EEOC rules that employers may not coerce employees to get the frankenshot

[Swordsmyth]

The updated guidelines say employers may offer incentives for employees to provide documentation showing they have been vaccinated since requesting this proof "is not a disability-related inquiry" or an "unlawful request" under federal anti-discrimination laws. What's more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can't offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be "coercive".

More at: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/...get-vaccinated

[Pauls' Revere]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Swordsmyth again.

[TheCount]

@Brian4Liberty can we get the thread title changed? What @Swordsmyth says is the complete opposite of what the article says from top to bottom.



The actual article title is Federal Government Gives Employers Green Light To "Incentivize" Workers To Get Vaccinated

and:

As explained in K.16., however, this incentive limitation does not apply if an employer offers an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a COVID-19 vaccination on their own from a third-party provider that is not their employer or an agent of their employer.

The only time that an employer is limited as to how much they can coerce an employee is if the employer themselves are giving the shot. And the reason for that limitation is that the pre-shot form requests medical information from the employee. Nothing to do with the vaccination itself.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

At one of my jobs my co-worker was proud to receive an hour of pay or something to get the shot. Is that really your price?

[TheCount]

At one of my jobs my co-worker was proud to receive an hour of pay or something to get the shot. Is that really your price?

They won't even get the hour of pay because they'll die 48 hours after the shot!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

@Brian4Liberty can we get the thread title changed?

@Brian4Liberty

Can we get The Count's "supporting member" status changed on his avatar? It's been demonstrated that his purpose here is contrary to the mission of this site. This marxist is blatantly misleading.

[RJB]

@Brian4Liberty

Can we get The Count's "supporting member" status changed on his avatar? It's been demonstrated that his purpose here is contrary to the mission of this site. This marxist is blatantly misleading.

@Brian4Liberty

Can we get NorthCarolinaLiberty as an assistant moderator?

[jmdrake]

@Brian4Liberty can we get the thread title changed? What @Swordsmyth says is the complete opposite of what the article says from top to bottom.



The actual article title is Federal Government Gives Employers Green Light To "Incentivize" Workers To Get Vaccinated

and:


The only time that an employer is limited as to how much they can coerce an employee is if the employer themselves are giving the shot. And the reason for that limitation is that the pre-shot form requests medical information from the employee. Nothing to do with the vaccination itself.

Ummm.. @Swordsmyth is 100% right on this. And he quoted directly from the article.

The updated guidelines say employers may offer incentives for employees to provide documentation showing they have been vaccinated since requesting this proof "is not a disability-related inquiry" or an "unlawful request" under federal anti-discrimination laws. What's more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can't offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be "coercive".

Reading and reading comprehension is fundamental! Yes employers can offer perks for shots employees get elsewhere but even those perks or punishments can't be enough to be coercive!

So....you are in "pants on fire" zone.

Now, what does this mean in English? An employer can offer a small incentive. Maybe tickets to a ballgame or something. But an employer can't say "No overtime for people who aren't vaccinated" (that would be a punishment) or "an automatic 15% raise for everyone who brings in proof of vaccination" (that would be a coercive perk).

And this is a good thing. I was required to take the flu shot before accepting a contract job at a hospital that I really needed. I had worked just months earlier at that some hospital on a different but related contract without any such requirement. I think that was a dry run for making people take the COVID vaccine which wasn't out yet but was clearly in the works. This is very welcome news. I'm not taking the damn shot.

[pcosmar]

They won't even get the hour of pay because they'll die 48 hours after the shot!

only a few.

[enhanced_deficit]

EEOC rules that employers may not coerce employees to get the frankenshot

If confirmed, this would be historic Biden admin shift compared to MAGA-First admin narratives.

Trump administration: Employers can require workers to get COVID-19 vaccine
12/19/20

[TheCount]

Ummm.. @Swordsmyth is 100% right on this. And he quoted directly from the article.

His title says may not.

Reading and reading comprehension is fundamental! Yes employers can offer perks for shots employees get elsewhere but even those perks or punishments can't be enough to be coercive!

They can be coercive. They're allowed to be coercive. The only time coersion is a problem is if the shots are offered by the employer, which only applies to a tiny number of huge employers.


Read my post again.

[jmdrake]

His title says may not.


They can be coercive. They're allowed to be coercive. The only time coersion is a problem is if the shots are offered by the employer, which only applies to a tiny number of huge employers.


Read my post again.

Liar liar pants on fire. Direct quote from the article.

What's more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can't offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be "coercive".

The article freaking says "CAN'T offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be coercive."

What part of "CAN'T" can't you understand?

Now...maybe the article is lying. That's possible. But you are lying about what the article actually says. And yes I read your post. That's why I know you're lying. It won't matter how many times I read it. Unless you edit it, it's a lie. And now you've doubled down on it. I'm not sure why. Sometimes you provide valuable insight. This just doesn't happen to be one of those times.

Edit: And I underlined "or who incentivize employers to get vaccinated elsewhere" so you'll actually see that part this time. Whether the employee gets vaccinated by the employer or elsewhere, the employer CAN'T offer incentives or punishments substantial enough to be coercive. That's simply a fact.

[oyarde]

I gave myself the day off and a 365 FRN bonus today for not getting the shots or wearing a mask. Then I put three tall draft beers on Dankes tab .

[Danke]

I gave myself the day off and a 365 FRN bonus today for not getting the shots or wearing a mask. Then I put three tall draft beers on Dankes tab .

Again!?

[Danke]

Ummm.. @Swordsmyth is 100% right on this. And he quoted directly from the article.

The updated guidelines say employers may offer incentives for employees to provide documentation showing they have been vaccinated since requesting this proof "is not a disability-related inquiry" or an "unlawful request" under federal anti-discrimination laws. What's more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can't offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be "coercive".

Reading and reading comprehension is fundamental! Yes employers can offer perks for shots employees get elsewhere but even those perks or punishments can't be enough to be coercive!

So....you are in "pants on fire" zone.

Now, what does this mean in English? An employer can offer a small incentive. Maybe tickets to a ballgame or something. But an employer can't say "No overtime for people who aren't vaccinated" (that would be a punishment) or "an automatic 15% raise for everyone who brings in proof of vaccination" (that would be a coercive perk).

And this is a good thing. I was required to take the flu shot before accepting a contract job at a hospital that I really needed. I had worked just months earlier at that some hospital on a different but related contract without any such requirement. I think that was a dry run for making people take the COVID vaccine which wasn't out yet but was clearly in the works. This is very welcome news. I'm not taking the damn shot.

What is your opinion that at my company, only vaccinated employees don’t have to wear the face diapers?

[TheCount]

What's more, companies who choose to offer the vaccine on-site, or who incentivize employees to get vaccinated elsewhere, can't offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be "coercive".

The article freaking says "CAN'T offer perks or punishments substantial enough to be coercive."

Keep reading.

Yes, if any incentive (which includes both rewards and penalties) is not so substantial as to be coercive. Because vaccinations require employees to answer pre-vaccination disability-related screening questions,a very large incentive could make employees feel pressured to disclose protected medical information. As explained in K.16., however, this incentive limitation does not apply if an employer offers an incentive to employees to voluntarily provide documentation or other confirmation that they received a COVID-19 vaccination on their own from a third-party provider that is not their employer or an agent of their employer.

[Swordsmyth]

@Brian4Liberty can we get the thread title changed? What @Swordsmyth says is the complete opposite of what the article says from top to bottom.



The actual article title is Federal Government Gives Employers Green Light To "Incentivize" Workers To Get Vaccinated

and:


The only time that an employer is limited as to how much they can coerce an employee is if the employer themselves are giving the shot. And the reason for that limitation is that the pre-shot form requests medical information from the employee. Nothing to do with the vaccination itself.

They said they can require it but they also said they can't coerce you to. (I think firing you is coercion)
They also must accommodate religious objections.

“In some circumstances, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

More at: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-s...other-eeo-laws

[Swordsmyth]

Keep reading.

voluntarily

[jmdrake]

What is your opinion that at my company, only vaccinated employees don’t have to wear the face diapers?

Well it's worth an EEOC complaint and a lawsuit if the EEOC decides not to take it up. But it's got a low chance of winning. Masks have been a requirement for a year now and people have mostly gone along with it so it's hard to call them "punishment." It could be considered an incentive, but is it coercive? Being able to go without a mask would be an incentive but I don't see it as enough of an incentive to make most people who are against a vaccine go "Well....I wouldn't take the jab but....I would really like to not wear that face diaper." I'm just going by my own experience. I took the flu shot last year because the contract was paying a steady $800 per week and I really needed the money. If they had said "You can wear a mask if you don't want to take the flu shot" I would have worn a mask and not given it a second thought.

[Anti Federalist]

EEOC Updates COVID-19 Guidance Regarding Vaccination Incentives, Reasonable Accommodation, and Other Issues

https://www.natlawreview.com/article...ves-reasonable

Saturday, May 29, 2021

On May 28, 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) updated the vaccination section (section K) of its “What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws.” The update clarifies a number of vaccination issues with which employers have grappled without any official guidance to advise them.

The vaccination issues that the EEOC update addresses include the following.

Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine Policies—General

The EEOC continues to advise that employers may mandate that employees be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to reasonable accommodations for employees with disabilities or a sincerely held religious belief that precludes them from being vaccinated. The updated guidance, however, cautions employers that they may need to consider the disparate impact that mandatory vaccination policies may have on other protected classes, including race, color, national origin, and age. Accordingly, employers with vaccine mandates may wish to periodically assess the extent to which the policy is disproportionately screening out employees in protected categories.

Types of Reasonable Accommodations to Mandatory Vaccines

Section K.2 of the updated guidance offers some suggestions to employers as to reasonable accommodations they might consider for employees with disabilities and/or sincerely held religious beliefs. These accommodations include wearing face masks, socially distancing, working modified shifts, testing periodically for COVID-19, working remotely, and/or reassignment. The EEOC explains that employers also may need to accommodate employees who are not vaccinated due to pregnancy. Of course, these examples of reasonable accommodations are not exhaustive, and employers may consider other reasonable accommodations as well.
Vaccine Information

Section K.3 explains that employers may encourage employees and their family members to get vaccinated by providing them with information “to educate them about COVID-19 vaccines, raise awareness about the benefits of vaccination, and address common questions and concerns.” The EEOC proposes several public resources from which employers may obtain appropriate COVID-19 educational materials.

Vaccine Incentives for Employees

The updated guidance confirms that employers may offer vaccination incentives to employees so long as the incentives are “not so substantial as to be coercive.” Employers also “may offer an incentive to employees to provide documentation or other confirmation from a third party not acting on the employer’s behalf, such as a pharmacy or health department, that employees or their family members have been vaccinated” without violating the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Vaccine Incentives for Family Members

Although employers may offer incentives to employees to become vaccinated, the EEOC takes the position that employers may not lawfully offer employees incentives for family members to become vaccinated. The EEOC reasons that such an incentive would violate GINA because it “would require the vaccinator to ask the family member the pre-vaccination medical screening questions, which include medical questions about the family member.” The EEOC points out that GINA does not restrict an employer from offering family members the opportunity to get vaccinated on a voluntary basis without an incentive.
Confidentiality of Vaccination Information

As many employers already concluded and are practicing, section K.4 of the guidance confirms that vaccination status is confidential medical information. Accordingly, employers must maintain the information’s confidentiality and store it separately from the employee’s personnel file. It is unclear whether the EEOC would take the position that having employees wear visual indicators of their vaccination status, such as a wristband or sticker, would violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

Direct Threat of Unvaccinated Individuals

Although employers can mandate vaccines, section K.5 makes clear that employers may not force compliance on employees who have disabilities precluding vaccination unless the employer can demonstrate that the employee poses a direct threat to the health and safety of the employee or others in the workplace.

The updated guidance explains that employers should conduct such an assessment based “on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge about COVID-19.” These factors include the following:

“the level of community spread at the time of the assessment”;

U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) statements;

information provided from the employee’s health care provider with the employee’s consent; and

“the type of work environment, such as: whether the employee works alone or with others or works inside or outside; the available ventilation; the frequency and duration of direct interaction the employee typically will have with other employees and/or non-employees; the number of partially or fully vaccinated individuals already in the workplace; whether other employees are wearing masks or undergoing routine screening testing; and the space available for social distancing.”

Of course, this updated guidance underscores that the direct threat assessment will likely vary over time and from circumstance to circumstance, and employers will want to carefully consider the latest medical knowledge and the particular circumstances of the employee’s work environment in determining whether a given unvaccinated employee poses a direct threat. Put another way, the new guidance stands as a warning against implementing a blanket policy excluding unvaccinated employees from the workplace on the basis that they pose a direct threat to the workplace. As infection numbers continue to decline, the direct threat argument generally begins to weaken. Finally, the EEOC guidance notes that, even if an employer determines that an unvaccinated employee would pose a direct threat, the employer must assess whether “providing a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, would reduce or eliminate that threat.”

Interactive Accommodation Process

Section K.6 of the updated guidance discusses how an employee should request a reasonable accommodation from a vaccination mandate, as well as how employers should respond to such accommodation requests. While the guidance provides employers with helpful resource references, the EEOC confirms that employers should follow the same interactive process that they do with other disability accommodation requests.
Pre-screening Questions—General

Previous EEOC guidance raised questions regarding whether pre-screening questionnaires used by healthcare providers in administering the COVID-19 vaccine would raise restrictions or concerns under federal EEO laws where the vaccine is administered directly by the employer or through a healthcare provider under contract with the employer. Section K.7 of the updated guidance expands on that discussion by noting that “because the pre-vaccination screening questions are likely to elicit information about a disability, the ADA requires that they must be ‘job related and consistent with business necessity’ when an employer or its agent administers the COVID-19 vaccine.” Similar to the discussion above, the EEOC states that an employer would need to first “have a reasonable belief, based on objective evidence” that an unvaccinated person would pose a direct threat in the workplace. However, section K.8 of the guidance makes clear that such pre-screening questions do not violate the ADA, regardless of any direct threat, when employees are vaccinated on a voluntary basis.

Pre-Screening Questions—No GINA Issues

Previous EEOC guidance cautioned that pre-screening questions associated with getting the COVID-19 vaccine may violate the GINA when asked of current employees when such questions seek “genetic information.” In sections K.14 and K.15 of the updated guidance, the EEOC now clarifies that based on the pre-screening questions that vaccine providers currently are using, GINA is not implicated when employees get a COVID-19 vaccine.

Voluntary Vaccine Offers to Only Some Employees

Some employers have looked at the possibility of offering voluntary vaccinations to only a select group of employees. Section K.10 of the guidance makes clear that doing so is lawful, as long as the employer’s selection criteria are not discriminatory.
Reasonably Accommodating Fully-Vaccinated Employees

In section K.11 of the guidance, the EEOC cautions that some fully-vaccinated employees may still need reasonable accommodations, such as when an employee has an underlying medical condition that creates a heightened risk of severe illness from COVID-19. In those circumstances, the EEOC states that employers should follow the normal ADA interactive accommodation process, which “typically includes seeking information from the employee’s health care provider with the employee’s consent explaining why an accommodation is needed.”

Reasonably Accommodating Religious Objections

Section K.12 of the guidance provides helpful insight to employers regarding how to navigate religious accommodation requests. The EEOC notes that such requests may come in the context of seeking an exemption from a vaccine requirement altogether or in seeking the ability to receive an alternative version of the COVID-19 vaccine that is not objectionable on religious grounds (or waiting until such an alternative becomes available). The EEOC recommends that “the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance.” However, if an employer is aware of facts that would create an objective basis on which to question “the religious nature or the sincerity” of a belief, practice, or observance, “the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.”

Conclusion

While the updated CDC guidance contains a significant amount of new discussion regarding COVID-19 vaccine issues in the workplace, most employers will find that the new guidance affirms practices and policies they have already been following or anticipating, rather than dictating a major change in policy or practices. However, in addition to reassurance, some employers may find that the updated guidance adds helpful context and talking points to help better ensure that employer assessments (such as whether an employee poses a direct threat) are taking into consideration the appropriate type of information that the EEOC, and potentially courts, will deem relevant.

It is unclear whether the EEOC would take the position that having employees wear visual indicators of their vaccination status, such as a wristband or sticker, would violate the ADA.

[jmdrake]

Keep reading.

They said they can require it but they also said they can't coerce you to. (I think firing you is coercion)
They also must accommodate religious objections.

“In some circumstances, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.”

More at: https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-s...other-eeo-laws

voluntarily

Gotta love the wiggle words! "The incentive or punishment can't be coercive, but the incentive doesn't apply to divulging documentation of third party vaccination, and long as the divulging of that documentation is voluntary." And of course if you have to divulge something to get past an otherwise coercive punishment or incentive then it's no longer voluntary.

The silver bullet is, of course, the religious excemption.

https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-s...-eeo-laws#K.12

Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. Employers also may receive religious accommodation requests from individuals who wish to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine is available to the employee. Such requests should be processed according to the same standards that apply to other accommodation requests.

EEOC guidance explains that the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar. Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. See also 29 CFR 1605.

So...you might need a letter from your pastor. If your pastor is a sheeple....you might need to join another church or start one of your own. (I had a now deceased uncle by marriage who started his own church for tax purposes).

Once you show that you have a sincere religious belief, then comes the question of "reasonable accomadation."

An employee who does not get vaccinated due to a disability (covered by the ADA) or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance (covered by Title VII) may be entitled to a reasonable accommodation that does not pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. For example, as a reasonable accommodation, an unvaccinated employee entering the workplace might wear a face mask, work at a social distance from coworkers or non-employees, work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework, or finally, accept a reassignment.

So to @Danke's question, the EEOC has already said that a face mask requirement constitutes a reasonable accommadation. (And there are excemptions where employees can get out of face mask requirements.)

Ultimately the key to winning this fight is to push back. That's what Rand is doing by exposing Fauci as a liar. Also it's important to point out that there are easy ways now to check for COVID like COVID sniffing dogs. (See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...fing-Out-Virus) Also there are COVID tests that can be attached to your cell phone. (See: https://attheu.utah.edu/facultystaff...-for-covid-19/) Having an employee show a recent negative test for COVID might be considered a reasonable accomadation. What is needed is a law that instead of giving the employers the right to come up with reasonable accomadations, allows employees to do that. If I can show a recent negative COVID 19 test, or that I've recoverd from COVID-19, or I'm taking reasonable precautions to prevent spreading it, then there should be zero penalty for me not getting vaccinated. And I should have to join a new religion for this. Albout half the country is not getting vaccinated. We know for certain that 40% of the marines have refused the vaccine so it's not a question of access. That's a pretty large voting block.

[Pauls' Revere]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ca...cid=uxbndlbing

Businesses can require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 without violating federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laws, the agency says.

Businesses can also offer incentives to employees to get vaccinated or to provide documentation of vaccination "as long as the incentives are not coercive," the EEOC said in a news release Friday.

The updated EEOC guidance indicates employers must make "reasonable accommodations" for employees who don't get vaccinated because of a disability, religious beliefs or pregnancy.

The agency also noted that other federal, state and local laws may come into play.

“The updated technical assistance released today addresses frequently asked questions concerning vaccinations in the employment context,” EEOC Chair Charlotte A. Burrows said in a statement. “The EEOC will continue to clarify and update our COVID-19 technical assistance to ensure that we are providing the public with clear, easy to understand, and helpful information."

[Danke]

"Businesses can require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 without violating federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laws, the agency says."

Can a business require their employees to not get vaccinated?

[Pauls' Revere]

Can they require that they have a choice to do either?

[RJB]

What is your opinion that at my company, only vaccinated employees don’t have to wear the face diapers?

I run my own business. My state licensing board says I have to wear a mask.

I know the trustfundatarians will say to ignore it, but I have a family to feed, so, I hear you.

[Swordsmyth]

"Businesses can require their employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 without violating federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laws, the agency says."

Can a business require their employees to not get vaccinated?

At least one private school in Florida is doing that.