Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Coronavirus Chaos

Can Businesses Require Proof of Coronavirus Vaccination?

Coronavirus Testing
UCSF infectious disease researchers and The Latino Task Force for COVID19 in partnership with the San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) and the City and County of San Francisco launched an effort to provide comprehensive, voluntary COVID-19 testing to all residents of a densely populated and highly Latin neighborhood of San Francisco’s Mission District. Katie Machado, RN, UCSF Nurse Practitioner Student, collects a nasal sample from a local resident at the Parque Ninos Unidos site.

In general, no federal law prohibits businesses from asking for proof of vaccination as a condition of consumer services or employment.

Kathryn Watson of CBS News interviewed me about this and I hit a few main points, beginning with the relatively few exceptions:

*Religious objections and employment:

Title VII, the federal employment discrimination law, forces an employer to accommodate employees’ religious beliefs when it can do so without cost. For that reason, employees with religious objections to vaccination can ask employers to exempt them, and employers must at least consider the request. “Consider,” however, does not mean “accede to”: under a 1977 Supreme Court case called Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, which I’ve written about here, Title VII “does not require an employer to make any accommodation for an employee’s practice of religion if doing so would impose more than a de minimis burden.” (That’s Justice Alito’s description of the holding.) It amounts to a relatively lenient standard for employers, and given that lack of COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of contagion of a serious illness, I think most courts most of the time will accept employers’ argument that obligatory waivers would ask them to shoulder more than a de minimis burden.

ADA exceptions:

A small minority of persons are medically fragile in ways that make vaccination inadvisable. The federal Americans with Disabilities Act imposes robust duties on both employers and private businesses to accommodate those who are disabled or regarded as such. So this (small) group is the one most likely to prevail in court on a right to accommodation. By the same token, however, the group includes many persons whose medical vulnerabilities would make them reluctant to enter crowded situations anyway. (Some suggest that in practice opportunists could widen this small exception by pretending falsely to have such medical conditions.)

HIPAA and privacy:

It is remarkable how many misconceptions are loose on the Internet about the federal medical privacy law known as HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. In general HIPAA imposes data‐​privacy obligations on “covered entities” that include many health care providers, health insurers, data clearinghouses and some others that gather and retain health data. It doesn’t cover employers, except insofar as they enter the category in the course of such activities as offering health plans. Unless the service offered is itself health care, insurance or the like, most businesses have no HIPAA obligations at all toward customers — that goes for restaurants, stadiums, and theaters, for example. HIPAA generally restricts release of data to third parties, which means even a business service that is probably covered, such as a doctor’s practice, can ask you all the medical questions it pleases.

Moreover, HIPAA rights are generally designed to be waivable; that’s why your doctor’s office asks you to sign all those forms. As I observed, “… The answer is, no, HIPAA does not provide you with rights to patronize a business that doesn’t want to serve you, much less to work for an employer.”

That’s the state of the law, I think. As a normative matter, I take what I believe to be the libertarian view based on free association and contract: private businesses should be free to condition their services as they see fit on a customer’s or employee’s being vaccinated.

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and is known for his writing on law, public policy, and regulation. His first book, The Litigation Explosion, was one of the most widely discussed general‐​audience books on law of its time. It led the Washington Post to dub him an “intellectual guru of tort reform.” His books since then have stirred discussion on topics ranging from workplace law to mass litigation to the state of the law schools. He is known as founder and principal writer of the longest‐​running blog on law, Overlawyered, which ran from 1999 to 2020. He has advised many public officials from town councils to the White House and is active in civic affairs in his home state of Maryland, having been named by Gov. Larry Hogan as co‐​chair of commissions aimed at ending the practice of gerrymandering. He is often interviewed for his expertise on elections and redistricting law.

Written By

Walter Olson is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute’s Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies and is known for his writing on law, public policy, and regulation.

4 Comments

4 Comments

  1. Nyle

    April 14, 2021 at 5:30 pm

    This is an arguably false statement, “and given that lack of COVID-19 vaccination increases the risk of contagion of a serious illness” There is little evidence that these vaccines work. This is why they keep making those vaccinated still act as if they are not. A recent study indicated that th8se vaccinated actually were contracting the new African variant more easily. This is also not an FDA approved vaccine meaning declining it should not even require a religious objection.

  2. BW

    April 14, 2021 at 10:32 pm

    You seem to forget these “vaccines” are NOT FDA approved. They are on EUA. That means they businesses would then be requiring employees to participate in medication trials. I am betting that crosses legal lines somewhere.

  3. Me

    April 15, 2021 at 1:07 am

    Take your needle and shove it up your cavity

  4. Matthew King

    April 15, 2021 at 4:25 am

    “businesses should be free to condition as they see fit on a customer’s or employee’s vaccination status”, but NOT race, NOT gender, NOT sexual orientation/preference, NOT religion… Sounds duplicitous. By the same libertarian logic, businesses it would seem that businesses lack the right to obtain/require the information be provided, and if/when they do – the bedlcome aggregators of medical information, and their purpose is health care which puts them right back under HIPAA

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Advertisement