首页 500强 活动 榜单 商业 科技 领导力 专题 品牌中心
杂志订阅

美最高法院否决疫苗强制令,对雇主意味着什么?

Megan Leonhardt
2022-01-27

未来面临困难最多的是尚未充分落实疫苗规定的公司。

文本设置
小号
默认
大号
Plus(0条)

美国最高法院(Supreme Court)在两周前终于对联邦私人雇主疫苗强制令作出裁决,否决了这项全国规定,由各州和各雇主继续执行令人困惑甚至有时候相互冲突的不同标准。

1月13日,美国最高法院以6比3的票数,否决了美国联邦职业安全与健康管理局(Occupational Safety and Health Administration)对员工不少于100人的私人雇主执行的疫苗强制令。在两周前的口头辩论之后,许多专家已经预测到了这个结果。当时,大部分法官似乎认为该强制令的范围过于宽泛。

美国总统乔·拜登于1月13日在一份声明中评价这项裁定称:“现在将由各州和雇主自行决定是否要尽可能保证员工在工作场所的安全。”

已经在工作场所执行疫苗强制令的雇主可能会受到一些负面影响,但他们会继续坚持自己的选择。未来面临困难最多的是尚未充分落实疫苗规定的公司。他们现在必须自行决定如何为员工提供最有力的保护,还需要应对各州和地方政府五花八门甚至有时候相互冲突的指导原则,他们可能要为此付出时间和金钱成本。

一个“东拼西凑”的系统

美国最高法院在1月13日的裁定对业务遍布多个州的公司产生的影响尤其严重。

专注于劳动和雇佣法业务的Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr律师事务所的合伙人罗伯特·达斯顿表示,美国职业安全与健康管理局的联邦强制令基本上允许雇主执行统一规定。但现在他们不得不根据各州的不同规定,制定不同的内部规则。

截至2021年12月,约有25个州执行了疫苗强制令,13个州以某种形式限制了疫苗强制令。蒙大拿州和田纳西州则试图彻底禁止疫苗强制令,但这些禁令在法律上遭到质疑。

达斯顿称:“有些人称这基本上是一套东拼西凑的规定,我们已经有类似的规定了。”这意味着业务遍布多个州的公司,可能无法对所有员工执行相同的疫苗标准。公司为应对各州和地方的不同规定可能需要付出较高的成本,这给公司带来了巨大的挑战。相比于遵守一项联邦规定,公司的高层领导和法律顾问可能需要在合规方面花费更多的时间。

美国国家安全委员会(National Safety Council)的总裁兼首席执行官洛琳·马丁指出,从公共健康的角度来看,各州五花八门的规定同样令人担忧。她说:“我们没有一套全国统一的指导方针。我们清楚在新冠疫情期间保证员工安全需要付出的代价,而现在我们却给公司创造了更多的麻烦,让情况变得更复杂。”

得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州执行了对疫苗强制令的限制规定,对于在这些州经营的公司而言,美国最高法院在1月13日的决定让他们除了执行广泛的疫苗要求以外别无选择。达斯顿表示:“而对于业务遍布多个州的大型雇主,基本上无法继续执行强制令。”

Littler律师事务所专注于美国职业安全与健康管理局法律的律师阿尔卡·拉姆昌达尼-拉吉称,在美国最高法院作出决定之后,目前有几个州预计会发布本地规定,这可能让情况变得更复杂。她表示:“我们已经听说个别州计划发布本地的疫苗强制令。”

有些州已经规定某些工作者必须接种新冠疫苗,例如州政府雇员等,但要求尚未接种新冠疫苗的人群必须定期接受检测或者佩戴口罩。

专注于职业安全与健康问题的Ogletree Deakins律师事务所的梅丽莎·贝利律师称:“现在他们能够随心所欲制定本地的规定。有的州可能要求所有未接种疫苗者必须佩戴口罩,但可以不接受检测,因为许多雇主一直很难做到完全遵守检测规定。

与疫苗强制令有关的法律纠纷会继续出现,甚至愈演愈烈

虽然美国最高法院否决了拜登政府对私人雇主的疫苗强制令,但依旧有联邦法律和判例允许公司要求员工接种新冠疫苗。

贝利表示,随着美国最高法院宣布员工并非必须接种疫苗,可能会有员工开始抵制公司的疫苗接种规定。她指出:“肯定会有一些负面影响。”

里士满大学(University of Richmond)的法律教授卡尔·托拜厄斯认为,员工甚至可能起诉公司。拉姆昌达尼-拉吉称:“这可能是最糟糕的情况,但我能够想象这种情况肯定会发生。”

然而,这并不意味着如果员工提起诉讼就一定会胜诉。Fisher Phillips律师事务所表示,“绝大多数法院”都驳回了员工对雇主执行疫苗强制令提起的诉讼。拉姆昌达尼-拉吉说:“法院似乎认为,雇主觉得疫苗强制令可以让工作场所变得更安全,从而决定要求员工接种疫苗,这毫无问题。”

当然,即使公司最终胜诉,也不会减少公司为辩护疫苗强制令可能支付的法律费用。比如,美国联合航空(United Airlines)在拜登政府宣布联邦强制令前一个月在内部执行了疫苗强制令,之后面临多起诉讼。

但对有些公司而言,如果接种过新冠疫苗和加强针的员工能够减少病假和重症,为此付出的代价是值得的。

公司可能不敢自行执行疫苗强制令

有些公司可能认为要求绝大部分的员工接种新冠疫苗可能风险过高,担心他们可能会辞职。

韦莱韬悦(Willis Towers Watson)的人口健康事务负责人杰夫·莱文-舍茨博士表示:“我们最近的调查显示,如果没有美国最高法院的决定,就会有更多的雇主选择执行疫苗强制令。”

KFF新冠疫苗监测器(KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor)的最新研究显示,有48%未接种疫苗的成年人表示不会因为任何原因接种新冠疫苗,只有6%的人表示,如果雇主强制要求,他们就会接种新冠疫苗。

有些执行疫苗规定的雇主本希望联邦强制令可以提供一层保护,迫使竞争对手执行基本相同的规定,从而减少员工跳槽到未执行强制令的其他公司的动机。如果法院支持美国职业安全与健康管理局的强制令,执行疫苗规定的公司还能够直接引用联邦规定,而不是花费时间为自己的决定辩护。

达斯顿说:“许多雇主早就已经开始准备遵守美国职业安全与健康管理局的强制令,有些雇主很高兴终于有一项强制性规定,还有更多的雇主在考虑:‘遵守强制令时,我应该做到的最低限度是什么?’那些计划昨天都全部作废了。”(财富中文网)

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

美国最高法院(Supreme Court)在两周前终于对联邦私人雇主疫苗强制令作出裁决,否决了这项全国规定,由各州和各雇主继续执行令人困惑甚至有时候相互冲突的不同标准。

1月13日,美国最高法院以6比3的票数,否决了美国联邦职业安全与健康管理局(Occupational Safety and Health Administration)对员工不少于100人的私人雇主执行的疫苗强制令。在两周前的口头辩论之后,许多专家已经预测到了这个结果。当时,大部分法官似乎认为该强制令的范围过于宽泛。

美国总统乔·拜登于1月13日在一份声明中评价这项裁定称:“现在将由各州和雇主自行决定是否要尽可能保证员工在工作场所的安全。”

已经在工作场所执行疫苗强制令的雇主可能会受到一些负面影响,但他们会继续坚持自己的选择。未来面临困难最多的是尚未充分落实疫苗规定的公司。他们现在必须自行决定如何为员工提供最有力的保护,还需要应对各州和地方政府五花八门甚至有时候相互冲突的指导原则,他们可能要为此付出时间和金钱成本。

一个“东拼西凑”的系统

美国最高法院在1月13日的裁定对业务遍布多个州的公司产生的影响尤其严重。

专注于劳动和雇佣法业务的Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr律师事务所的合伙人罗伯特·达斯顿表示,美国职业安全与健康管理局的联邦强制令基本上允许雇主执行统一规定。但现在他们不得不根据各州的不同规定,制定不同的内部规则。

截至2021年12月,约有25个州执行了疫苗强制令,13个州以某种形式限制了疫苗强制令。蒙大拿州和田纳西州则试图彻底禁止疫苗强制令,但这些禁令在法律上遭到质疑。

达斯顿称:“有些人称这基本上是一套东拼西凑的规定,我们已经有类似的规定了。”这意味着业务遍布多个州的公司,可能无法对所有员工执行相同的疫苗标准。公司为应对各州和地方的不同规定可能需要付出较高的成本,这给公司带来了巨大的挑战。相比于遵守一项联邦规定,公司的高层领导和法律顾问可能需要在合规方面花费更多的时间。

美国国家安全委员会(National Safety Council)的总裁兼首席执行官洛琳·马丁指出,从公共健康的角度来看,各州五花八门的规定同样令人担忧。她说:“我们没有一套全国统一的指导方针。我们清楚在新冠疫情期间保证员工安全需要付出的代价,而现在我们却给公司创造了更多的麻烦,让情况变得更复杂。”

得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州执行了对疫苗强制令的限制规定,对于在这些州经营的公司而言,美国最高法院在1月13日的决定让他们除了执行广泛的疫苗要求以外别无选择。达斯顿表示:“而对于业务遍布多个州的大型雇主,基本上无法继续执行强制令。”

Littler律师事务所专注于美国职业安全与健康管理局法律的律师阿尔卡·拉姆昌达尼-拉吉称,在美国最高法院作出决定之后,目前有几个州预计会发布本地规定,这可能让情况变得更复杂。她表示:“我们已经听说个别州计划发布本地的疫苗强制令。”

有些州已经规定某些工作者必须接种新冠疫苗,例如州政府雇员等,但要求尚未接种新冠疫苗的人群必须定期接受检测或者佩戴口罩。

专注于职业安全与健康问题的Ogletree Deakins律师事务所的梅丽莎·贝利律师称:“现在他们能够随心所欲制定本地的规定。有的州可能要求所有未接种疫苗者必须佩戴口罩,但可以不接受检测,因为许多雇主一直很难做到完全遵守检测规定。

与疫苗强制令有关的法律纠纷会继续出现,甚至愈演愈烈

虽然美国最高法院否决了拜登政府对私人雇主的疫苗强制令,但依旧有联邦法律和判例允许公司要求员工接种新冠疫苗。

贝利表示,随着美国最高法院宣布员工并非必须接种疫苗,可能会有员工开始抵制公司的疫苗接种规定。她指出:“肯定会有一些负面影响。”

里士满大学(University of Richmond)的法律教授卡尔·托拜厄斯认为,员工甚至可能起诉公司。拉姆昌达尼-拉吉称:“这可能是最糟糕的情况,但我能够想象这种情况肯定会发生。”

然而,这并不意味着如果员工提起诉讼就一定会胜诉。Fisher Phillips律师事务所表示,“绝大多数法院”都驳回了员工对雇主执行疫苗强制令提起的诉讼。拉姆昌达尼-拉吉说:“法院似乎认为,雇主觉得疫苗强制令可以让工作场所变得更安全,从而决定要求员工接种疫苗,这毫无问题。”

当然,即使公司最终胜诉,也不会减少公司为辩护疫苗强制令可能支付的法律费用。比如,美国联合航空(United Airlines)在拜登政府宣布联邦强制令前一个月在内部执行了疫苗强制令,之后面临多起诉讼。

但对有些公司而言,如果接种过新冠疫苗和加强针的员工能够减少病假和重症,为此付出的代价是值得的。

公司可能不敢自行执行疫苗强制令

有些公司可能认为要求绝大部分的员工接种新冠疫苗可能风险过高,担心他们可能会辞职。

韦莱韬悦(Willis Towers Watson)的人口健康事务负责人杰夫·莱文-舍茨博士表示:“我们最近的调查显示,如果没有美国最高法院的决定,就会有更多的雇主选择执行疫苗强制令。”

KFF新冠疫苗监测器(KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor)的最新研究显示,有48%未接种疫苗的成年人表示不会因为任何原因接种新冠疫苗,只有6%的人表示,如果雇主强制要求,他们就会接种新冠疫苗。

有些执行疫苗规定的雇主本希望联邦强制令可以提供一层保护,迫使竞争对手执行基本相同的规定,从而减少员工跳槽到未执行强制令的其他公司的动机。如果法院支持美国职业安全与健康管理局的强制令,执行疫苗规定的公司还能够直接引用联邦规定,而不是花费时间为自己的决定辩护。

达斯顿说:“许多雇主早就已经开始准备遵守美国职业安全与健康管理局的强制令,有些雇主很高兴终于有一项强制性规定,还有更多的雇主在考虑:‘遵守强制令时,我应该做到的最低限度是什么?’那些计划昨天都全部作废了。”(财富中文网)

翻译:刘进龙

审校:汪皓

The Supreme Court finally ruled at two weeks ago on the federal vaccine mandate for private employers, opting to halt the nationwide requirements and return to a confusing, and at times conflicting, set of differing standards from states and individual employers.

In a 6–3 decision issued on January 13, the Supreme Court blocked the mandate for private employers with at least 100 workers put in place by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Many experts predicted this outcome following oral arguments last week that seemed to indicate the majority of justices felt the mandate was too broad.

“It is now up to states and individual employers to determine whether to make their workplaces as safe as possible for employees,” President Joe Biden said in a statement regarding the decision on January 13.

Employers who have already instituted vaccine mandates in their workplaces may see some blowback, but will likely stick with the choices they have made. It’s companies that have not yet fully implemented vaccine requirements that face the toughest road ahead. They now must decide on their own how to best protect their employees, and wrestle with different and sometimes contradictory sets of state and local guidelines that may cost them time and money.

Figuring out a “patchwork” system

January 13’s Supreme Court ruling hits companies operating in multiple states particularly hard.

The federal OSHA mandate would have basically allowed those employers to have a uniform rule, says Robert Duston, a partner at Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr, a labor and employment law practice. But now they’ll be forced to set up different rules to comply with varying state regulations.

As of December 2021, about 25 states have vaccine mandates, while 13 states have restricted vaccine mandates in some form. Montana and Tennessee have sought to entirely ban vaccine mandates, but those bans are being challenged legally.

“Some are calling this basically a patchwork—we had a patchwork already,” Duston says. This means companies with locations in multiple states likely can’t maintain the same vaccine standard across their workforce. And navigating those different state and local rules is expensive and challenging for companies. Senior leaders and corporate legal counsel will likely need to spend far more time on compliance than they would have otherwise under a single federal rule.

The differences in regulations state by state is also concerning from a public health standpoint, says Lorraine Martin, president and CEO of the National Safety Council. “We aren’t giving consistent guidance across our country,” she says. “We know what it takes to keep employees safe in this pandemic, and now we’ve made it even more complicated for companies to navigate.”

For firms operating in states such as Texas and Florida that have put restrictions on vaccine mandates, January 13’s ruling leaves them with fewer options to impose broad vaccine requirements. “Of those major, multistate employers that wanted to impose mandates, they are effectively prevented from doing that,” Duston says.

And the situation could get more complicated with several states now expected to issue their own rules following the Supreme Court’s decision, says Alka Ramchandani-Raj, an attorney with Littler focusing on OSHA law. “We’ve already heard from certain states that they were intending to do their own mandate,” she says.

Some states have required certain workers, such as state employees, to get vaccinated, but stipulated that those who are unvaccinated need to undergo routine testing or are required to wear a mask.

“They could do whatever they want now,” says Melissa Bailey, a lawyer with Ogletree Deakins focused on occupational safety and health issues. “You could have a state that says all unvaccinated workers must mask, but maybe they skip the testing options, since that’s been so difficult for many employers to be able to comply with.”

Legal skirmishes over vaccine mandates will continue and may even surge

Even though the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s vaccine mandate for private employers, there are still federal laws and legal precedent that generally allow companies to require their workers to get vaccinated.

Yet companies are likely to start hearing from employees who balk at getting vaccinated now that the Supreme Court says they don’t have to, says Bailey. “There’s going to be some blowback,” she notes.

Employees may even try to sue, according to Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond. “That’s kind of the worst-case scenario, but I can imagine that happening,” Ramchandani-Raj says.

That doesn’t, however, mean that employees would win if they did take legal action. The “vast majority of courts” have rejected employee lawsuits against employers’ vaccine mandates, notes law firm Fisher Phillips. “It doesn’t seem like the courts think there’s anything wrong with an employer making that decision that they think their workplace is safer with a vaccine mandate,” notes Ramchandani-Raj.

That, of course, doesn’t mitigate the legal fees companies may rack up defending their own vaccine mandates, even if they ultimately prevail. United Airlines, for example, implemented its own vaccine mandate a month before the Biden administration announced federal mandates, and has fought off several legal challenges.

But for some companies, it may be worth the costs if a vaccinated and boosted workforce is less prone to sick time and severe illness.

Companies may be afraid to mandate vaccines on their own

Some companies may feel it’s too risky to require that a significant number of their employees be vaccinated, afraid they may quit instead.

“Our recent survey suggests that many more employers would have pursued vaccine mandates if the rule was left in place,” says Dr. Jeff Levin-Scherz, population health leader at Willis Towers Watson.

Among unvaccinated adults, 48% say nothing will persuade them to get a COVID vaccine, while only 6% say they would get one if their employer mandated it, according to the latest KFF COVID-19 Vaccine Monitor research.

Some employers implementing vaccine requirements were hoping that the OSHA mandate would give them cover, forcing their competitors to roll out basically the same rules so employees would have less incentive to jump to another company without mandates. If the OSHA mandate had been upheld, companies with vaccine requirements might also have been able to point to federal regulations, rather than spending time defending their decision.

“There were a large number of employers that started preparing to comply with the OSHA rule, some joyfully with a hard mandate…and then a much larger group that said, ‘What’s the bare minimum I have to do?’ Anybody who said, ‘What’s the bare minimum I have to do to comply?’—yesterday those plans got set aside,” Duston says.

财富中文网所刊载内容之知识产权为财富媒体知识产权有限公司及/或相关权利人专属所有或持有。未经许可,禁止进行转载、摘编、复制及建立镜像等任何使用。
0条Plus
精彩评论
评论

撰写或查看更多评论

请打开财富Plus APP

前往打开