&quot;Discrimination&quot; due to COVID-19 Certificate requirements Many European countries issue COVID-19 Certificates (with varying names), that indicate whether a person is vaccinated, has recovered or has been tested. Access to some locations (restaurants, cinemas, discos, etc - varies by country) is only allowed if you present such a proof. Now people that don't want to get vaccinated call this discrimination, because they need to get tested very often to keep the right to visit those locations (as a test is only valid 48 to 72 hours, while a vaccination is currently valid a year). But can this really be called &quot;Discrimination&quot;? I thought that the term was defined for a fact that one cannot change or has been given by birth (such as color of skin, sex, origin or religion). Except for a small minority which cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons, everyone has the ability to change one's vaccination status. (This seems to be backed by https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskriminierung)
&quot;Discrimination&quot; is in some way treating people differently from other people. Much discrimination is a sound idea. Not letting someone fly a plane who does not have pilot training is discrimination, but not a bad kind. So is not allowing someone to do surgery who has not trained as a doctor. Unlawful discrimination is discrimination that a particular law in a particular country declares to be forbidden. Different countries have different laws for what kinds of discrimination is unlawful under what circumstances. Discrimination on a basis not forbidden by law is legal, even if immoral. For example, a restaurant could, in most if not all countries, ban left-handed people from being served there. This might be immoral, but would not be illegal, because no law has made it illegal. Commonly, discrimination on the basis of religion, ethnicity, national origin, sex, or political opinion is unlawful. In some jurisdictions discrimination on the basis of disability is unlawful. Other bases may be unlawful in some places. There may be exceptions. Employment discrimination may not have the same standards as housing discrimination, and admission to public places or ability to run for public office may be different yet. All this will vary based on the particular laws of particular places. Note that some of these protected classes are things about which people have no choice, such as sex and national origin, others are matters of choice such as religion and political opinion. Laws may create a protected class on any basis. Note also that many things about which people have little or no choice, such as height, handedness, or intelligence, are not protected categories in most places. To the best of my understanding being vaccinated or not is not a protected class in most if not all of Europe, so legal distinctions may be made based on vaccination status. In such jurisdictions, discrimination in favor of those who are vaccinated is legal, although some may think it wrong. A few US states have made it unlawful to restrict various public or private services or access to places on the basis of vaccination status. I am not aware of any country in Europe that has such a law.
ADA is about &quot;disabilities&quot;, and not being vaccinated is not a disability under the law. Applicability of HIPAA is very complex and unclear. The Privacy Rule refers to and restricts the actions of Covered Entities. Healthcare providers and insurance companies are Covered Entities. The regulation 45 CFR 160.103 defines &quot;covered entity&quot; as (1) A health plan. (2) A health care clearinghouse. (3) A health care provider who transmits any health information in electronic form in connection with a transaction covered by this subchapter 45 CFR 164.512 lists instances where authorization to disclose is not required, saying that &quot;A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information without the written authorization of the individual&quot;. The employer is not likely to be a &quot;covered entity&quot;, so these permissions are irrelevant. Furthermore, included in this section is a provision where disclosure is allowed in the case of (v) An employer, about an individual who is a member of the workforce of the employer with various conditions following such as (A) The covered entity is a covered health care provider who provides health care to the individual at the request of the employer: (1) To conduct an evaluation relating to medical surveillance of the workplace; or (2) To evaluate whether the individual has a work-related illness or injury However, these permissions apply to covered entities, not employers. (&quot;Work-related&quot; is not defined, but having a dangerous contagious disease does clearly relate to the workplace, thus it would be reasonable but not guaranteed to consider such a disclosure to be connectable to this section). 45 CFR 164.510 says that A covered entity may use or disclose protected health information, provided that the individual is informed in advance of the use or disclosure and has the opportunity to agree to or prohibit or restrict the use or disclosure, in accordance with the applicable requirements of this section §508, covering required authorization (&quot;explicit yes&quot;) says Except as otherwise permitted or required by this subchapter, a covered entity may not use or disclose protected health information without an authorization that is valid under this section. There is no applicable provision whereby the proposed employer policy would clearly expose the employer to legal sanctions, since HIPAA does not purport to regulate everybody, only those entities where Congress authorized it to do so, via the concept of a &quot;covered entity&quot;. Furthermore, the employer is not directly revealing any personal medical information: the employee (the other employee) is. A vaccinated employee is allowed to wear a sticker that says &quot;I was vaccinated&quot;. An imaginable application of HIPAA to vaccinated employees would be a policy of requiring a vaccinated employee to advertise that they were vaccinated. One can reasonably guess that a person who does not wear a mask, given such a policy, has been vaccinated, but it is not a reasonable inference that a person who wears a mask has not been vaccinated (many vaccinated people continue to wear masks out of an abundance of caution). There is no legal basis for penalizing an employer who allows vaccinated employees to do things that weakly suggest that other employees have not been vaccinated.
In addition to the above, mandatory quarantine (self-isolate) means you must: go directly to your place of quarantine, without stopping anywhere, and stay there for 14 days do not go to school, work or other public areas and community settings monitor your health for symptoms of COVID-19 arrange to have someone pick up essentials like groceries or medication for you Emphasis mine. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Travel restrictions and exemptions
Note that while a person can request a specific accommodation, an employer or potential employer is not required to grant the specific accommodation requested. Some other accommodation which (the employer claims) will meet the expressed need can be offered instead. Also no accommodation need be offered if it would impose an &quot;undue burden&quot; on the employer. The normal expectation is that there will be a back-and forth until the employee (or applicant) and the employer agree on an appropriate accommodation. Where there is agreement but the agreement is then violated, the normal first response is to make such adjustments as will restore the agreed accommodation. Only if that fails will a legal complaint be heard. There is no automatic penalty for violation of an accommodation agreement, it will depend on the facts ass assessed by the Commission and perhaps later by a court. Possible penalties can include an order to employ or reinstate a complainant, back pay, costs and legal fees, and money damages, which can be up to $75,000 per violation, as the court deems just. The relevant law is 42 U.S. Code § 12112. This provides (in relevant part): No covered entity shall discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability in regard to job application procedures, the hiring, advancement, or discharge of employees, employee compensation, job training, and other terms, conditions, and privileges of employment. The section goes on to define “discriminate against a qualified individual on the basis of disability” as including any of several acts, including: (b) (5) (A) not making reasonable accommodations to the known physical or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an applicant or employee, unless such covered entity can demonstrate that the accommodation would impose an undue hardship on the operation of the business of such covered entity; ... (7) failing to select and administer tests concerning employment in the most effective manner to ensure that, when such test is administered to a job applicant or employee who has a disability that impairs sensory, manual, or speaking skills, such test results accurately reflect the skills, aptitude, or whatever other factor of such applicant or employee that such test purports to measure, rather than reflecting the impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills of such employee or applicant (except where such skills are the factors that the test purports to measure). 42 U.S. Code § 12111 defines &quot;Reasonable accommodation&quot; and undue hardship” as follows: (9) Reasonable accommodation The term “reasonable accommodation” may include— (9) (A) making existing facilities used by employees readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities; and (9) (B) job restructuring, part-time or modified work schedules, reassignment to a vacant position, acquisition or modification of equipment or devices, appropriate adjustment or modifications of examinations, training materials or policies, the provision of qualified readers or interpreters, and other similar accommodations for individuals with disabilities. (10) Undue hardship (10) (A) In general The term “undue hardship” means an action requiring significant difficulty or expense, when considered in light of the factors set forth in subparagraph (B). (10) (B) Factors to be considered In determining whether an accommodation would impose an undue hardship on a covered entity, factors to be considered include— (10) (B) (i) the nature and cost of the accommodation needed under this chapter; (10) (B) (ii) the overall financial resources of the facility or facilities involved in the provision of the reasonable accommodation; the number of persons employed at such facility; the effect on expenses and resources, or the impact otherwise of such accommodation upon the operation of the facility; (10) (B) (iii) the overall financial resources of the covered entity; the overall size of the business of a covered entity with respect to the number of its employees; the number, type, and location of its facilities; and (10) (B) (iv) the type of operation or operations of the covered entity, including the composition, structure, and functions of the workforce of such entity; the geographic separateness, administrative, or fiscal relationship of the facility or facilities in question to the covered entity. Under 42 U.S. Code § 2000e–5 and subsequent sections informal measures are normally first attempted to remedy any violation. If those fail, remadies can include injunctions against continued discrimination, awards of back pay (not relevant when the person was never an employee) orders to employ a person, awards of costs and legal fees, and other damages. No specific remedy is automatic, there is wide discretion.
Information about a defendant’s character or past misdeeds are not generally admissible during a court proceeding. It can be brought in to rebut testimony. If the defendant takes the stand and asserts that they never discriminated against anyone due to their nation of origin, then evidence they they have done so becomes relevant.
According to the Michigan Dept. of Labor &amp; Economic Opportunity, there are expanded eligibility criteria for unemployment insurance during the COVID-19 crisis. This expansion of unemployment benefits was part of the Federal CARES Act passed in late March. These expanded criteria may cover your wife: Individuals are eligible for PUA [Pandemic Unemployment Assistance] if they do not qualify for regular UI benefits (including self-employed workers and independent contractors) and cannot work because they: Are diagnosed COVID-19 or have COVID-19 symptoms and are seeking diagnosis; Have a member of the household who is diagnosed with COVID-19; Are providing care for a family or household member diagnosed with COVID-19; Are the primary caregiver for a child whose school or care facility closed, due to COVID-19; Are unable to reach their place of employment due to an imposed quarantine, or because advised by medical provider to self-quarantine, due to COVID-19; Were scheduled to start new employment and cannot reach the workplace as direct result of COVID-19; Became the major breadwinner because the head of household died from COVID-19; Quit their job as a direct result of COVID-19; Had their place of employment closed as a direct result of COVID-19; or Meet any additional criteria specified by U.S. Secretary of Labor. Individuals are not eligible for PUA if they can telework or are receiving paid sick leave or other paid leave benefits (regardless of meeting a category listed above). According to this fact sheet, you can apply for PUA if you are denied regular benefits: When and How to File for PUA New claimants or claimants who have been denied regular state unemployment benefits (as of January 27, 2020) may apply online using the PUA application available in the Michigan Web Account Manager (MiWAM) at michigan.gov/uia.
Yes and no In Germany, the first case where vaccination was mandatory was Smallpox. The Bundesverwaltungsgericht had adjudicated back in Juli 1959 – I C 170.56 - that mandatory Vaccination (Impfpflicht) against Smallpox follows the Impfgesetz of 1874 (RGBl. S. 31) which was declared a) still good law and b) in line with the Grundgesetz and so enforced vaccination of everybody who had no counterindication was inside the law. Currently, the measles are under mandatory vaccination with the MasernschutzgesetzInformation, german aka IFSG § 20law, german (Measles are listed in Abs 8). The same rationale and legal basis from those two can be applied to theoretically any other vaccination - if it is comparably terrible. The Masernschutzgesetz declares that without MMR vaccination you can't work in some jobs, like as a medical care worker, teacher or in a Kindergarten, and you can't be enrolled in a school or Kindergarten, unless you have a counterindication. Note that you do need to visit a public school, so the Masernschutzgesetz is total mandatory vaccination against measles for kids. The 2020 update on the law of infectious diseases (Gesetz zur Verhütung und Bekämpfung von Infektionskrankheiten beim Menschen. short: Infektionsschutzgesetz/IFSG, see above) still (and actually did since the measles change in 2019) open the door to make some vaccination mandatory exceeding the measles in IFSG §20 Abs 6 - for especially vulnerable parts of the population: Das Bundesministerium für Gesundheit wird ermächtigt, durch Rechtsverordnung mit Zustimmung des Bundesrates anzuordnen, dass bedrohte Teile der Bevölkerung an Schutzimpfungen oder anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe teilzunehmen haben, wenn eine übertragbare Krankheit mit klinisch schweren Verlaufsformen auftritt und mit ihrer epidemischen Verbreitung zu rechnen ist. Personen, die auf Grund einer medizinischen Kontraindikation nicht an Schutzimpfungen oder an anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe teilnehmen können, können durch Rechtsverordnung nach Satz 1 nicht zu einer Teilnahme an Schutzimpfungen oder an anderen Maßnahmen der spezifischen Prophylaxe verpflichtet werden. § 15 Abs. 2 gilt entsprechend. The general gist of that paragraph is: Following a regulated process, people that are vulnerable and under a present and current risk of an epidemic and that do not have counterindication can be mandated to undergo prophylactic treatment, which can include or be a specific vaccination. TL:DR So yes, there is mandatory vaccination in germany, but currently not for everyone but based on certain criteria.
Do vaccine mandates amount to religious discrimination? The term &quot;vaccine mandate&quot; is not sufficiently clear to tell, in a vacuum. Is it a mandate to get a vaccine? A mandate not to serve an unvaccinated individual in a public place? A mandate to vaccinate children that attend public schools? A mandate to serve unvaccinated individuals at public accommodations? Or what? The details of the mandate, how it was enacted, and the circumstances under which it is being challenged, are all critical to determining its legal validity. As noted in the linked answer (text reordered for clarity): Under the US Constitution, a public health authority could even make vaccination mandatory, and this was done in some historical epidemics. In Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), the US Supreme court held such mandatory vaccinations to be constitutional. . . . In Zucht v. King, 260 U.S. 174 (1922) the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional a public school district's exclusion of unvaccinated students. . . . In Compagnie Francaise de Navigation a Vapeur v. Louisiana Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) the US Supreme Court upheld as constitutional an involuntary quarantine law. Likewise, facially neutral health and safety regulations of businesses are generally valid even if they disproportionately impact members of a religion, under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (and as it is applies to state and local governments under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 tips the balance somewhat to make accommodations in some circumstances to facially neutral laws that disproportionately impact the free exercise of religion, but still does not prohibit facially neutral laws that serve a compelling public purpose from burdening the free exercise of religion. The core language of that Act which sets forth the substantive standard in those cases states that: SEC. 3. FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION PROTECTED. (a) IN GENERAL.—Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, except as provided in subsection (b). (b) EXCEPTION.—Government may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person— (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. (c) JUDICIAL RELIEF.— A person whose religious exercise has been burdened in violation of this section may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to assert a claim or defense under this section shall be governed by the general rules of standing under article III of the Constitution. The standards referenced in the act tap into well established case law that was previously applied less broadly than under the Act, when the U.S. Constitution alone, unaided by the Act, was implicated. Could a restaurant refuse to serve unvaccinated individuals, even including those with sincere religiously-founded anti-vax beliefs? Yes. Usually, businesses can establish facially neutral rules even if they have a disparate religious impact. Generally, private businesses do not have an affirmative duty to serve anyone. Certainly, it could do so as a matter of company policy, if the law did not forbid discrimination specifically on vaccination status (which it currently does not in most or all places in the U.S., although there may be recent legislation on this of which I am not aware). For example, it is legal to operate a restaurant that only serves bacon cheeseburgers and operates 7 days a week, all year long, without holidays (in many places that lack blue laws for restaurants), even though this effectively denies service to strictly observant Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and (on Fridays during Lent) to observant Catholics, and could make it an uncomfortable place for such workers to work. The harder question is whether the restaurant could serve an unvaxxed individual when the business and the customer both want to do so, and both have sincere religious beliefs that cause them to feel that they must do so (the business owner might have sincere beliefs about serving everything, the customer might have sincere beliefs about being unvaxxed for religious reasons). Even then, when religious people aren't singled out for being religious, this requirement might be upheld if there was no alternative that meets the public health goals of the requirement, although the case that there could be some alternative that is less restrictive might be pretty good.