Six states–California, Mississippi, West Virginia, Connecticut, New York, and Maine–removed religious exemptions for vaccinations required to attend school. I wish the other 44 would follow suit. If states don’t have to allow religious exemptions for vaccinations required to attend school, why can’t they legally remove the religious exemption for those who work in schools?
They didn’t check ID down here in Arkansas, either, once everyone was eligible. But, even if they didn’t recognize me, it would seem a huge downside if there would be no complete record of all my shots, as then I couldn’t use proof of vax for anything. So I would not think most people would lie about their identity.
I wonder if state run schools are subject to federal EEO laws?
While I think schools would prevail on the undue hardship defense because students are too young to be vaccinated… that’s a guaranteed court case.
~Max
Here is the EEOC on employers and vaccine mandates. Relevant excerpts in the spoiler.
"Spoiler (click to show/hide)
The federal EEO laws do not prevent an employer from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII and the ADA and other EEO considerations discussed below.
[…]
K.2. What are some examples of reasonable accommodations or modifications that employers may have to provide to employees who do not get vaccinated due to disability; religious beliefs, practices, or observance; or pregnancy? (5/28/21)
An employee who does not get vaccinated due to […] a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance (covered by Title VII) may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. For example, as a reasonable accommodation, an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non-employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment.
[…]
K.12. Under Title VII, how should an employer respond to an employee who communicates that he or she is unable to be vaccinated for COVID-19 (or provide documentation or other confirmation of vaccination) because of a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance? ( 12/16/20 , updated 5/28/21 )
Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests.
EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605.
Under Title VII, an employer should thoroughly consider all possible reasonable accommodations, including telework and reassignment. For suggestions about types of reasonable accommodation for unvaccinated employees, see question and answer K.6., above. In many circumstances, it may be possible to accommodate those seeking reasonable accommodations for their religious beliefs, practices, or observances.
Under Title VII, courts define “undue hardship” as having more than minimal cost or burden on the employer. This is an easier standard for employers to meet than the ADA’s undue hardship standard, which applies to requests for accommodations due to a disability. Considerations relevant to undue hardship can include, among other things, the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and the extent of employee contact with non-employees, whose vaccination status could be unknown or who may be ineligible for the vaccine. Ultimately, if an employee cannot be accommodated, employers should determine if any other rights apply under the EEO laws or other federal, state, and local authorities before taking adverse employment action against an unvaccinated employee
K.13. Under Title VII, what should an employer do if an employee chooses not to receive a COVID-19 vaccination due to pregnancy? (12/16/20, updated 5/28/21)
Under Title VII, some employees may seek job adjustments or may request exemptions from a COVID-19 vaccination requirement due to pregnancy.
If an employee seeks an exemption from a vaccine requirement due to pregnancy, the employer must ensure that the employee is not being discriminated against compared to other employees similar in their ability or inability to work. This means that a pregnant employee may be entitled to job modifications, including telework, changes to work schedules or assignments, and leave to the extent such modifications are provided for other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work. Employers should ensure that supervisors, managers, and human resources personnel know how to handle such requests to avoid disparate treatment in violation of Title VII.
I’m fairly confident Title VII applies to state run schools, and affects the state’s employees but not the children enrolled. And I’d bet two hundred quatloos the EEOC’s guidance on this issue is why hospitals and schools allow employee exemptions for pregnancy and religious belief.
~Max
I can’t talk about this without using a whole bunch of bad words, but Arizona’s governor is using COVID relief funds to give grants to schools who do not adopt mask mandates. He’s also using it to give parents 7 grand if they want to move their kids away from schools with mask mandates and COVID precautions.
The article is pay walled, sorry.
"Gov. Doug Ducey’s decision to use federal dollars intended to combat COVID-19 to support schools that are not following health and safety guidelines is drawing fire from public-school advocates in Arizona to Washington D.C.
On Wednesday, federal officials signaled the governor’s plan does not fit with the intent of the American Rescue Plan Act but stopped short of taking any action to block it.
Ducey is offering grants to schools that don’t adopt mask mandates as well as a voucher program of up to $7,000 for families that want to leave schools with such rules."
Not the right forum.
210,135,095 total cases
4,405,959 dead
188,247,534 recovered
In the US:
38,072,656 total cases
641,346 dead
30,341,886 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
What I’m reading there says that, while they must allow those with religious objections, they can require other measures as reasonable accommodations to work, like requiring constant testing, extreme PPE, or even requiring telework. If that’s not possible, they can be transferred where it will be. Based on what they told my mom, if you reject all reasonable accommodations, your only choice is to quit. That aligns with what I would expect such exemptions to be.
The pregnancy one is what’s odd to me. They seem to be mixing in the rules for how to accommodate pregnant people in general, rather than just treating pregnancy as another reason for a vaccine exemption. It makes it sounds like you can’t use the same situation as the religious exemption, and must treat them the same as a vaccinated employee of similar ability.
That said, it is worded a bit more vaguely, since it does talk about telework and leave. So maybe it’s more saying that, if they can work safely, then you have to let them, and if not, you have to provide telework or pregnancy leave. That would make more sense to me.
I do wonder if any of this would be altered by proclamations by governors. Would making those with reasonable exemptions wear PPE and masks violate a rule against mask mandates?
I’d like to know which religions specifically forbid vaccinations. A list would be handy, so that any folks who claim a religious objection MUST show that they are long -term members of religions on this list, and follow ALL of their other commands as well. You can’t just make up some bullshit about a religious objection - it has to be a REAL religion with a REAL objection.
EDIT: I actually found this site that has such a list. It was interesting that even Jeohvah Witnesses renounced the doctrine of no immunizations in the 1950’s.
So you will need to show that you belong to one of the following
- Dutch Reformed Congregations - This denomination has a tradition of declining immunizations. Some members decline vaccination on the basis that it interferes with divine providence. However, others within the faith accept immunization as a gift from God to be used with gratitude.
- Faith healing denominations including:
- Faith Tabernacle
- Church of the First Born
- Faith Assembly
- End Time Ministrie
- [Church of Christ, Scientist]- One of the basic teachings of this denomination is that disease can be cured or prevented by focused prayer and members will often request exemptions when available. However, there are not strict rules against vaccination and members can receive required vaccinations.
Oregon announced today that all teachers must be vaccinated. Last week they were leaving it up to individual districts to decide, but changed course today. Governor Brown also said health care workers will no longer have the option to be regularly tested in lieu of vaccination.
The requirement goes into effect 6 weeks after the FDA grants full approval of the vaccines.
Yes. It makes sense given our status of having 0 community cases.
I am a little surprised at the surprise expressed by some overseas news outlets to the extreme response to a single case.
This whole thing, the pandemic, the shit-show happening all over the world, it was all started by a single case. If you can react quickly to a single case, you might be able to avoid it snow balling into millions of cases.
One of the interesting things about the Bible is that it nowhere says, “Such-and-such a denomination is the final arbiter of theological positions.” So if a person belongs to a group not on your list, but has a religious objection to vaccines, you have no objective basis for rejecting that person’s claim.
That’s because there is positive law specifically protecting the rights of pregnant mothers as a special case of discrimination on the basis of sex. It was an amendment to Title VII, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978.
~Max
I’m aware there is such a law. What seems bizarre to me is the interpretation that laws about pregnancy discrimination are being used to argue you can’t discriminate between pregnant women who got the vaccine and pregnant women who refuse. Clearly the issue is not pregnancy in that case, but the fact that one is safe to work with the kids, while the other isn’t.
By that logic, you also couldn’t fire a pregnant woman for cause. All actions are presumed to be because she’s pregnant, and can’t be for other reasons.
My reading is that the employee has to request the accommodation and give pregnancy as the reason. In the case of vaccines the employer apparently isn’t allowed to second-guess, and it’s probably better that way.
Also, I edited my last post. The undue hardship defense applies to pregnancy discrimination.
~Max
I hate to say this because I’m so ticked off at those who use religion as a shield for their unconscionable selfishness and ignorance, but “sincerely held” religious beliefs do not have to be a tenet of any religion. If I say (and I wouldn’t) that my religious beliefs prohibit vaccination, and I don’t belong or subscribe to ANY religion, those beliefs are protected.
The courts have generally given a very broad definition to the term. Religious beliefs are protected even when they do not conform to the dogma of any particular religion.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/19/us/texas-supreme-court-mask-mandate/index.html
Local mask mandates allowed for now after Texas Supreme Court rejects Gov. Abbott’s request to intervene
(CNN)The Supreme Court of Texas refused Gov. Greg Abbott’s request to intervene Thursday in the case of mask mandates established by several local jurisdictions.
As a result, the lower court ruling allowing school districts to require masks in their schools still stands.
210,854,907 total cases
4,417,603 dead
188,795,923 recovered
In the US:
38,231,787 total cases
643,112 dead
30,390,669 recovered
Yesterday’s numbers for comparison:
This news is being hailed as a major victory for schools to be able to have mask mandates. But I don’t see it as being very satisfactory. It was decided on a technicality, and may not last.
The problem was, Abbott took it straight to the Texas Supreme Court, bypassing an intermediate court level, thus the court “rejects Gov. Abbott’s request to intervene”. They didn’t actually take the case (yet), let alone decide the case.
So all Abbott has to do now is take it back to the intermediate court, and then we shall see what that court says. THEN, if Abbott is still not happy, I presume he could bring it to the Supreme Court again.
Yeah, but there’s this:
…
The Texas Education Agency updated its guidance to school districts Thursday, saying the governor’s order banning mask requirements is not being enforced “as the result of the ongoing litigation.” The agency said further guidance “will be made available after the court issues are resolved.”
…
By the time the litigation is over, these first graders may be putting their own kids in first grade.