Biden's EEOC Says Your Employer Can Force You to Get Vaccinated

PJ Media ^ | 05/30/2021 | Rick Moran

[SeekAndFind]

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says there’s nothing in federal law that can prevent an employer from compelling employees to be vaccinated in order to work.

However, the EEOC also said that for employees who have a religious objection or a physical disability that prevents them from receiving the vaccine, an employer must provide “reasonable accommodations.” Those accommodations could include forcing an unvaccinated employee to wear a mask, be socially distanced from other employees, or allowed to work from home.

Wall Street Journal:

The updated guidance is intended to answer frequently asked questions, EEOC Chairwoman Charlotte Burrows said in a statement. She said the agency will continue to update and clarify its assistance for employers.

The commission is an independent, bipartisan agency that enforces workplace civil-rights laws. The five-person body is led by Ms. Burrows, a Democrat whom President Biden elevated to the top position. It also includes three Republican members nominated by former President Donald Trump.

Many employers are forgoing a vaccine requirement in lieu of incentives.

JBS USA, the biggest U.S. beef processor, and Pilgrim’s Pride, a top poultry supplier, won’t require plant workers to get the vaccine, a spokesman for the companies said. A Bolthouse Farms spokesman said the company didn’t have plans to mandate vaccinations. Dollar General, Trader Joe’s and Instacart Inc. didn’t respond to requests for comment Friday.

Keira Lombardo, chief administrative officer for Smithfield Foods Inc., said the pork giant is making vaccines available for plant workers but isn’t requiring them at this time.

[Starcitizen]

Then I guess you’ll have to get the jab since you have thrown in the towel.

I left the it field years ago.

If I can do it you can do it.

I sell used auto parts and cars now.

———————

Yeah I pretty much already got vaxxed.

For one thing. Most countries are either requiring the vaccine passport/ certificate or a very expensive 2 to 3 week mandatory quarantine in a government quarantine hotel (that’s $2100 to $5000 some countries, per person) and 2 to 3 paid ($100 a test) COVID PCR tests

The US is pretty much the only country not requiring that of international arrivals.

[Starcitizen]

But I do need to travel internationally occasionally!
———
Then you better vax up or be prepared to spend an extra $2100 to $5000 for a mandatory 14 to 21 quarantine.

[Starcitizen]

Then I guess you’ll have to get the jab since you have thrown in the towel.

I left the it field years ago.

If I can do it you can do it.

I sell used auto parts and cars now.
————
Not making the $100k plus a year I’m used to.

Glassdoor says $38,864 a year, with a long thin tail to $100k a year for the few unicorns.

[The Duke]

"I do not believe that would stand up in a (real) court."

Who had real courts?

[DoodleBob]

Here is likely how this all went down (with inspiration from impy):

Huh...what? Oh, I don't think we should drop a bomb on Hiroshima to end the war. Let's negotiate with the League of Justice.

Shut up, Joe, or I won't give you your elder shake. You know I'm in charge. Now, how can we force these Republican holdouts to get vaxxed? This Emergency Use Authorization lie won't last forever.

Mhfffhfhenskijrnfnf...LIE, it's worked so far.

But we need a new liar. You got caught with your hands in the gain-of-function cookie jar by Rand Paul. Your credibility is shot, even the liberals hate you now. I'd be careful if I were you, when you start your car.

What if the EEOC came out with some bullsh1te statement that you can force workers to vaxx up? It will be tied up in court forever, and even if it came to me I'd say it was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause.

I love those barrettes in your hair, man.

You're as gross as that POS stepson of mine. John, will that work? Can't we just have Dominion do something? That worked last time we needed some fakery.

I'll have to circle back to you on that one.

I think it'll fake 'em out like a slant pass. Do it.

Who invited you in here? What experience do you have with cheating?

I got this one...it'll work. I know a thing or two about fakes.

I love those barrettes in your hair, man.

Someone put him back in the basement. Ok, we will go with the EEOC lie.

[TalBlack]

18.75 an hour!LOL! A company I do work for here on LI is offering 30.00 an hour for office workers to process paperwork for monument inscriptions. This requires no real skill except getting the spelling right. 18.75 is real woke of Amazon.

[stanne]

It is an experimental substance. They cannot force it. They can fake it and talk a lot but people should use their heads. Ask around look it up. What are MDs doing. The FDA won’t approve it for many reasons one of which is when it’s experimental it’s at your own risk. No one can sue pharm co.

[WildHighlander57]

Fury wrote:

“
“employees who have a religious objection “

I’ve read the EEOC FAQ:

https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws

and also some “Tips for Judging Sincerity of Employee’s Religious Beliefs”:

https://hrdailyadvisor.blr.com/2021/02/08/tips-for-judging-sincerity-of-employees-religious-beliefs/

It’s reasonable to assume that some people will claim a sincerely held religious belief based the degree that an aborted fetus was in the development / production / etc of a vaccine.

Short of an employee wearing a button or shirt that says an employee is part of a religion that does not believe in abortion, employers are going to have to tread carefully on how they make the determination that a sincerely held religious belief is authentic.”

Won’t employers find another reason to get on an employee’s case about the shots?

A company I worked at said in October last year, that people couldn’t go back to everyone being in the offices until a ‘vaccine’ came out maybe midyear next year; we had been doing work-from-home half days and going into the factory with masks the other half (or sometimes all day).

The company had categorized masks as PPE, and added them to the list (static smocks wrist and heel straps, eye protection goggles, beard covers, etc) that were mandatory and subject to disciplinary action (up to and including termination of employment) if not used.

In early January, the VP of HR wrote everyone and said ‘if you don’t want to wear a mask, maybe you don’t want to work here’.

I no longer work for that employer; I retired the end of January; I’m not sure if anyone pushed back on masks or shots.

note: the employer wasn’t part of healthcare or retail that would have a lot of interaction with the public, but was categorized as an essential business, and had around 4,000 people at the plant at which I worked.

[WildHighlander57]

palmer wrote:

“Many red states are pushing back https://www.huschblackwell.com/newsandinsights/50-state-update-on-pending-legislation-pertaining-to-employer-mandated-vaccinations

e.g. Texas

(Pending Legislation):

House Bill 1687 would prohibit employment discrimination based on an employee’s COVID-19 vaccination status. Under the Bill, an employer commits an unlawful employment practice if they fire, fail to hire or otherwise discriminate against an unvaccinated individual with respect to compensation or the terms, conditions or privileges of employment.”

I’m from Texas, and although recently retired, would like to see that HB1687 enacted; there are many folks that can’t get the shot for medical reasons, as well as for religious and conscience reasons.

[SaxxonWoods]

There’s probably a better job just around the corner these days.

[WildHighlander57]

also from the EEOC site:

“G.4. The CDC identifies a number of medical conditions that might place individuals at “higher risk for severe illness” if they get COVID-19. An employer knows that an employee has one of these conditions and is concerned that his health will be jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, but the employee has not requested accommodation. How does the ADA apply to this situation? (5/7/20)

First, if the employee does not request a reasonable accommodation, the ADA does not mandate that the employer take action.

If the employer is concerned about the employee’s health being jeopardized upon returning to the workplace, the ADA does not allow the employer to exclude the employee—or take any other adverse action—solely because the employee has a disability that the CDC identifies as potentially placing him at “higher risk for severe illness” if he gets COVID-19. Under the ADA, such action is not allowed unless the employee’s disability poses a “direct threat” to his health that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

The ADA direct threat requirement is a high standard. As an affirmative defense, direct threat requires an employer to show that the individual has a disability that poses a “significant risk of substantial harm” to his own health under 29 C.F.R. section 1630.2(r) (regulation addressing direct threat to health or safety of self or others). A direct threat assessment cannot be based solely on the condition being on the CDC’s list; the determination must be an individualized assessment based on a reasonable medical judgment about this employee’s disability—not the disability in general—using the most current medical knowledge and/or on the best available objective evidence. The ADA regulation requires an employer to consider the duration of the risk, the nature and severity of the potential harm, the likelihood that the potential harm will occur, and the imminence of the potential harm. Analysis of these factors will likely include considerations based on the severity of the pandemic in a particular area and the employee’s own health (for example, is the employee’s disability well-controlled), and his particular job duties. A determination of direct threat also would include the likelihood that an individual will be exposed to the virus at the worksite. Measures that an employer may be taking in general to protect all workers, such as mandatory social distancing, also would be relevant.

Even if an employer determines that an employee’s disability poses a direct threat to his own health, the employer still cannot exclude the employee from the workplace—or take any other adverse action—unless there is no way to provide a reasonable accommodation (absent undue hardship). The ADA regulations require an employer to consider whether there are reasonable accommodations that would eliminate or reduce the risk so that it would be safe for the employee to return to the workplace while still permitting performance of essential functions. This can involve an interactive process with the employee. If there are not accommodations that permit this, then an employer must consider accommodations such as telework, leave, or reassignment (perhaps to a different job in a place where it may be safer for the employee to work or that permits telework). An employer may only bar an employee from the workplace if, after going through all these steps, the facts support the conclusion that the employee poses a significant risk of substantial harm to himself that cannot be reduced or eliminated by reasonable accommodation.

G.5. What are examples of accommodation that, absent undue hardship, may eliminate (or reduce to an acceptable level) a direct threat to self? (5/5/20)

Accommodations may include additional or enhanced protective gowns, masks, gloves, or other gear beyond what the employer may generally provide to employees returning to its workplace. Accommodations also may include additional or enhanced protective measures, for example, erecting a barrier that provides separation between an employee with a disability and coworkers/the public or increasing the space between an employee with a disability and others. Another possible reasonable accommodation may be elimination or substitution of particular “marginal” functions (less critical or incidental job duties as distinguished from the “essential” functions of a particular position). In addition, accommodations may include temporary modification of work schedules (if that decreases contact with coworkers and/or the public when on duty or commuting) or moving the location of where one performs work (for example, moving a person to the end of a production line rather than in the middle of it if that provides more social distancing).

These are only a few ideas. Identifying an effective accommodation depends, among other things, on an employee’s job duties and the design of the workspace. An employer and employee should discuss possible ideas; the Job Accommodation Network (www.askjan.org) also may be able to assist in helping identify possible accommodations. As with all discussions of reasonable accommodation during this pandemic, employers and employees are encouraged to be creative and flexible.”

[Tommygun99]

Um, check this out. I’m not a lawyer but this might be a way out.

“Federal law, Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, states the following about products granted emergency authorization usage:

Individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—

(I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

Any entity or organization that requires EUA COVID-19 vaccinations, COVID-19 tests or masks are in violation of federal law, and will likely face lawsuits if they don’t allow exemptions or alternatives.”

[Captain7seas]

“...revised its hiring policy to require that as of June 1st all new hires must be vaccinated as a condition of employment.”

Inform them of the fact that they are in violation of The Nuremberg Code which is recognized in the U.S. The Code specifically prohibits what they are doing.

Also, 21 USC sec 360.

Additionally:

If They are so concerned about their employees health and welfare they should be willing to sign a document guaranteeing they will be financially responsible for the employees lifetime for any and all medical cost associated with any experimental injection related injury/illness. Plus pay a sizeable lump sum death benefit in the likely event of death.

You are aware that the “vaccine” makers are NOT LIABLE for any injury or death?

[Captain7seas]

Lawsuits starting:

https://www.theepochtimes.com/117-healthcare-workers-file-lawsuit-against-hospital-for-requiring-covid-19-vaccine_3836644.html?utm_sour

[Antihero101607]

Very much so, it was the makers of the vaccines having protection from lawsuits which were something of a red flag for me.

For those that get the vaccine I wish them a long, happy and healthy life, and hope for no serious side effects. For those that bray “anti-vaxxer”, if there are severe, or mass side effects a year or two from now, I just ask that you shut your mouth about your misfortune. Something goes south with the vaccine the vaccinated and unvaccinated alike are going to be in a world of misery.

[Grampa Dave]

I’m not allowed on campus for the remainder of the semester (currently remote) and my adjunct contract will not be renewed, as face-to-face classes start up in July again.”

What state re the colleges?

Thanks

[Captain7seas]

“you better vax up...”

What you and anyone else considering getting “vaxed up” better do is wise up and do some research. Here is Dr. Peter McCollough one of the most highly credentialed doctors in this country. Want more? there are many more speaking out and waring people. WHY are they being censored?

Here is Stephany Seneff Ph.d - 50 years at MIT

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2021/05/23/stephanie-seneff-covid-vaccine.aspx?ui=987a80efccf28167668f07c800

https://rumble.com/vhp8e1-massive-world-renowned-doctor-blows-lid-off-of-covid-vaccine.html

[Grampa Dave]

Sometimes we need an incentive to quit working for a bad company or individual:

This (below) to me falls into the category of a bad company and individual. A memo like that is time to get out.

In early January, the VP of HR wrote everyone and said ‘if you don’t want to wear a mask, maybe you don’t want to work here’.

“I no longer work for that employer; I retired the end of January!”

[Salvavida]

I would give a bonus to those who didn’t get the vaccine as proof they exercise good judgment and common sense. And knowledge of science.

[ChildOfThe60s]

Kroger is telling their employees that unless/until they get the ersatz vaccine they are required to wear masks at work.

I picked up a prescription today at Kroger’s pharmacy. *Everyone*, including the pharmacist(s) were wearing masks. They are giving the shot at Kroger.

FYI, an employee told me months ago that Kroger said if you have a medical reason for not wearing a mask, don’t come to work.