to come.

FOOTNOTES

[1]  Of note concerning the timing of its decision and its rationale based on the science, one of the Justices in oral argument believed that in January 2022, there were over 100,000 children in the US currently in the ICUs when the actual total was far less.  Additionally, though the Wall Street Journal reported on January 26, 2022 that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”) stated that Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. topped 2,100 a day, the highest in nearly a year, the article quotes Robert Anderson, chief of mortality statistics, who says, “You can have a disease that is for any particular person less deadly than another, like Omicron, but if it is more infectious and reaches more people, then you’re more likely to have a lot of deaths.”  As this article is going to print, see, also, Dr. Martin Makary, “The High Cost of Disparaging Natural Immunity to Covid,” Wall Street Journal, Jan. 26, 2022, concluding that “the superiority of natural immunity over vaccinated immunity is clear”.

[2]  Dave Muoio, Pandemic-Era overtime, agency staffing costs U.S. hospitals an extra $24B per year, Fierce Healthcare, Oct. 8, 2021.

[3] See 2021 NSI National Health Care Retention & RN Staffing Report, published by NSI Nursing Solutions, Inc., March 2021.

[4]  Lauren Coleman Lochner, US Hospitals Pushed to Financial Ruin as Nurses Quit During Pandemic, Bloomberg, Dec. 21, 2021.

[5] See FTI Healthcare Industry Sector Outlook, FTI Consulting, December 2021.

This article was written by Frank P. Terzo of Nelson Mullins law firm. For more information about vaccine mandates, please click here.

5th Circuit Rejects Request from United Airlines Employees to Block Company’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

In a decision from the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit, in a bid to block the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate, a divided court rejected an emergency request for an injunction from United Airlines employees. The request came in the wake of a November ruling by a federal judge in Fort Worth, Texas, which also ruled in favor of United Airlines.

United Airlines was the first major air carrier to implement a vaccine mandate and has so far granted about 2,000 exemptions. Its policy would place on unpaid leave any employees who fail to get the COVID-19 vaccine (and who fail to qualify for an exemption). The key question, in this case, is the extent to which United Airlines has accommodated employees’ religious or medical exemptions. The six plaintiffs claim that United Airlines’ policy is a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which, among other things, requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for all aspects of an employee’s religious beliefs, absent “undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.”

While the Fifth Circuit did not rule on the merits, two of the three judges denied the motion for an injunction citing previous decisions but did not offer any additional reasoning. Judge James C. Ho dissented asserting that the mandate placed a substantial burden on one’s religion and calling the harm a “quintessentially irreparable injury, warranting preliminary injunctive relief.” The Fifth Circuit did, however, grant a request from the plaintiffs for an expedited appeal. That hearing and the court’s decision should provide some guidance on the legal constraints and guidelines for COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

This article was written by Nelson Mullins attorneys Mitch Boyarsky and Benjamin Lichtman. For more articles regarding vaccine mandate challenges, please click here.

Tennessee Enacts Law Restricting Enforcement of Vaccine Mandates

On November 10, 2021, Tennessee Governor Bill Lee announced that he would sign legislation that addresses various COVID-19–related issues, including vaccine mandates and mask mandates. The law is effective immediately. There are several major issues for employers regarding COVID-19 prevention measures addressed in the new law. Below is an overview of the law’s key points.

Vaccine Mandates

The law does not prohibit private employers from adopting vaccine mandates. It seeks, in an indirect manner, to restrict employers from mandating vaccines… The law focuses on prohibiting employers from requiring proof of vaccination status. The express language of the new law is as follows: “A private business, governmental entity, school, or local education agency shall not compel or otherwise take an adverse action against a person to compel the person to provide proof of vaccination if the person objects to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for any reason.”

It would appear that the law potentially creates a perverse “don’t ask/don’t tell” incentive for both employers and employees. If an employee openly objects to receiving a vaccine, an employer can still ask why—to determine if there is a bona fide Title VII religious or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodation issue—but the employer would appear to be able to discharge or discipline the employee for the employee’s objection (absent accommodation issues). What a Tennessee employer cannot to do is ask employees for proof of vaccination status and then take an adverse action if the employees fail or refuse to provide proof of their vaccination status. By contrast, an employee might have an incentive to keep quiet and not answer (or lie) if asked about vaccination status.

Mask Mandates

An earlier version of the legislation sought to prohibit mask mandates entirely. The version that has become law limits the prohibition on mask mandates to government employers: “An employer that is a governmental entity shall not require an employee to wear a face covering as a term or condition of employment, or take an adverse action against an employee for failing to wear a face covering, unless severe conditions exist at the time the requirement is adopted and the requirement is in effect for not more than fourteen (14) days.” (Emphasis added.)

Unemployment Benefits

The law allows employees discharged for refusing to be vaccinated to receive unemployment benefits—and it is retroactive.

Medicare and Medicaid Vaccine Requirements

The law excludes from its coverage healthcare providers that are subject to Medicare or Medicaid vaccine requirements.  On November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services published their interim final vaccine mandate rules.

Exemptions

The new law allows employers, private businesses, schools, and state and local governmental entities to apply to the state comptroller for exemption from the requirements of the statute if compliance would result in a loss of federal funding. This exemption process would allow employers that are federal contractors to seek exemption.

Federal Emergency Temporary Standard

The law may set up a potential showdown between the Tennessee Occupational Safety and Health Administration (TOSHA) and the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) over the implementation and enforcement of OSHA’s recently issued COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for large employers (100 or more employees). The Tennessee law’s prohibition on compelling employees to provide proof of vaccination status is in direct conflict with the federal ETS (which requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, including requiring each vaccinated employee to provide “acceptable proof of vaccination status”).

State OSHA plans, such as Tennessee’s, have 30 days to adopt the federal standard. However, the Tennessee law includes a provision that prohibits any state funds from being allocated to implement or enforce any “federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that mandates the administration of a COVID-19 countermeasure” (including vaccines, testing, and masking). TOSHA receives funding from both the state government and the federal government. It is unclear whether TOSHA will be eligible to seek an exemption as described above. While the language of the exemption provision would appear to apply to TOSHA, the statements of proponents of the Tennessee law during the special session of the Tennessee General Assembly during which the legislation was approved made it clear that their efforts were aimed at curbing the impact of the federal ETS in Tennessee.

On Monday, November 8, 2021, TOSHA issued the following statement:  “Tennessee OSHA is currently reviewing the latest OSHA Emergency Temporary Standard regarding vaccines in the workplace.  As the agency did with the prior ETS, staff will review the OSHA standards and then determine how Tennessee will move forward. This process could take multiple weeks to complete.”

Key Takeaways

Business groups were strongly opposed to this new law, and that opposition contributed to the legislative shift away from an outright ban on vaccine mandates and to the narrowing of the anti-mask provision. There are still questions to be answered regarding this new law, including whether it will be challenged in court, what the process for requesting an exemption will look like, and whether Tennessee will adopt the federal COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing ETS.

This article was written by William Rutchow of Ogletree Deakins Law firm. For more information regarding vaccine mandate challenges, please see here.