Several Republican Attorney Generals Say There Is No Federal Vaccine Mandate for Private Workers, Vow to Sue

Several Republican attorneys general have said that President Joe Biden’s federal mandate for COVID-19 vaccinations hasn’t yet come into effect for private businesses, adding that if it is ordered, they will file lawsuits against it.

Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen, a Republican, noted that the White House only last week submitted the text of its emergency rule regarding vaccinations to the Office of Management and Budget, meaning it hasn’t gone into effect.

But, Knudsen noted that “no such rule or regulation is currently in effect,” adding (pdf) that there has been a “great deal of confusion” over Biden’s announcement last month.

“Further, my office is preparing to immediately challenge and enjoin this federal overreach on a variety of grounds when the Biden administration issues its announced rule,” he said.

On Sept. 9, Biden announced that he would direct the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to mandate that all private businesses with 100 or more employees force their workers to get vaccinated or submit to weekly testing. Details about the rule, including fines, have not been released, and White House press secretary Jen Psaki couldn’t answer questions earlier this month about a timeframe on when it would be unveiled.

Oklahoma Attorney General John O’Connor, also a Republican, announced Thursday that there is no federal rule mandating employers to require their workers to get the shots. As a result, he noted that Biden’s announcement should be ignored by employers until a rule is implemented.

“I urge Oklahoma employers to disregard the Biden Administration’s wishes to the contrary,” O’Connor said in a statement. “In the event federal emergency rules are issued that place such an unlawful demand upon employers, our office will be joined by other state Attorneys General across the country to quickly sue and seek an injunction against any implementation or enforcement.”

My former boss told an potential employer “His daughter was a NICU baby, and you know how expensive they can be be long term.” So while there may be other reason I did not get the job, the fact that my former employer made dang sure everyone in the industry knew how much it cost for my kid was crappy. I now know they reached to two competitors at least (one flat told me later, and another one I have a contact there that talked to me about it).

My employer also had a habit of leaking treatment and specific medical information to, well, everyone in the plant. Since they self insured, they had access to everything and felt that talking about how much employee X cost the company for healthcare was a good review of performance. At times, in mass meetings where they would say “Your health plan is going up by %5 because employee Y has cancer.”

I was handed the cost of my daughter’s treatment and told by my now former boss “We spent X on your kid. YOU ARE EXPECTED TO EARN THAT BACK PLUS INTEREST!” This was in a formal, documented, review. I had not signed anything saying the company could know what the specific procedures were, but they had it straight from the hospital.

Contacted several lawyers. None would touch the case. One was kind enough to say “you might win, but would you win enough to live on for the rest of your life? No one will hire you after you sue in your field.”

Forgive me if I have any faith in HIPAA. Experience has shown that it is nothing.

Threat of non legal based termination ARE in and of themselves... material damages. They could and should be pursued at multiple vectors under criminal and civil aspects by any means possible. Coercion is not at will choice or consent, rather it is harrassment for religious purposes and is in fact a predefined HOSTILE abusive work environment. Prosecutable in most states via state and federal laws. But the bad guys have this gamed out... and have tested their planned pathway to push this to the judges who will fully back their plays. The Supreme Court.

Only God can save us now.

Ok, how do you feel about laws that say a company cannot discriminate against someone who is fat? has HIV? is handicapped? see where this is going?

I'm not thrilled with them, but the anti-discrimination laws, anti-discrimination laws, family leave laws are there. Why expand on existing government overreach.

But if you're OK with the government saying companies can't require vaccinations then you should also be OK with government saying that companies can require vaccinations? The same power that allows the government to do one gives it the power to do the other, right?

Then the question is

“Does a business have the right to demand medical treatments as a condition of work?”

THAT is a landmine. If true, then you will see women required to be on birth control. If not true, then you will see challenges to drug testing.

My bet is no court will allow standing.

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.