What barriers are there for states to challenge the announced federal mandate for large employers to vaccinate their staff? In September 2021, an article reported the following. My job as president is to protect all Americans,&quot; Mr. Biden said Thursday. &quot;So tonight, I'm announcing that the Department of Labor is developing an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees that together employ over 80 million workers to ensure their workforces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.&quot; reference link / source Governors intend to challenge said requirement. 24 states threaten legal action over Biden's vaccine mandate What is the 'hurdle' they would need to 'jump' in order to successfully challenge? Unconstitutional (which amendment?)? Would state law barriers be excluded from the challenge?
President Biden's most far-reaching mandates use four mechanisms: Federal employees must be vaccinated, contractors to the Federal government must impose mandates on their employees, businesses with more than 100 employees must impose mandates under an order (not yet written) from the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to insure workplace safety, and employers who accept Medicare and Medicaid payments (both from the Federal agency, CMS) must impose mandates on their employees. Note that none of the mandates apply to state governments/ There may be a possible exception of state agencies that have Federal contracts, eg, universities, health departments, transportation departments, and others. These mandates are not universal, they are limited in specific ways and appear to adhere to and fulfil Federal laws. Three of these mandates are imposed on Federal employees and contractors with the federal government. Not much there for a state to hang a lawsuit on. States can't interfere with Federal employment practices or contractor policies. Worker safety is a well-established Federal responsibility with laws tested in court. Not much opportunity for a state to interfere there, either. So no, there doesn't seem any way for a state governor or attorney general to do anything but bluster for their constituency. But still, give them a chance to show up in court and see if their claims pass the laugh test. Then we can all have a good laugh. Added Sept 15, 2021 There might be some room for some employers to dispute the mandate in court, based at least partly on the notion that spreading a virus is different from toxic chemicals. Any OSHA mandate is likely to allow the alternative of wearing a mask and getting regular, frequent testing, to maintain the safety of all workers. There is likely to be litigation but there is no logical reason for a state to be involved.
In Connecticut, this is covered by the firefighter's rule. Police and fire personnel entering a property as part of their official duties are considered licensees, which limits the duties of the landowner. The rules are as follows: You can't intentionally hurt or lay a trap for the licensee. If you know or should know the licensee is there, you need to exercise due care with them. You don't have to worry about obvious hazards (but keep in mind that it's harder to see stuff at night). If you're doing something dangerous, you need to watch out for them. If you know about a hidden hazard, you must warn them. I'm not sure how in-depth you need to go with the warnings; various things I find suggest the duty to warn might only be there when you know or should know the licensee is present, but signs are a good idea regardless. On the other hand, if you do need to warn them, you might need to mention the specific locations of the pits you actually know about. However, there's no duty at all to proactively look for possible hazards. This rule originated as a rule for professional firefighters responding to a negligently-started fire: the idea is that professional firefighters sign up to do a dangerous job, and letting them sue for hazards inherent in their job (they aren't called without a fire) is a bad idea. Also, since they cannot be denied entry, go in places not open to the public, and can arrive at any hour, needing to keep the property safe for them is an unreasonable burden. Of course, there's an exception if a law is passed to protect their safety, because statutes override common law. The rule has since been extended in some states to police, and to situations besides the very problem they were called for. Other states have abolished it. In any event, this is for civil liability only: this is when cops can sue for injuries caused to them.
Welcome to LSE. Here are some answers to your question: No! It's not even close, but something like it is. The OSHA standard you cite is for mercury in the air in the workplace. You ask about &quot;injections,&quot; which do not involve mercury in the air, so: this standard does not apply to injections. You ask about &quot;injecting your employees with thiomersal.&quot; With only a few exceptions (for those helping diabetics, etc, and emergencies), all states require that licensed health care professionals administer injections, and then, only under a prescription. (For example, thiomersal is mostly used in vaccines. All states require licensed health professionals to administer vaccines.) So: Unless you are a licensed health professional with a prescription, you cannot inject your employees with thiomersal. However, OSHA has interpreted its rules and regulations to allow employees to require vaccines in some circumstances, such as a pandemic. To the extent these vaccines contain thiomersal, employers can require employees to get injected with thiomersal by a licensed health professional.
Taking California as an example, California Labor Code section 6314 (a) provides: To make an investigation or inspection, the chief of the division and all qualified divisional inspectors and investigators authorized by him or her shall, upon presenting appropriate credentials to the employer, have free access to any place of employment to investigate and inspect during regular working hours, and at other reasonable times when necessary for the protection of safety and health, and within reasonable limits and in a reasonable manner. So, the only requirement is that the inspector has been authorized by the chief of the Division of Occupational Safety and Health. In principle the chief could limit this authority to those periods when the instructor has been assigned to work, but I don't see any evidence that this is the case. In particular, you can find here the policy manual on inspection procedures that inspectors are assigned to follow, and it says nothing about "only perform an inspection when you are on duty". (You might also note the discussion on page 2 about unprogrammed inspections and the criteria for performing them. One indication is "Complaint about, or observance by anyone of, an imminent hazard", which could include a hazard observed by the inspector himself.) So to your specific questions: Do any states provide legal authority by statute for an OSHA compliance officer to inspect a site when they are in their own words "not working"? Yes, California provides authority for an inspector to inspect a site "during regular working hours, and at other reasonable times when necessary for the protection of safety and health". That is the only time-related restriction in the statute. I don't think that the inspector's comment that he's "not working" has any legal significance. What is the test to determine if an individual is acting in their official capacity or acting in their individual capacity? I do not know of any reason to think that any such legal distinction exists. If Joe Smith has been authorized as an inspector by the Chief of the Division, then Joe Smith can perform inspections and is to be given free access to do so. End of story. What is the legal "bright line" for state administrative agency employment as to acting in their official capacity as an agent of the state? Based on what I said above, I think this question is meaningless.
Since this apparently amends the law giving colleges and universities the power to adopt and enforced various regulations, what it really means is that if such an institution adopts a rule in violation of this law, it may not legally enforce that law. It might also give an affected student a right to sue if such a rule is adopted and enforced. As a comment by ohwilleke mentions, such a law might well authorize a court to issue an injunction forbidding the institution from enforcing the kind of rule prohibited by the law. Note that it is not at all uncommon to have &quot;or else&quot; provisions in different sections of the law. For example Section 123 of the (hypothetical) New France state code might prohibit having a faked driver's license, section 124 prohibit obtaining a license through false or misleading statements on nthe application, and section 458 say &quot;anyone who violates sections 123, 124, 125, or 126 shall be fined up to $2,000, or imprisoned for up to 1 year, or both, as a court may think just&quot;. Thus it is not always easy to find what penalties, if any, apply to a code section.
In Texas, as in most of the US, the law is "Employment at Will". This means that an employer is free to fire people at any time, for any reason, or none, as long as it is not for one of the few reason forbidden by law, such as racial or age discrimination. Hourly employees are entitled to overtime pay in such cases, but "exempt" employees are not. Nor are they entitled to comp-time as a matter of law, that is at the option of the employer. (The question seems to imply that the employee in question was "exempt" but does not actually say so.) The only really effective recourse against that sort of "death march" is to quit and find a better job, or to threaten to do so while they still need you, unless the conditions return to acceptable ones. I have heard of people in such a situation who "get sick" every day at 5:30pm, because local law forbid requiring ill employees to work. But that is pretty much inviting an arduous and possibly expensive administrative and/or legal battle, and will depend on the specifics of the state/local law. In any case, it is too late for the person in question to try that. On the facts as stated, there might be a valid claim of age discrimination. But additional facts would be needed to establish this, and it would be in my view unwise to try it without consulting a good employment lawyer. Such a lawyer could advise exactly what must be proved and how, and what the probable chances of any recovery would be.
tldr It depends on: whether the employment agreement specifies which state's law governs contract disputes; and how your state of residence and work treats governing-law clauses. Background To know whether § 2870(a) applies in this instance, a good place to start would be the employment agreement itself—contracts often contain a section on "Governing Law." This is an example of a choice-of-law problem, which is just preliminary procedural hurdle for a court to clear. Clearing the hurdle is usually easier for the court when the parties agree in advance about which state's laws will govern contract disputes. So, if the agreement says that California law governs, then one would typically look to statutes like § 2870(a) to interpret the agreement's provisions. But that's not always the definitive answer. Some states have laws designed to protect their residents by allowing them to void governing-law clauses that seek to have contract disputes adjudicated in a state where the employee doesn't live or work. Without knowing where you live, and in the interest of generality, let's use California residents as an example. Section 925(a) of California's labor code allows California resident workers to void governing-law clauses in employment agreements that deprive them of the protection of California's laws. But § 925(b) implies that the governing-law clause still controls unless that California resident worker affirmatively chooses to void the clause. Non-California employees would look to see whether their states have protective jurisdictional statutes like this. united-stateschoice-of-law
This is known as the "ministerial exception". Because the Free Exercise and Estalishment clauses of the First Amendment prohibit the government from interfering with religion, the government cannot override a doctrine that contradicts the teachings of a religion (so women and gays cannot sue the Catholic church for not being hirable as priests). In Hosanna-Tabor v. EEOC, an individual taught classes and led prayer at a religous school, but was fired ultimately due to a disability (narcolepsy). The Lutheran church does not have any known doctrine condemning narcolepsy: but it was unanimously ruled that "the Establishment Clause prevents the Government from appointing ministers, and the Free Exercise Clause prevents it from interfering with the freedom of religious groups to select their own". Thus the church was legally permitted to fire the individual due to her disability.