Employee Had First Amendment Right To Refuse Flu Shot, N.J. Court Rules

, New Jersey Law Journal

   | 2 Comments

Denying unemployment benefits to a nurse fired for refusing a flu vaccine for secular reasons violated her First Amendment right to freedom of expression, where hospital policy allowed employees to skip the shot on religious grounds, a N.J. appeals court holds in a precedential case.

This content has been archived. It is available exclusively through our partner LexisNexis®.

To view this content, please continue to Lexis Advance®.

Continue to Lexis Advance®

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber? Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® is now the exclusive third party online distributor of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® customers will be able to access and use ALM's content by subscribing to the LexisNexis® services via Lexis Advance®. This includes content from the National Law Journal®, The American Lawyer®, Law Technology News®, The New York Law Journal® and Corporate Counsel®, as well as ALM's other newspapers, directories, legal treatises, published and unpublished court opinions, and other sources of legal information.

ALM's content plays a significant role in your work and research, and now through this alliance LexisNexis® will bring you access to an even more comprehensive collection of legal content.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at customercare@alm.com

What's being said

  • Marie Petikas

    The vaccine debate continues and many educated and informed people question their safety, especially given that the flu vaccine still contains mercury, a known neurotoxin. Wearing a mask protects the patient and the nurse. I am grateful the judicial system has considered the nurse‘s health and safety as well as the patient‘s.

  • Catt Cantu

    While I applaud the fact that employers‘ can‘t force you to take shots you don‘t want, NOBODY who works with sick people, the elderly or children should be allowed to do so without putting the protection of their patients from infections first.

    If a nurse is told she should wash her hands before each patient to prevent the spread of infections and she doesn‘t, then the hospital would have been within its rights to terminate. No patient or patient‘s family wants to be treated by someone who is preventably liable to give an already sick person another illness to combat.

    Perhaps the hospital should have a policy that all patients whom the untreated nurse could come in contact with MUST be made aware of the risks and agree to her ministrations before she‘s allowed to even be in the room with them. If no families accept her help, then she‘s relegated to desk duty or a reassessment of her effectiveness and necessity as a health professional.

Comments are not moderated. To report offensive comments, click here.

Preparing comment abuse report for Article #1202658132905

Thank you!

This article's comments will be reviewed.