Am I allowed to opt out ADA privileges if my doctor allows it? I’m on ADA. My employer allowed me not to take the Covid vaccine and instead take weekly test for Covid as a reasonable accommodation. I’m receiving a treatment, and my doctor says if it goes well, he might consider allowing me to take the vaccine. Maybe in the future. My doctor says, right now, I should NOT take the vaccine, but it the treatment is successful, he may reconsider. Questions: If I hope, my treatment goes well, and my doctor reconsiders, then am I allowed to “Cancel my ADA”, and take the vaccine? Or is my ADA “non-cancellable, and I have to keep taking these weekly Covid tests, even if my doctor allows me to take the vaccine?
There's nothing to cancel. Your employer has made an exception for you, because of the ADA: you are not required to be vaccinated. That doesn't mean you can't be vaccinated. Once your doctor advises you that it's safe to be vaccinated, and once you are vaccinated, you no longer need the exception, but there's no need to cancel it. As far as the weekly tests, they are required as an alternative measure because you aren't vaccinated. Once you are vaccinated, there should be no more need for weekly testing. You may of course inform your employer that your doctor's advice changed that you were vaccinated, and that you therefore no longer require the accommodation that they offered. That should allow you to stop the weekly testing regime, but otherwise it should be the end of it, since at that point everyone should be satisfied.
Notwithstanding the current COVID-19 regulations, I cannot find any Scottish law, regulation or rule that prevents a lawful tenant from having long-term visitors. However, it may (or may not) be a breach of the tenancy agreement depending on its terms which is where one should look for a definitive answer.
The CEO, with his lawyer have tried to convince me that this only apply to current client and any past clients that I have work on. Is this true? No. It will be true only if they make that clarification in the clause or a properly added amendment. The clause currently has no indication that it is limited to "current client and any past clients that [you] have work[ed] on". The CEO's &amp; lawyer's refusal to amend the clause so as to make it consistent with their attempts [to persuade you] would be a red flag. Their inconsistent representations to you suggest that they are not planning to honor the covenant of good faith on which all contracts are premised. Should I expect the CEO to offer a fair contract or is this something you read and negotiate? You should require a contract that seems fair to you. And by "to you" I mean that it has to be in line with your expectations regardless of the average conditions in the labor market. Negotiations are not binding. They are merely a preamble to a contract, and that contract is binding. This is why you should reject a contract that falls short of your requirements. Some clauses are unlawful and/or void and unenforceable as unconscionable or for contravening legislation (unlawful clauses can and do arise even if drafted by attorneys). Thus, although you might not have to worry about those clauses in particular, the company's mere attempt to include them in a contract should alert you of the high risk of ending up with other abusive terms &amp; conditions which are binding and enforceable nonetheless.
Alabama has published an administrative interpretation of §32-6-7, §32-6-7.1, Code of Ala. 1975 regarding medical standards for driver licensing. This allows them to take medical conditions into consideration in denying, not renewing, or restricting a license. This includes, for example, the ability to consider the fact that a person has high blood pressure. The review standard basically says that if they review a person and determine that there is a significant medical impairment, they can restrict driving privileges. 760-X-20-.10 addresses MS and related conditions, which basically restates that. There is nothing in the statutes that requires a person to report a specific medical condition of theirs. A doctor could, however, report that a patient is not fit to drive, which could trigger a DMV evaluation. P. 13 of the state Driver License Manual sums it up saying When it appears that you have some physical or mental impairment which might affect your driving ability, you may be required to furnish a statement from a doctor showing your medical history and present condition as it pertains to your driving ability. This does not translate into a requirement to self-report medical conditions that potentially affect ability to drive. It is highly unlikely that any state singles out MS, but every state has the potential to restrict driving if a person is medically unsafe to drive.
According to an HHS guide entitled "Individuals’ Right under HIPAA to Access their Health Information", HIPAA does entitle you to access your medical records; however, the medical provider has 30 days to respond to your request. See the section on "Timeliness". So if the doctor wants to withhold the information until your appointment in 3 weeks, it looks to me like they are legally entitled to do so. Massachussets law has some similar provisions which are linked from the state court system's page on medical privacy. But as far as I could tell, they also only set a 30 day window, and it only applies to requests that are related to a claim for Social Security or a similar program. It doesn't appear that the law is on your side here. You might have more luck just trying to reschedule your appointment for an earlier date, or letting them know that you would take an appointment on short notice in case they have a cancellation.
Conditions pertaining to cancellation of a contract are contained in the contract, that is there is no general "right to cancel a contract", apart from certain 3-day window rights in some jurisdictions. For example, Washington state has some specific cancellation laws, summarized here. If the contract does not allow for cancellation, then you can't cancel the contract. I assume that your contract does have a cancellation clause: then you could have to see what that clause actually states. As it turns out, Florida has a law (Fla Stat. 501.017) which regulates health studio (gym) contracts, requiring certain clauses above the signature box. One required clause per (1)(b)2 is that notice of intent to cancel by the buyer shall be given in writing to the health studio. However, If the health studio wishes to enforce the contract after receipt of the notice, it may request the department to determine the sufficiency of the notice. This means that if they want to enforce the contract after a cancellation, they may request "the department" (Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) to rule whether the notice was according to the contract (as mandated by law). It will also contain under (1)(d) A provision for the cancellation of the contract if the buyer dies or becomes physically unable to avail himself or herself of a substantial portion of those services which he or she used from the commencement of the contract until the time of disability, with refund of funds paid or accepted in payment of the contract in an amount computed by dividing the contract price by the number of weeks in the contract term and multiplying the result by the number of weeks remaining in the contract term. The contract may require a buyer or the buyer’s estate seeking relief under this paragraph to provide proof of disability or death. A physical disability sufficient to warrant cancellation of the contract by the buyer is established if the buyer furnishes to the health studio a certification of such disability by a physician licensed under chapter 458, chapter 459, chapter 460, or chapter 461 to the extent the diagnosis or treatment of the disability is within the physician’s scope of practice. A refund shall be issued within 30 days after receipt of the notice of cancellation made pursuant to this paragraph. It appears, then, that you simply need to give notice in the correct form (written, with a doctor's notice). In case the club does not have the required provisions in the contract, the contract violates state law and is unenforceable.
The government cannot force people to get vaccinated, without passing a law to that effect. When they do, they can. This was sorted out in Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, when the Supreme Court, in 1905, ruled: The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States does not import an absolute right in each person to be at all times, and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint, nor is it an element in such liberty that one person, or a minority of persons residing in any community and enjoying the benefits of its local government, should have power to dominate the majority when supported in their action by the authority of the State. It is within the police power of a State to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and it is for the legislature, and not for the courts, to determine in the first instance whether vaccination is or is not the best mode for the prevention of smallpox and the protection of the public health. Nothing in that ruling is specific to vaccinations as opposed to other medical treatments. If a law mandating a certain vaccination exists in a state, the citizen's beliefs about the efficacy of the vaccination are irrelevant to the legal issue -- get the vaccination, or the punishment. If a state were to pass a law mandating snake-oil innoculations to prevent smallpox infections, the law could be challenged in court. In general, people have the right to go about their business without the government interfering in their fundamental rights, but fundamental rights are not absolute, they are attenuated in case of a "compelling government interest": which leads to a particular kind of judicial review, strict scrutiny. While preventing a virulent deadly disease is arguably a compelling government interest, snake-oil is not necessary to reach that end (it does not reach that end, so it is certainly not necessary to reach that end).
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.