In first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, judge sides with Houston hospital, dismissing claims fr

[LetMyPeopleVote]

Source: USA Today

OUSTON – In the first federal ruling on vaccine mandates, a Houston judge Saturday dismissed a lawsuit by hospital employees who declined the COVID-19 shot – a decision that could have a ripple effect across the nation.

The case involved Houston Methodist, which was the first hospital system in the country to require that all its employees get vaccinated. U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes said federal law does not prevent employers from issuing that mandate.

After months of warnings, Houston Methodist had put more than 170 of its 26,000 employees on unpaid suspension Monday. They were told they would be fired it they weren't vaccinated by June 21.

Read more: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/in-first-federal-ruling-on-vaccine-mandates-judge-sides-with-houston-hospital-dismissing-claims-from-staff-resisters/ar-AAKZ8MM?ocid=st

---

Jared Woodfill loses yet another lawsuit

[Historic NY]

1. Good....

take the shot or hit the road. Now go after nursing homes whose staffs resist the vaccine.

[Hekate]

2. Kick. Rec. Off to the Greatest.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. This looks like a fun opinion

Link to tweet

[PatSeg]

17. Whoa, comparing the vaccine requirement to

"forced medical experimentation during the Holocaust"? Did she think the Holocaust victims had a choice? Employers can legally make numerous requirements as condition of employment and the employee is not "forced" to accept them. What a pathetic argument.

[ananda]

18. Well spoken! And really, all we vaxxers want is..

the saving of lives and the betterment of society
for everyone, bar none.

[SarcasticSatyr]

4. They will probably appeal the decision, but this is a satisfying start ..

Let's hope they lose all the way up the chain. Their case is weak to start with, how much weaker will it be when these vaccines finally get full FDA approval?

[monkeyman1]

5. ripple affect my ass , can't make up f&$king mind !

[Midnight Writer]

6. Good. Patients shouldn't have to worry about this on top of everything else you deal with when sick.

The big kill-offs in my area were in nursing homes. Is it unreasonable to require people working there to take protective vaccines?

[Aussie105]

8. You shouldn't need to even ask that question, surely?

Work in a nursing home, because you like old people, want the best for them, obviously NOT bringing a nasty/deadly virus in is part of that?

Or am I being too optimistic/idealistic?

Nursing home staff and prisoners here in Australia are disappointingly far behind full vaccination protection.

A few court cases along the lines of 'you were negligent in adequately protecting my now deceased relative from COVID-19' coming up, I'd say.

A for-profit, private enterprise like a nursing home cares very much about money, reputation and money.
Did I mention money?

[SheltieLover]

7. Good!

[dalton99a]

9. Kick

[brer cat]

10. K&R

[HockeyMom]

11. The Hospital did give them 2 Exemptions

Religious and Medical. Having worked in a public school, I can tell you that the former is very easy to claim.

The hospital's Medical Exemption also included Pregnancy. Did you know this? My daughter works in a NY hospital. She said a number of pregnant nurses refused to take the vaccine, or the flu shot. It is not mandatory where she works.

So how many at this hospital are still working and unvaccinated?

[OldBaldy1701E]

12. Isn't it funny

How these rethug-types are all about being 'right to work'... until they are the ones being shown the door when they won't toe the line? So, it is okay to force others to work without representation, but when they are the ones being held to the same rules that these same people were all for... now they want to sue and whine. This is such typical rethug-style behavior that it is not even funny anymore.

[Paladin]

13. Outstanding. (nt)

[bucolic_frolic]

14. Resistors is a nice way to say agitators

[oldsoftie]

15. Texas is a Right to Work state; so tough shit.

[George II]

16. In the hospital where my wife worked, for years all employees had to get flu shots...

...every year. They weren't fired if they didn't, but they had to wear masks. This was back in the day that mask wearing wasn't routine like it is today. But if they refused to wear a mask, then they would be fired. No lawsuits were filed.

[FifthColumn]

19. George Washington

Without a policy of inoculation, there probably wouldn't have been a United States:

"In early 1777, [George] Washington finally ordered the army inoculated against smallpox. Citing the loss in Canada and the recruitment difficulties, the procedures were to be done under the utmost secrecy. While recovering, troops were to be isolated and their clothes cleaned before rejoining the main army. States were urged to inoculate troops before sending them to join the main army.

The policy proved successful; few troops died as a result of the procedure and it brought smallpox under control in the Continental Army. Washington would order another round of inoculations while camped at Valley Forge a year later. The smallpox epidemic at the beginning of the American Revolution was an early test for the future first president."

--Joseph Dragovich, Lessons from History (4/21/21)

[DBoon]

31. This is worth its own post

I'm also thinking of Ben Franklin, who lost his 4 year old son to smallpox, as he did not have a chance to inoculate the child.

[MichMan]

20. Yet, the Federal government refuses to mandate it for it's own employees

The Biden administration has told federal agencies that they generally should not require their employees to be vaccinated against the coronavirus to work on-site in federal buildings or to disclose whether they are vaccinated.

Employees who disclose they are unvaccinated or refuse to answer a voluntary question about vaccination status should be subject to safety requirements such as mask-wearing and social distancing, new guidance says.

“The Administration strongly encourages all Americans, including Federal employees and contractors, to be vaccinated,” says a Tuesday posting by an interagency task force overseeing pandemic-related policies for the federal workplace. However, “at present, COVID-19 vaccination should generally not be a pre-condition” for federal employees or contractors to work in person, it states, while not specifying possible exceptions.

The new federal workforce guidance — the first government-wide statement of policy on these issues — did not state why the administration has determined that it should not require vaccination.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-administration-tells-federal-agencies-they-should-not-require-employees-to-be-vaccinated-to-work-on-site/ar-AAKSPXA?ocid=msedgdhp

[Elessar Zappa]

21. So?

How is that related to a hospital requiring employee vaccines?

[OneCrazyDiamond]

22. The same way dump not setting a mask example

Feeds the crazies. True private and gov are different, but the states, and private sector could be more bold if the feds took the lead on requiring the vaccine. Make the exceptions very narrow, and verifiable.

[MichMan]

23. It's called setting an example for the country & emphasizing that it is important and safe

[Warpy]

24. Yep, workers don't get to be a menace to their patients.

Apparently the current coalpost is set at the "mRNA vaccine technology is too new," which is bullshit. It's not that new in laboratory work, and the J&J vaccine was produced the old fashioned way. No excuses, people, grow up and get the shot if you want to work around vulnerable people.

[DBoon]

32. mRNA vaccine technology is only a few months newer than Covid-19

If you don't take the "new" vaccine you can carry the new virus and kill those you work with.

[reACTIONary]

25. Link to the ruling, for those ...

... Who are into that sort of thing:

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/houston-methodist-court-ruling/3468984fc566cea5/full.pdf

And the NYT article:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/13/health/houston-hospital-vaccine-mandate-lawsuit.html

[Pinback]

26. Great. Next they'll be forbidding smoking in operating rooms.

The inability of people employed in the medical field to understand the importance of vaccination against this deadly virus is truly mind boggling. If they really can’t abide the requirement, they’re in the wrong job.

[ProfessorGAC]

27. I've Been In Refineries

They wouldn't let me blaze up a cigar!
I think my personal liberties were violated.
I can't see any reason they wouldn't let me other than discrimination!

[Pinback]

29. LOL - call Lin Wood!

[DBoon]

33. I'm just waiting for some crazed libertarian to make this argument

"Why can't I light up a stogie around flammable fuels? It's my right to take risks!"

[ProfessorGAC]

34. Those Same Libertarians, Want Small Government...

...& minimal regulations as if an oil company would be perfectly ok with risking several hundred million dollars of assets by allowing smoking around flammables, many in the vapor state.
Is it a law? Yes
Do refineries need a law to restrict smoking at their operations? No!
They get how flammables work.
Those laws are really meant for the smaller, sloppier, less diligent operators with lower asset risk.
Believe me, I've been in plants that fall into the "get me out of here" category.

[riversedge]

28. anti-vacers are dangerous to society. Period

[LetMyPeopleVote]

30. A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by 117 Houston Methodist staffers over vaccination issue

Link to tweet