07/01/2021
The Court initially found that the Plaintiffs’ argument that currently available COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and dangerous was irrelevant to the issues in the case. Rather, it pointed out that the Plaintiffs claimed that if they were to be fired for refusing to be injected with the vaccine, they would be wrongfully terminated.
The Court initially noted that Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an illegal act carrying criminal penalties. It concluded that receiving the vaccine is not an illegal act, and does not carry criminal penalties and so it rejected that claim.
The Plaintiffs then argued that the Hospital’s injection requirement violates “public policy.” The Court, however, noted that Texas does not recognize that exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, and concluded that even if it did, the injection requirement is consistent with public policy rather than in violation of it. It noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that both a voluntary quarantine for contagious diseases and state-imposed requirements of mandatory vaccination do not violate due process. The Plaintiffs’ unlawful termination claims were rejected in their entirety.
However, the case did not end there. The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to declare that the vaccination requirement was unlawful because it violates federal law. Plaintiffs argued that the vaccine was “unapproved” and should not be mandated. They insisted that no currently available vaccines have been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Court noted that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized under federal law to introduce medical products intended for use in an emergency. It concluded that the powers granted to the Secretary neither expanded nor restricted the responsibility of private employers. Nor did those powers confer a private opportunity to sue the government, an employer, or other workers. The Court further concluded that requiring employees to be vaccinated is not the equivalent of forcing them to participate in a human trial.
Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the vaccination requirement is invalid because it violates the Nuremberg Code and alleged that the mandatory vaccination was the equivalent of forced Nazi medical experimentation during the Holocaust. However, the Court pointed out that the Nuremberg Code, written at the time of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals following the Second World War, does not apply because Houston Methodist is a private employer and not a government. It rejected Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate the vaccination mandate to medical experimentation on individuals in concentration camps.
The Court, in passing, noted that the EEOC had issued guidance authorizing employers to require their employees to be vaccinated, subject to expectations for certain disabilities or sincerely-held religious beliefs. It characterized that guidance as advisory only.
The Court concluded by stating that if employees refuse an assignment, or rejected a changed office of earlier start time or other directive, they can be fired. It concluded “Every employment includes limits on their worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain.” The decision may be found here.
Immediately following the issuance of the decision, Plaintiffs’ attorney announced that he would appeal. This is the first reported decision targeting vaccine mandates. We will monitor the progress of its appeal and, of course, other decisions relating to vaccination mandates.
Lawsuit Challenging "Mandatory Vaccinations" Dismissed
On June 13, 2021, a federal district court judge in Texas dismissed a lawsuit challenging a mandatory vaccination policy for all employees announced by Houston Methodist Hospital on April 1, 2021. The deadline for the vaccination was June 7, 2021. On that date, it suspended 178 employees for failing to comply. Subsequently, 117 of those employees initiated a lawsuit seeking to block the vaccine mandate. The Hospital moved to dismiss.The Court initially found that the Plaintiffs’ argument that currently available COVID-19 vaccines are experimental and dangerous was irrelevant to the issues in the case. Rather, it pointed out that the Plaintiffs claimed that if they were to be fired for refusing to be injected with the vaccine, they would be wrongfully terminated.
The Court initially noted that Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an illegal act carrying criminal penalties. It concluded that receiving the vaccine is not an illegal act, and does not carry criminal penalties and so it rejected that claim.
The Plaintiffs then argued that the Hospital’s injection requirement violates “public policy.” The Court, however, noted that Texas does not recognize that exception to the employment-at-will doctrine, and concluded that even if it did, the injection requirement is consistent with public policy rather than in violation of it. It noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has held that both a voluntary quarantine for contagious diseases and state-imposed requirements of mandatory vaccination do not violate due process. The Plaintiffs’ unlawful termination claims were rejected in their entirety.
However, the case did not end there. The Plaintiffs also asked the Court to declare that the vaccination requirement was unlawful because it violates federal law. Plaintiffs argued that the vaccine was “unapproved” and should not be mandated. They insisted that no currently available vaccines have been fully approved by the Food and Drug Administration. The Court noted that the Secretary of Health and Human Services is authorized under federal law to introduce medical products intended for use in an emergency. It concluded that the powers granted to the Secretary neither expanded nor restricted the responsibility of private employers. Nor did those powers confer a private opportunity to sue the government, an employer, or other workers. The Court further concluded that requiring employees to be vaccinated is not the equivalent of forcing them to participate in a human trial.
Finally, the Plaintiffs claimed that the vaccination requirement is invalid because it violates the Nuremberg Code and alleged that the mandatory vaccination was the equivalent of forced Nazi medical experimentation during the Holocaust. However, the Court pointed out that the Nuremberg Code, written at the time of the Nuremberg trials of Nazi war criminals following the Second World War, does not apply because Houston Methodist is a private employer and not a government. It rejected Plaintiffs’ attempt to equate the vaccination mandate to medical experimentation on individuals in concentration camps.
The Court, in passing, noted that the EEOC had issued guidance authorizing employers to require their employees to be vaccinated, subject to expectations for certain disabilities or sincerely-held religious beliefs. It characterized that guidance as advisory only.
The Court concluded by stating that if employees refuse an assignment, or rejected a changed office of earlier start time or other directive, they can be fired. It concluded “Every employment includes limits on their worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. That is all part of the bargain.” The decision may be found here.
Immediately following the issuance of the decision, Plaintiffs’ attorney announced that he would appeal. This is the first reported decision targeting vaccine mandates. We will monitor the progress of its appeal and, of course, other decisions relating to vaccination mandates.
