Posted on 07/05/2021 7:48:28 PM PDT by Be Careful
Just wondering if anyone has current legal information.
Why work for a company that wants that regardless of legality?
yes
Looking for guidance re: a young person entering the job market
Being unvaccinated is not a protected class, so they probably can.
I suppose it would depend on the reason someone gives for not taking it. If they say they are not taking it for religious reasons, then they could argue the are discriminating against them based on religious beliefs, which is illegal.
Technically, it’s not mandated by the CDC and can’t be because it’s experimental. In practice, companies are breaking the law just to force people up front, even if they have to back off later. I would fight it.
Can they ask about HIV status? Are you pregnant or do you plan to become pregnant?
That’s good to know.
ransomenote....you are always so AWESOME!
What about HIPPA(sp?)?
That is medical information, are they not allowed to have that information??
When I was turned down for a job because I wouldn’t get the vacx, I consulted a labor lawyer who told me a private company has the right in a right-to-work state. A publicly traded company in a right-to-work state may not but she wasn’t sure.
She said a publicly traded company may not have that right in a state where the legislature or governor banned it.
In Las Vegas, major casinos were requiring new hires to be vacxed or to test every week or twice a week. That seems to be slowly fading away as they reach the percentage of vacxed they set as the goal.
My son just got a promotion that comes with a trip to Macau in the fall. I’m praying they won’t require the vacx for him to travel there.
thanks for responding .....can you please expound? I am looking for the legal basis around which an unvaccinated young person can use to challenge this condition of hiring and employment. Any details that you can provide would be so helpful. thanks in advance.
Thank you...so many gray areas to traverse
A bit off subject and anecdotal: I work for a health-related company that shows measured “wokeness,” but has not required vaccination for C19. They require a few other things, which are run through a gauntlet of screening. Flu shot required, also.
HIPAA *NEVER* mattered.
Problem 1. “Covered Entity.”
A Covered Entity is one of the following: A Health Care Provider, OR, A Health Plan, OR A Health Care Clearinghouse.
If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules. See definitions of “business associate” and “covered entity” at 45 CFR 160.103.
Problem 2. “No-private right of action.”
HIPAA doesn’t afford ANYONE a private right of action. You, as an individual, cannot bring a “HIPAA Claim” against ANYONE, INCLUDING a “covered-entity.” This has been litigated over and over and over again, with the same result.
Example:
“Significantly, however, there is no “private right of action to enforce HIPAA” when an individual believes that a disclosure was wrongfully made. Because the statute does not provide a private right of action, and “does not provide a remedy in court for those persons who believe their [HIPAA] rights have been violated,” Plaintiff is unable to state a cognizable claim for a HIPAA violation. Consequently, his claims for HIPAA violations are DISMISSED.” Emmerick v. Ridgecrest Reg’l Hosp., No. 1:17-cv-01160- DAD - JLT, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21115, at *9 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2018).
“HIPAA prohibits the disclosure of medical records without a patient’s consent. But the statute does not expressly create a private cause of action for individuals to enforce this prohibition. Instead, HIPAA provides for penalties to be imposed by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. Nor does the statute imply a private cause of action. By delegating enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute clearly reflects that Congress did not intend for HIPAA to create a private Accordingly, because HIPAA confers no private cause of action, express or implied, we must dismiss Meadows’ claims.” Meadows v. United Servs., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020).
“Likewise, every circuit to have considered the issue has also held that no private right of action exists under HIPAA. See Meadows v. United Servs., Inc., 963 F.3d 240, 244 (2d Cir. 2020); Faber v. Ciox Health, LLC, 944 F.3d 593, 596-97 (6th Cir. 2019); Stewart v. Parkview Hosp., 940 F.3d 1013, 1015 (7th Cir. 2019); Dodd v. Jones, 623 F.3d 563, 569 (8th Cir. 2010); Wilkerson v. Shinseki, 606 F.3d 1256, 1267 n.4 (10th Cir. 2010); United States v. Streich, 560 F.3d 926, 935 (9th Cir. 2009); Acara v. Banks, 470 F.3d 569, 570-71 (5th Cir. 2006). HIPAA generally prohibits the disclosure of medical records without a patient’s consent. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1320d-1 to 1320d-7. While it provides civil penalties for improper disclosures of medical information, it does not expressly create a private cause of action to enforce the prohibition on disclosure. Instead, it limits enforcement of the statute to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. See 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-5. For that reason, no private right of action can be implied. “By delegating enforcement authority to the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, the statute clearly reflects that Congress did not intend for HIPAA to create a private remedy.” Meadows, 963 F.3d at 244; see Alexander, 532 U.S. at 290 (”The express provision of one method of enforcing a substantive rule suggests that Congress intended to preclude others.”). Accordingly, Laster cannot state a claim to relief under HIPAA.” Laster v. Careconnect Health Inc., No. 20-14726, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 11481, at *5 (11th Cir. Apr. 20, 2021)
Problem 3. “Public Health Exceptions to HIPAA.”
Generally, disclosure of protected health information without the authorization of the individual is permitted for purposes including but not limited to: disclosures required by law (45 CFR § 164.512(a)) or
for “public health activities and purposes.” This includes disclosure to “a public health authority that is authorized by law to collect or receive such information for the purpose of preventing or controlling disease, injury, or disability, including but not limited to, the reporting of disease, injury, vital events…, and the conduct of public health surveillance,… investigations, and… interventions.” (45 CFR § 164.512(b)(i)).
Well....that is interesting Hmmmm....Right-to-Work States are these...per a quick search https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/right-to-work-states
The vaccination card is not a legally controlled document. You can legally copy one, but be aware of laws against forgery and perjury. Unless one got a shot at a VA clinic there would probably not be any records for verification.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.