User:BD2412/Vaccine law resources/2023


 * William Douglass (physician)
 * Benjamin Moseley
 * Ferdinand Smyth Stuart
 * Jules Guérin
 * John Pitcairn Jr.
 * Henning Jacobson
 * Lora Little
 * Joseph Pulitzer

Timetable

Clips

Pictures

Resources

 * Bloomberg Law Daily Labor Report - Vaccines
 * Drug & Device Law - Vaccines
 * Affordable Care Act Litigation - Vaccines

Minor consent to vaccination:
 * KFF, State Parental Consent Laws for COVID-19 Vaccination (as of November 2021)
 * VaxTeen, Minor Consent Laws by State (no date on when last updated)
 * Schoolhouse Connection, State Laws on Minor Consent for Routine Medical Care (January 5, 2023)

Specific cases/items
Mark E. Wojcik, Sincerely Held or Suddenly Held Religious Exemptions to Vaccination? (July 05, 2022), lists proposed factors

Meredith Manning, et al., "After the Public Health Emergency: FDA plans to revise COVID-19 EUA policies, Hogan Lovells Engage (28 March 2023)

Lauren K. Roth, Associate Commissioner for Policy, HHS, Guidance Documents Related to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), 4164-01-P (March 8, 2023)
 * [FR Doc. 2023-05094 Filed: 3/10/2023 8:45 am; Publication Date: 3/13/2023]


 * Bexis, "Thoughts on a Vaccine Act MDL", Drug & Device Law (September 26, 2022) "In re Gardasil Products Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp.3d ___, 2022 WL 3138681 (J.P.M.L. Aug. 4, 2022), where the MDL panel recently created an unprecedented multi-district litigation involving a Vaccine Act covered vaccine".


 * Bexis, Terrible Decision Contravenes the Vaccine Act’s Purpose and Would Gut Its Protections, Drug & Device Law (December 12, 2022)
 * Re: DeCostanzo v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, 2022 WL 17338047 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 29, 2022)


 * Bexis, Thoughts on a Vaccine Act MDL, Drug & Device Law (September 26, 2022)
 * "The Act, passed in 1986, provides for “not more than 8 special masters.” 42 U.S.C.A. §300aa-12(c)(1).  However, since the compensation program has been operating, the number of covered vaccines (any vaccine that the CDC and its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommend for routine childhood use) has trebled, and “shoulder injury related to vaccine administration” has been added as a compensable condition".
 * "L.A.R. v. Sec’y of HHS, 2019 WL 2285475, at *3 (Fed. Cl. April 12, 2019) (dismissing POTS claim as time barred)".


 * Bexis, "Two Recent COVID-19 Wins", Drug & Device Law (October 24, 2022):
 * Ivermectin injunction, Shoemaker v. UPMC, ___ A.3d ___, 2022 WL 4372772 (Pa. Super. Sept. 22, 2022)
 * Vaccine mandates, Children’s Health Defense, Inc. v. Rutgers, 2022 WL 4377515 (D.N.J. Sept. 22, 2022)


 * Michelle Yeary, "Childhood Vaccine Case Gets TwIqballed", Drug & Device Law (August 2, 2022)
 * Garcia v. Sanofi Pasteur Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134330 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 28, 2022).
 * Plaintiff "was required to identify the risk that was not warned against, explain why that risk was substantial, and that the risk was known or reasonably knowable or explain how the warning was inadequate. Id. at *11-12".
 * The Vaccine Act "expressly preempts design defect claims where the vaccine is accompanied by a proper warning (which is presumed if it complies with FDA requirements)".


 * Melissa Peters and Sebastian Chilco, Dear Littler: Do we need to do anything different for Monkeypox? (September 22, 2022)


 * Anita Wadhwani, "Former Tennessee vaccine chief Fiscus seeks to have name cleared in court", Tennessee Lookout (December 5, 2022)
 * Dr. Michelle Fiscus was fired from her job as medical director of the state’s Vaccine-Preventable Diseases and Immunization Program on July 12, 2021, amid political backlash during the COVID-19 pandemic and over a longstanding policy allowing some children to get vaccinated without parental consent.

"After four years of multidistrict litigation, a federal judge in Pennsylvania has dismissed 1,189 lawsuits claiming the Zostavax shingles vaccine by drugmaker Merck did not do what it was supposed to do and instead caused them to suffer from shingles or shingles-related injuries. U.S. District Court Justice Harvey Bartle found that after four years, the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that their cases of shingles were caused by the vaccine and not by a reactivated shingles virus (called wild type) already present in most people due to their having contracted chickenpox earlier in their lives."
 * Andrew G. Simpson, "Judge Dismisses 1,000 Shingles Vaccine Claims Against Merck for Lack of Evidence, Insurance Journal (December 8, 2022):

Cancer and heart disease vaccines ‘ready by end of the decade’]", The Guardian (April 8, 2023)
 * Linda Geddes, "[https://www.theguardian.com/society/2023/apr/07/cancer-and-heart-disease-vaccines-ready-by-end-of-the-decade


 * Kenya Scott Woodruff, CMS Reducing "Off-Cycle" CMS Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Vaccine Surveys (July 13, 2022)
 * QSO-22-17-ALL - Surveys for Compliance with Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff Vaccination Requirements
 * "SAs and AOs will now only be expected to perform compliance reviews of the staff vaccination requirement during initial and recertification surveys and in response to specific complaint allegations that allege non-compliance with the staff vaccination requirement. SAs and AOs are no longer expected to perform these reviews on every survey. This reduction in survey frequency is in keeping with the normal process for oversight of any Medicare requirement, and is supported by the high rates of compliance in initial surveys."
 * "off-cycle" reviews of worker-vaccination status only to be done in response to a specific complaint
 * Per CMS: "[n]early 12,000 providers and suppliers have been surveyed for compliance with the requirement. To date, 95.0% of those providers and suppliers surveyed by states have been found to be in substantial compliance with this requirement."


 * Denise-Marie Ordway, 4 tips for covering religious exemptions to vaccine mandates (Sep. 28, 2021), https://journalistsresource.org/health/religious-exemptions-vaccine-mandate-covid/


 * Daniels v. The N.Y.C. Police Dep't, 2023 NY Slip Op 31357(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 24, 2023):
 * Administrative panel refusal of religious exemptions without reason overturned and remanded to the panel as arbitrary and capricious.


 * Second judge says US not liable in Moderna COVID-19 vaccine patent case

5-26-2023

AJPH https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307285 State Policy Removing the Personal Belief Exemption for Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR) School Immunization Requirement, Washington State, 2014–2022
 * HB 1638 implementation was associated with a 5.4% relative increase in kindergarten MMR vaccine series completion rates (95% confidence interval = 3.8%, 7.1%; P ≤ .001), and results were similar with Oregon as a control state (no change observed in Oregon; P = .68). MMR exemptions overall decreased 41% (from 3.1% in 2018–2019 to 1.8% in 2019–2020; P ≤ .001), and religious exemptions increased 367% (from 0.3% to 1.4%; P ≤ .001).

https://www.networkforphl.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Summary-of-Enacted-Laws-and-Pending-Bills-Limiting-Public-Health-Authority.pdf Summary of Enacted Laws and Pending Bills Limiting Public Health Authority: The Second Wave (Version posted on June 1, 2022) Network for Public Health

https://www.lewistownsentinel.com/news/local-news/2022/09/vaccine-mandates-long-argued/ Vaccine mandates long argued Williamsport case from 1800s cited into modern era LOCAL NEWS SEP 6, 2022 MARTY WEAVER Special to The Sentinel

https://www.sidley.com/en/insights/newsupdates/2022/10/executive-order-on-advancing-biotechnology-and-biomanufacturing-innovation Executive Order on Advancing Biotechnology and Biomanufacturing Innovation: Modernizing Regulation Under the Coordinated Framework October 5, 2022

https://webinars.endpts.com/the-vaccine-rd-revolution-goes-global/ The vaccine R&D revolution goes global

https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Texas_Northern_District_Court/3--22-cv-02834/Kiger_v._Teva_Pharmaceuticals_USA_Inc._et_al/docs/1.pdf KIGER v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS This is an employment lawsuit alleging discriminatory discharge of Plaintiff by Defendants based on religious discrimination (failure to accommodate and job termination) as well as retaliation for opposing illegal discrimination.

https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-issues/fda-mpox-response FDA Mpox Response

https://www.dlapiper.com/en-ma/insights/publications/2023/01/fda-denies-requests-for-revocation-of-eua-for-covid-vaccine DLA Piper, FDA denies requests for revocation of EUA for COVID vaccine for use in individuals 5-11 and 12-17 years of age (5 JANUARY 2023)

https://www.hrdefenseblog.com/2022/07/alert-your-covid-19-policies-and-procedures-need-a-booster/ Akerman, ALERT! Your COVID-19 Policies and Procedures Need a BOOSTER!

https://www.statnews.com/2023/04/27/religious-exemption-vaccines-children-mississippi/ A judge’s infuriating ruling on vaccination puts Mississippi’s children at risk By Dorit R. Reiss and Arthur L. Caplan (April 27, 2023)

https://www.hallrender.com/2023/05/02/what-will-expiration-of-the-public-health-emergency-and-national-emergency-mean-for-employers/ What Will Expiration of the Public Health Emergency and National Emergency Mean for Employers? Posted on May 2, 2023 Ending of the PHE COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Coverage In connection with the declaration of the PHE, several pieces of federal legislation enacted during the pandemic imposed requirements on health insurance insurers and employer-sponsored group health plans, including requirements to: Cover all COVID-19 testing and related services without cost-sharing or medical management requirements; and Coverage of COVID-19 vaccines from in-network providers at no cost to the participant as a preventative service under the ACA standards. With the expiration of the PHE, these requirements will also end. Guidance from the DOL reminds group health plans and health insurance issuers are required to notify in advance their participants, beneficiaries, and/or enrollees of reductions in benefits, which could include changes in coverage of COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, including testing. In addition, employers will need to evaluate whether corresponding amendments need to be made to their group health plan(s).

https://www.mcguirewoods.com/client-resources/Alerts/2023/5/white-house-ends-many-federal-covid-19-vaccine-requirements End of an Era: White House Ends Many Federal COVID-19 Vaccine Requirements May 3, 2023

https://www.cov.com/en/news-and-insights/insights/2022/07/china-issues-rules-on-vaccine-manufacturing-and-distribution Covington, China Issues Rules on Vaccine Manufacturing and Distribution July 22, 2022

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-anti-vaccine-antitrust-lawsuit-bad-claims/ The anti-vaccine antitrust lawsuit — bad claims, by Dorit Rubinstein Reiss2023-02-23

https://www.washingtonpost.com/washington-post-live/2023/02/22/lessons-coronavirus-research-quest-an-hiv-vaccine/ Lessons from coronavirus research in the quest for an HIV vaccine By Washington Post Live February 22, 2023

https://www.merck.com/news/moderna-and-merck-announce-mrna-4157-v940-an-investigational-personalized-mrna-cancer-vaccine-in-combination-with-keytruda-pembrolizumab-was-granted-breakthrough-therapy-designation-by-the/ Moderna and Merck Announce mRNA-4157/V940, an Investigational Personalized mRNA Cancer Vaccine, in Combination With KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab), was Granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation by the FDA for Adjuvant Treatment of Patients With High-Risk Melanoma Following Complete Resection February 22, 2023

https://affordablecareactlitigation.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/gov.uscourts.txnd_.330381.92.0_1.pdf BRAIDWOOD MANAGEMENT INC. v. XAVIER BECERRA Plaintiffs are six individuals and two businesses who challenge the legality of the preventive-care mandates under the Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”). Each Plaintiff wishes to obtain or provide health insurance that excludes or limits coverage currently required by the preventive-care mandates.

https://www.healthaffairs.org/content/forefront/supreme-court-and-future-state-vaccine-requirements The Supreme Court And The Future Of State Vaccine Requirements Richard Hughes IV JULY 7, 2022

Hill Dickinson https://www.hilldickinson.com/insights/articles/covid-19-vaccinations COVID-19 vaccinations (UK) 2 August 2022

https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/part-d-vaccine-cost-sharing-medicare-richard-hughes/630439/ Congress finally eliminates Part D vaccine cost sharing: Medicare coverage is still broken

https://www.boostoregon.org/blog/vaccine-myth-vaccines-are-just-moneymakers-for-big-pharma-and-doctors Vaccine Myth: Vaccines are Just Money-Makers for Big Pharma & Doctors

https://vanderbiltlawreview.org/lawreview/2022/01/a-machete-for-the-patent-thicket/ A Machete for the Patent Thicket

https://www.mwe.com/insights/cms-withdraws-covid-19-vaccination-mandate-enhances-focus-on-quality-measures/ CMS WITHDRAWS COVID-19 VACCINATION MANDATE, ENHANCES FOCUS ON QUALITY MEASURES

https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/new-york-begins-repeal-healthcare-worker-covid-19-vaccine-mandate New York Begins Repeal of Healthcare Worker COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate

https://www.irishtimes.com/crime-law/courts/2023/05/28/high-court-action-against-gemma-odoherty-over-image-linking-teenagers-death-to-vaccine/ High Court action taken against Gemma O’Doherty over image linking teenager’s death to vaccine (Ireland)

https://www.flgov.com/2023/03/24/governor-ron-desantis-signs-comprehensive-legal-reforms-into-law/ Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Comprehensive Legal Reforms into Law

United States v. Colon (4th Cir. 2023) (unvaccinated excluded from jury)
United States v. Colon, Nos. 22-4187, 22-4192 (4th Cir., Apr. 11, 2023) United States v. Colon (4th Cir. 2023)
 * The question presented here is whether a district court's sua sponte decision to strike unvaccinated prospective jurors for cause from a properly assembled venire during the COVID-19 pandemic violates the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement. It does not. The fair-cross-section requirement applies to jury venires, not petit juries. And the district court's decision to strike unvaccinated jurors based on their perceived inability to serve without creating unnecessary safety risks affected the composition of the petit jury for this particular case, not the individuals represented in the venire from which the petit jury is selected.
 * The defendants argue that the district court's use of for cause strikes excluded unvaccinated jurors in violation of their Sixth Amendment right to have their case heard before a "fair cross section of the community." And they contend that they established a prima facie case of a Sixth Amendment violation in the proceedings below.
 * "In order to establish a prima facie violation of the fair-cross-section requirement, the defendant must show (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a 'distinctive' group in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from which juries are selected is not fair and reasonable in relation to the number of such persons in the community; and (3) that this underrepresentation is due to systematic exclusion of the group in the jury-selection process." Duren v. Mississippi, 439 U.S. 357, 364 (1979).
 * While the district court's strikes of unvaccinated jurors were based on COVID-19 safety risks rather than strongly held views about the subject matter of the case, those safety reasons related to the potential jurors' ability to serve in this particular case. More specifically, the court felt that seating unvaccinated jurors in the midst of a global pandemic unnecessarily jeopardized the safety of the parties, the witnesses, the jurors and court personnel. Consistent with that, it also struck potential jurors for cause for reasons unrelated to COVID. Those strikes were based on the ability of the potential jurors to serve in this particular case. As a result, the for-cause strikes affected the petit jury, not the venire. Thus, the Sixth Amendment's fair-cross-section requirement does not apply.

DOL Dept'l end of emergency guidance
A series of FAQs issued by the U.S. Departments of Labor, Treasury, and HHS, in late March 2023, states:

Rapid Coverage of Preventive Services and Vaccines for Coronavirus

Section 3203 of the CARES Act requires non-grandfathered group health plans and health insurance issuers offering non-grandfathered group or individual health insurance coverage to cover, without cost-sharing requirements, any qualifying coronavirus preventive service pursuant to section 2713(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act) and its implementing regulations (or any successor regulations). Under the statute, the term “qualifying coronavirus preventive service” means an item, service, or immunization that is intended to prevent or mitigate COVID�19 and that is:

• An evidence-based item or service that has in effect a rating of “A” or “B” in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF); or

• An immunization that has in effect a recommendation from the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) with respect to the individual involved.

Coverage of a qualifying coronavirus preventive service must begin 15 business days after the date on which an applicable recommendation is made by USPSTF or ACIP.

On November 6, 2020, the Departments published in the Federal Register interim final rules implementing section 3203 of the CARES Act (November 2020 interim final rules). [85 FR 71142 (Nov. 6, 2020).]

The November 2020 interim final rules include the statutory definition of a qualifying coronavirus preventive service and clarify that the definition includes an immunization recommended by ACIP, regardless of whether it is recommended for routine use. The November 2020 interim final rules also implement the 15-business-day requirement. The November 2020 interim final rules additionally require that a plan or issuer must cover a qualifying coronavirus preventive service without cost sharing regardless of whether it is provided by an in-network or out-of�network provider. If a plan or issuer does not have a negotiated rate for the service, the plan or issuer must reimburse the provider for the service in an amount that is reasonable, as determined in comparison to prevailing market rates for the service.

fn On February 9, 2023, the CDC approved the 2023 child and adolescent and adult immunization schedules recommended by ACIP, including COVID-19 vaccines, which are available on the CDC immunization schedule website at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/. However, the CDC immunization schedules have referenced COVID-19 vaccines since ACIP recommended their use in December 2020.

...

[A]fter the end of the PHE, plans and issuers subject to section 3203 of the CARES Act must continue to cover, without cost sharing, qualifying coronavirus preventive services, including, consistent with the applicable ACIP recommendation, all COVID-19 vaccines within the scope of the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) or Biologics License Application (BLA) for the particular vaccine and their administration, pursuant to section 2713(a) of the PHS Act and its implementing regulations. This coverage must be provided within 15 business days after the date on which an applicable recommendation is made by USPSTF or ACIP regarding the qualifying coronavirus preventive service.


 * DOL, "Frequently Asked Questions about Families First Coronavirus Response Act, Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act Implementation Part 58," (March 29, 2023), p. 5-7, https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/ebsa/about-ebsa/our-activities/resource-center/faqs/aca-part-58.pdf.

Goe v. Zucker (upholding NY removal of religious exemptions)

 * Goe v. Zucker, 43 F.4th 19 (2d Cir. 2022)
 * Members of the ACIP include "health-care providers and public health officials," including "professionals from academic medicine (pediatrics, family practice, and pharmacy); international (Canada), federal, and state public health professionals; and a member from the nongovernmental Immunization Action Coalition." App'x at 445. The ACIP Guidelines were intended to help "clinicians and other health care providers who vaccinate patients in varied settings," id. at 442, (1) "assess vaccine benefits and risks," (2) "use recommended administration practices," (3) "understand the most effective strategies for ensuring" high vaccination coverage in the population, and (4) "communicate the importance of vaccination to reduce the effects of vaccine-preventable disease," id. at 443.
 * The ACIP Guidelines define a "contraindication" as a "condition[ ] in a recipient that increases the risk for a serious adverse reaction," App'x at 489, and recommend that a vaccine not be administered when such a contraindication exists. Examples of contraindications include being severely immunocompromised, having an immunodeficiency disease, or suffering a severe allergic reaction after a previous vaccine dose. The ACIP Guidelines separately define a "precaution" as a "condition in a recipient that might increase the risk for a serious adverse reaction, might cause diagnostic confusion, or might compromise the ability of the vaccine to produce immunity." Id. at 490. For precautions, the ACIP Guidelines recommend deferring, in lieu of completely foregoing, vaccination. Examples of precautions include experiencing moderate or severe acute illness or a personal or family history of seizures. In addition, the ACIP Guidelines provide a list of conditions or circumstances that are neither a recognized contraindication nor a precaution, including, for example, mild acute illness, a history of penicillin allergy, or contact with persons who have a chronic illness or altered immunocompetence.
 * "After California repealed their non-medical exemptions, their vaccination rates improved demonstrably, particularly in schools with the lowest rates of compliance". Act of June 13, 2019, ch. 35, 2019 N.Y. Laws 153, 153-54.
 * Under the State's present requirements, a child may be exempted from school immunization if "any" state-licensed physician "certifies that such immunization may be detrimental to [the] child's health." N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164(8). The request must "contain[ ] sufficient information to identify a medical contraindication to a specific immunization." N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 66-1.3(c). School officials enforce these requirements, see N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164(7)(a), and may require additional supporting information before granting requests for exemptions, see N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 66-1.3(c). The denial of a medical exemption is appealable to the Commissioner of Education. N.Y. Pub. Health Law § 2164(7)(b).
 * [Re: entitleemnt to medical exemption] Plaintiffs' argument, at bottom, is that they have a "fundamental right" to obtain a medical exemption based solely on the recommendation -- or say-so -- of a child's treating physician. But no court has ever held that there is a right to a medical exemption from immunization based solely on the recommendation of a physician. Nor has any court held that such a right is "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, or deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition." Leebaert, 332 F.3d at 140 (internal quotation mark omitted). Indeed, in Jacobson v. Massachusetts , the Supreme Court explained that medical exemptions from mandatory immunization laws may be limited to cases in which it is "apparent or can be shown with reasonable certainty " that the vaccine would be harmful. 197 U.S. 11, 39, 25 S.Ct. 358, 49 L.Ed. 643 (1905) (emphasis added).

Peterman v. Aspirus (objection to administering)

 * Peterman v. Aspirus, Case: 3:22-cv-00332-jdp (W.D. Wisc., March 28, 2023):
 * The court agrees with Aspirus that Petermann’s complaint doesn’t identify a religious objection to administering the vaccine, even assuming that she identified a religious objection to receiving the vaccine. Her objection was specific to receiving the vaccine and its effect on her own body. She didn’t give a religious reason (or any reason, really) why she couldn’t administer the vaccine to others. Her belief that her body is a temple wouldn’t preclude her from giving shots to patients who want to receive them. ... In her opposition brief, Petermann inserts a new allegation that she “refused to give shots that she would not receive herself” because “as a Christian, she is called to do unto others as she would have them do unto her.” Dkt. 9, at 12. A belief in the Golden Rule wouldn’t necessarily prohibit a person who doesn’t want to receive a medical treatment from providing that same treatment to another person who is seeking that treatment. But even if the court assumes that Petermann had a religious objection to both giving and receiving the vaccine, this new allegation fails under the second element of the claim because Petermann doesn’t allege that she communicated her understanding of the Golden Rule to Aspirus when she asked for an exemption.
 * [Re: Retaliation]: Aspirus contends that Petermann hasn’t adequately alleged that it required her to administer booster shots or fired her because of her request for a religious exemption from receiving the vaccine. The question is a close one, but the court concludes that Petermann has stated a claim under federal pleading standards and that Aspirus’s arguments are better reserved for a summary judgment motion.
 * In this case, Petermann points to three allegations to support her belief that Aspirus retaliated against her because of her exemption request: (1) Aspirus told Petermann that she had to administer booster shots at the same time it granted her exemption request; (2) administering vaccines was outside Petermann’s job duties; and (3) nine other employees who were less senior than Petermann were not required to administer vaccines, even though they were willing to do so. These allegations are not compelling, but they are enough to raise Petermann’s retaliation claims above the level of speculation, which is all that is required at the pleading stage. ... Aspirus says that requiring Petermann to administer vaccines was “a neutral employment change necessary at the time to help Aspirus continue to function during the pandemic and meet community demand.” Dkt. 6, at 8. But this factual assertion is outside the complaint, so the court may not consider it. If Aspirus has evidence that it required Petermann to perform duties outside her job description out of necessity or because of any other nonretaliatory reason, Aspirus may present that evidence in a motion for summary judgment. But at this stage, the court must accept Petermann’s allegations as true.

Schelske v. Austin (striking military vaccination under RFRA)

 * Schelske v. Austin, No. 6:22-CV-049-H (N.D. Tex. December 21, 2022)
 * The Army must accommodate religious freedom unless it can prove that the vaccine mandate furthers a compelling interest in the least restrictive means. The Army attempts to meet that burden by pointing to the need for military readiness and the health of its force. But the law, including Fifth Circuit precedent, makes clear that these generalized interests are insufficient. Rather, the Army must justify denying these particular plaintiffs' religious exemptions under current conditions. Here, with 97% of active forces vaccinated and operating successfully in a post-pandemic world, the Army falls short of its burden.
 * [T]he Court recognizes that much of this litigation may soon be moot. Congress recently passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023 (NDAA). If signed by the President into law, the NDAA would require the Secretary of Defense to “rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be vaccinated against COVID-19” within 30 days of enactment. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2023, H.R. 7776, 117th Cong. § 525 (2022).
 * The Court recognizes that “[g]enerally, courts refrain from reviewing internal military affairs. The rationale is simple: ‘[J]udges are not given the task of running the Army.'” U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, 578 F.Supp.3d 822, 829 (N.D. Tex. 2022) (quoting Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 (1953)). The Fifth Circuit, however, has held that RFRA, “which applies to every ‘branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States,'” expressly renders the plaintiffs' claims “justiciable.” U.S. Navy Seals 1-26, 27 F.4th at 345-46 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-2(1)). Because RFRA “undoubtedly ‘applies in the military context,' . . . [f]ederal courts are [] empowered to adjudicate RFRA's application to these [p]laintiffs.” Id. at 346 (quoting United States v. Sterling, 75 M.J. 407, 410 (C.A.A.F. 2016)). Therefore, “it is likely that, following RFRA's enactment, [judicial abstention] is no longer permissible.” Id.

Dahle v. United Cmty. Action P'ship (unemployment benefits denied for person fired for non-vaccination)

 * Dahle v. United Cmty. Action P'ship, A22-1103 (Minn. App. Apr 10, 2023)
 * Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for the misconduct of violating respondent-employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy and did not have a sincerely held religious belief precluding her from getting a vaccination. Relator asserts that she did not commit misconduct and that her refusal to be vaccinated was based on religious beliefs. We affirm.
 * When asked to identify the religious beliefs and practices or membership in a church or religious body that prevented her vaccination, she said she was a Christian who believes that God will protect and heal her, God will call her when it is time for her to be with him, so she will follow her beliefs and not inject herself with the COVID-19 vaccine, and if she were forced to get the COVID vaccine she would "be scared for her health and safety."
 * When relator was asked to describe how receiving a COVID-19 vaccine conflicted with her religious beliefs, she answered that her beliefs "go against injecting [her] body with toxic substances like in the COVID-19 vaccines" and she will rely on her prayers and belief that God will protect her. When asked if she had received other vaccinations in the past, she said she received them as a minor and it was her parents' choice.
 * The ULJ went on to determine that relator had committed misconduct, reasoning that relator violated the standard of behavior her employer had a right to reasonably expect by refusing the COVID-19 vaccination because her application for a religious exemption did not mention religion or any religious tenet as the basis of her beliefs that the vaccine does not work, is not safe, and would cause her to fear for her own health and safety, and that those beliefs were the basis of relator's "lay opinion that the vaccine is not safe or effective." The ULJ also found that relator gave no religious basis for her belief that it is a violation of her rights for her employer to require vaccination.
 * Relator also asserted that the ULJ erred in finding that relator did not have a sincerely held religious belief that prevented her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. The ULJ noted that the UCAP form asked specific questions about relator's religious beliefs and practices that she chose not to answer and that her letter, like her hearing testimony, focused on the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine, "which is not a religious consideration"; therefore, her refusal to comply with her employer's COVID-19 vaccination policy was motivated by secular rather than religious beliefs. The record substantially supports the ULJ's findings that relator's failure to answer the questions about her religion on the application for a religious exemption and her failure to mention religion in the letter she submitted in lieu of the application indicated that her decision not to be vaccinated was not based on religious beliefs. Insofar as her testimony at the hearing did concern religion, the ULJ was free to disregard that testimony as inconsistent with her unfilled application form and her letter.

Children's Health Def. Inc. v. Rutgers (plaintiffs who received exemptions lack standing)
Children's Health Def. Inc. v. Rutgers, The State Univ. of N.J. (D. N.J. 2022)

Plaintiffs who received religious exemptions-all of the plaintiffs except Pinto-and challenge the Policy, lack standing as a result of their exemptions. The exceptions also render their claims moot. Plaintiffs have not suffered any actual or imminent injury and instead base their claims on their fear of future potential harm. Specifically, the plaintiffs that received religious exemptions from the Policy base their claims on fears such as whether or not they “will be allowed to continue [their] academic studies at Rutgers if COVID-19 rates increase” (FAC ¶ 13 17) and Equal Protection claims premised on the theory that they may later be, but are not now, subject to different masking requirements than students who are vaccinated. (FAC ¶¶ 316-18.) Because these harms are conjectural and hypothetical, the claims and the challenges to the Policy from Plaintiffs who have received religious exemptions are moot. See Wade v. Univ, of Conn. Bd. of Trs., Civ. No. 21-924, 2021 WL 3616035, at *8 (D. Conn. Aug. 16, 2021) (dismissing two plaintiffs' challenges to University of Connecticut's vaccine mandate as moot because they were granted exemptions); Pelekai v. Hawaii, Civ. No. 21-343, 2021 WL 4944804, at *1 (D. Haw. Oct. 22, 2021) (dismissing plaintiffs' claims as moot because they all opted out of or were granted exemptions from vaccine requirements). These Plaintiffs' receipt of exemptions also moots their challenges to Rutgers' process for considering exemption requests because they have no further claim on which the Court may “make a substantive determination on the merits.” N.J. Turnpike Auth. v. Jersey Cent. Power & Light, 772 F.2d 25, 30 (3d Cir. 1985)

Plaintiffs claim that Rutgers has treated students differently from faculty and staff because it imposed the mandate only on students. (FAC ¶¶ 295, 305, 313.) However, in light of President Joseph Biden's Executive Order 14042 which requires vaccination against COVID-19 for certain employees of federal contractors, Rutgers recently announced that all employees must receive their final dose of a COVID-19 vaccine by January 4, 2022. Plaintiffs' Equal Protection claims have thus become moot because Plaintiffs are now treated similarly to Defendants with respect to the vaccination requirements and the Court can no longer give meaningful relief. See Joseph v. Johns, Civ. No. 04-139, 2005 WL 3447932, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2005) (“A case is moot when it no longer presents a live controversy with respect to which the court can give meaningful relief.” (quoting Florida Ass'n of Rehab. Facilities, Inc. v. Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehab. Servs., 225 F.3d 1208, 1217(11th Cir.2000))).

McCullough v. Gannett Co. (defamation claim dismissed)

 * McCullough v. Gannett Co. Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-1099 (RDA/LRV) (E.D. Va., Apr. 25, 2023)
 * Citing Offit, statements that "these kinds of expressed views are dangerous to the public and pure quackery" and "these people are pathological. These people are killing people" are statements that "cannot be reasonably interpreted as stating actual facts about an individual" and that statements that defendant "made multiple claims that are largely uncorroborated by the scientific community" and that "There is likely a good reason for his concern about losing certification" were "not factual assertions; they are couched in language that, when taken in context, indicate they are non-actionable". With respect to the "largely uncorroborated" statement, the court noted that goes on to discuss an example of how McCullough's claims are at odds with CDC guidance. October 6 Article at 2. Since the article in wuestion "disclosed the factual basis for its view" and that defendant "does not challenge the accuracy" of those facts.

Doster v. Kendall (military)
Doster v. Kendall, No. 1:22-cv-84 (S.D. Ohio, July 14, 2022),

{{quote}This action involves eighteen active duty and active reservist Airmen stationed across the United States ("Plaintiffs"). Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief from being required by the Air Force to receive the COVID-19 vaccine in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs and despite having applied for religious exemptions from the vaccine.

Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 13), which this Court granted in part on March 31, 2022.

...

An internal military decision is unreviewable unless two initial requirements are satisfied: (a) an allegation of the deprivation of a constitutional right, or an allegation that the military has acted in violation of applicable statutes or its own regulations, and (b) exhaustion of available intraservice corrective measures." Harkness, 858 F.3d at 444 (citing Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971)).}}

Vignali v. The City of New York (employee denied exemption before mandate lifted wants admin record cleared)
Vignali v. The City of New York, 2023 NY Slip Op 31352(U) (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 25, 2023)

On October 20, 2021, then Commissioner of the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene ("DOHMH"), Dr. Dave Chokshi, issued an order requiring all City employees to show proof of at least one dose of vaccination against COVID-19 by 5:00 p.m. on October 29, 2021 ("City Order").

The City Order require City employees to provide proof to the agency or office where they work that: (1) they have been fully vaccinated against COVID-19; or (2) they have received a single-dose COVID-19 vaccine, even if two weeks have not passed since they received the vaccine; or (3) they have received the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19 vaccine. The City Order required that any City employee not providing the above-described proof must be excluded from their assigned work location beginning on November 1, 2021.

...

On February 15, 2022, the NYPD advised Petitioner that his "reasonable accommodation request was DENIED." The NYPD provided the following reasoning: Petitioner's RA Request contained insufficient or missing religious documentation; Petitioner's written statement did not set forth how his religious tenets conflicted with the vaccine requirement and; Petitioner had no demonstrated history of vaccination/medicine refusal.

...

Petitioner argues that the denial of his RA Request will become part of his employment history and adversely impact him. However, respondents counter that the administrative determination is not a part of Petitioner's personnel file.

....

[Petition denied, case dismissed] ...

On February 6, 2023, New York Mayor Eric Adams announced that the City "will make vaccination optional for current and prospective city workers effective February 10, 2023, following the expected ratification at the next Board of Health meeting."

McKinley v. Princeton University (religious exemption granted, exemption from other requirements denied)
McKinley v. Princeton University, Civil Action 22-5069 (MAS) (TJB) (D. N.J., April 28, 2023)

On or about July 19, 2021, Defendant granted Plaintiff a religious exemption from its COVID-19 vaccination requirements.[2] (Id. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff then requested to be exempt from Defendant's COVID-19 policies (the “COVID-19 Policies”). (Id. ¶¶ 15, 18.) These policies included mask requirements, asymptomatic COVID-19 testing, and contact tracing. (Id.) In September 2021, Defendant denied her request for a religious exemption from the COVID-19 Policies. (Id. ¶ 19.) In response, one week later, Plaintiff filed a complaint of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission(“EEOC”) against Defendant. (Id. ¶ 20.) Shortly thereafter, Defendant terminated Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 21.)

...

Here, Plaintiffs Complaint does not identify or specify any religious belief that prevents her from complying with the COVID-19 Policies. (See generally Compl.) Instead, Plaintiff merely alleges threadbare recitals of a religious discrimination cause of action under Title VII and the NJLAD. (Id.) Without Plaintiff providing facts showing what sincerely held religious belief she holds that prevented her from complying with the COVID-19 Policies, Plaintiff fails to adequately allege a cognizable claim for religious discrimination, therefore, Defendant's motion is granted insofar as it seeks dismissal of Counts I and III. Plaintiff will be allowed an opportunity to amend her Complaint and allege with particularity a sincerely held religious belief justifying her objections or failure to comply with the COVID-19 Policies. To establish a claim for retaliation under Title VII, a Plaintiff must allege that “(1) [s]he was engaged in protected activity; (2) [s]he was [subject to an adverse job action] subsequent to or contemporaneously with such activity; and (3) there is a causal link between the protected activity and the [subsequent adverse job action].” Sarullo v. U.S. Postal Serv., 352 F.3d 789, 800 (3d Cir. 2003).

Here, Plaintiff s claims fail to adequately allege a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII or the NJLAD. Plaintiff does not allege that Defendant terminated Plaintiff in retaliation for violating or objecting to COVID-19 Policies and her Complaint contains largely conclusory allegations as to Defendant's alleged retaliation. (See generally Compl.) Even if the Court assumed Plaintiffs Complaint contains sufficient causal allegations, Courts in this Circuit have held that where a plaintiff opposes COVID-19 mandates by an employer under Title VII and is terminated, the plaintiff fails “to state a claim for religious discrimination ... or retaliation” without first alleging a sincerely held religious belief. Winans v. Cox Automotive, Inc.,No. 22-3826, 2023 WL 2975872, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 17, 2023).

...

Plaintiff fails to allege that Defendant terminated her employment due to her genetic information or that she was classified in a way that deprived her of employment opportunities due to her genetic information. In particular, Plaintiffs Complaint fails to allege any facts suggesting her saliva samples collected by Defendant for COVID-19 testing were actually utilized for any purpose other than testing for COVID-19.

Linne v. Alameda Health Sys. (ADA "regarded as disabled" denial)
Linne v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 22-cv-04981-RS (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2023)

Although she avers that Defendant misclassified her as disabled, a notation that Plaintiff is “unvaccinated” does not indicate that Defendant recorded Plaintiff as having a disability. See West v. Scott Lab'ys, Inc., No. 22-CV-07649-CRB, 2023 WL 2632210, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 24, 2023) (dismissing claim that Defendant misclassified Plaintiff “as having or being ‘vulnerable' to contracting COVID-19” as “[t]here simply is nothing to suggest that [Defendant] ever classified [Plaintiff] as having an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities”) (citations omitted); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(k)(2) (“An individual will be considered to have a record of a disability if the individual has a history of an impairment that substantially limited one or more major life activities when compared to most people in the general population, or was misclassified as having had such an impairment.”) (emphasis added).

M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc. (PREP Act immunizes administrator where parental consent was not given to vaccinate a child)
M.T. v. Walmart Stores, Inc., Nos. 125,151, 125,268 (Kan. App. 2023)

1. The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act immunizes "covered persons" from liability for any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration of a "covered countermeasure." 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a), (d) (Supp. 2020).

2. Failure to obtain parental consent by a covered person before administering the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to a minor has a causal relationship with the administration of the vaccine and is thus covered under the PREP Act.

This case tests the scope of immunity provided by the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act, a federal statute that protects those who administer pandemic countermeasures from liability. 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d (Supp. 2020). Other than providing a federal cause of action "for death or serious physical injury proximately caused by willful misconduct," the Act immunizes "covered persons" from liability for any claim for loss that has a causal relationship with the administration of a "covered countermeasure." 42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d(a), (d).

M.T. (Mother) sued Walmart Stores, Inc., and one of its pharmacists, Mark Schukar, after Schukar administered a Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to her minor child, M.K., without parental consent. The district court dismissed most of Mother's claims after finding they were barred by the PREP Act. But it did not dismiss Mother's claims based on defendants' failure to obtain parental consent before administering the vaccine.

[Held on appeal, all claims should have been dismissed.]

...

But these cases do not hold that the PREP Act does not apply to claims based on failures to act, as Mother alleges. Rather, the district court in each case found that while the Act applies to claims causally related to the administration or use of covered countermeasures, it does not apply to claims based on the failure to administer or use covered countermeasures.

...

Defendants also note that a federal district court has also recently ruled on the scope of the PREP Act, holding that the Act bars claims arising from the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine without consent. Cowen v. Walgreen Co., No. 22-CV-157-TCK-JFJ, 2022 WL 17640208, at *3 (N.D. Okla. 2022) (unpublished opinion).

In Cowen, the plaintiff alleged that she had been injected with a COVID-19 vaccine without her knowledge or consent after seeking a flu vaccine from a Walgreens pharmacy. The plaintiff argued that because her injuries could have resulted from any vaccination or other medical procedure, the PREP Act did not apply. In dismissing her claims, the district court held that the PREP Act applied because the plaintiff's alleged injuries were all the result of the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine. 2022 WL 17640208, at *3.

Pharmacy
Michał Byliniak, Vaccination in Pharmacies (Dec. 10, 2019), https://www.europeanfiles.eu/health/vaccination-in-pharmacies.
 * "Numbers from Ireland have shown that since pharmacists first started vaccinating in 2011, flu vaccine deliveries through the National Immunisation Office (NIO) have increased overall by 48%".
 * "Outside Ireland, many other established examples can be found across Europe where pharmacists are having a hands-on role in administering vaccines, such as in Denmark, Portugal, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. In addition to administering flu vaccinations, community pharmacists administer other vaccinations (for example, pneumo- coccal, shingles, human papilloma virus (HPV), travel vaccinations) in five European countries".
 * "France has been the most recent country in Europe (March 2019) that has allowed pharmacists to administer flu vaccinations in the pharmacy".

Daniel Stamboulian, et al., Policies and practices on pharmacy-delivered vaccination: a survey study conducted in six Latin American countries (June 15, 2017), https://www.ilaphar.org/en/policies-and-practices-on-pharmacy-delivered-vaccination-a-survey-study-conducted-in-six-latin-american-countries/
 * "In Argentina and Mexico the law that regulates vaccination in pharmacies is clear. In contrast, in Brazil, Chile and Colombia, the variability in responses highlights that there is not a common understanding of the governing laws".

End of year
Vaccination of employees can create a safer work environment, reduce absenteeism caused by illness, and reduce anxiety among employees about potential exposure to diseases. However, implementation of a vaccination program can also lead to a wide range of issues that can be minimized through awareness of legal restrictions and requirements and the implementation of best practices. Our service will provide the skills and knowledge necessary to evaluate the specific circumstances of any given entity, and to design a program aimed at maximizing the success and minimizing the potential liabilities of that program.

If employees are likely to experience occupational exposure to bloodborn pathogens, the employer is required to maintain an Exposure Control Plan including the employer's "schedule and method of implementation for... Hepatitis B Vaccination and Post-Exposure Evaluation and Follow-up." 1910.1030(c)(1)(ii)(B).

1910.1030(f) Hepatitis B Vaccination and Post-exposure Evaluation and Follow-up - 1910.1030(f)(1) General. 1910.1030(f)(1)(i) The employer shall make available the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series to all employees who have occupational exposure, and post-exposure evaluation and follow-up to all employees who have had an exposure incident. 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii) The employer shall ensure that all medical evaluations and procedures including the hepatitis B vaccine and vaccination series and post-exposure evaluation and follow-up, including prophylaxis, are: 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii)(A) Made available at no cost to the employee; 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii)(B) Made available to the employee at a reasonable time and place; 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii)(C) Performed by or under the supervision of a licensed physician or by or under the supervision of another licensed healthcare professional; and 1910.1030(f)(1)(ii)(D) Provided according to recommendations of the U.S. Public Health Service current at the time these evaluations and procedures take place, except as specified by this paragraph (f). 1910.1030(f)(1)(iii) The employer shall ensure that all laboratory tests are conducted by an accredited laboratory at no cost to the employee. 1910.1030(f)(2) Hepatitis B Vaccination. 1910.1030(f)(2)(i) Hepatitis B vaccination shall be made available after the employee has received the training required in paragraph (g)(2)(vii)(I) and within 10 working days of initial assignment to all employees who have occupational exposure unless the employee has previously received the complete hepatitis B vaccination series, antibody testing has revealed that the employee is immune, or the vaccine is contraindicated for medical reasons. 1910.1030(f)(2)(ii) The employer shall not make participation in a prescreening program a prerequisite for receiving hepatitis B vaccination. 1910.1030(f)(2)(iii) If the employee initially declines hepatitis B vaccination but at a later date while still covered under the standard decides to accept the vaccination, the employer shall make available hepatitis B vaccination at that time. 1910.1030(f)(2)(iv) The employer shall assure that employees who decline to accept hepatitis B vaccination offered by the employer sign the statement in appendix A. 1910.1030(f)(2)(v) If a routine booster dose(s) of hepatitis B vaccine is recommended by the U.S. Public Health Service at a future date, such booster dose(s) shall be made available in accordance with section (f)(1)(ii).

1910.1030(h)(1) Medical Records. 1910.1030(h)(1)(i) The employer shall establish and maintain an accurate record for each employee with occupational exposure, in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020. 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii) This record shall include: 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(A) The name of the employee;

1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(B) A copy of the employee's hepatitis B vaccination status including the dates of all the hepatitis B vaccinations and any medical records relative to the employee's ability to receive vaccination as required by paragraph (f)(2); 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(C) A copy of all results of examinations, medical testing, and follow-up procedures as required by paragraph (f)(3); 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(D) The employer's copy of the healthcare professional's written opinion as required by paragraph (f)(5); and 1910.1030(h)(1)(ii)(E) A copy of the information provided to the healthcare professional as required by paragraphs (f)(4)(ii)(B)(C) and (D). 1910.1030(h)(1)(iii) Confidentiality. The employer shall ensure that employee medical records required by paragraph (h)(1) are: 1910.1030(h)(1)(iii)(A) Kept confidential; and 1910.1030(h)(1)(iii)(B) Not disclosed or reported without the employee's express written consent to any person within or outside the workplace except as required by this section or as may be required by law. 1910.1030(h)(1)(iv) The employer shall maintain the records required by paragraph (h) for at least the duration of employment plus 30 years in accordance with 29 CFR 1910.1020.

https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/biologics-radiopharmaceuticals-genetic-therapies/activities/fact-sheets/regulation-vaccines-human-canada.html https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/provincial-territorial-immunization-information/provincial-territorial-routine-vaccination-programs-infants-children.html World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Canada (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=CAN. Id. Id, http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=CAN. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Canada (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/canada. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01 Ontario's publicly funded immunization schedule https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01 https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/90i01 http://laws.gnb.ca/en/ShowPdf/cs/E-1.12.pdf B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto Syndicat Northcrest v. Amselem https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/healthy-living/canadian-immunization-guide-part-3-vaccination-specific-populations/page-11-immunization-workers.html#p3c10a1 https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/immunization/canadian-adverse-events-following-immunization-surveillance-system-caefiss.html http://www.cps.ca/en/impact https://www.quebec.ca/en/health/advice-and-prevention/vaccination/vaccine-injury-compensation-program/ World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, China (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=CHN. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to China (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/china. Id. Id. https://www.emergobyul.com/resources/europe/french-agency-safety-health-products http://venice.cineca.org/documents/france_ip.pdf Article L3111-11-Vaccinations carried out by the institutions and organizations authorized under conditions defined by decree are free. Local and regional authorities may carry out vaccination activities under an agreement concluded with the State. This agreement specifies the objectives pursued, the categories of beneficiaries, the means implemented, the amount of the subsidy granted by the State, the data whose transmission to the State is mandatory, the methods for evaluating the actions undertaken as well as that, as the case may be, relations with other bodies working in the same field. Vaccinations carried out under this agreement are free. For the insured persons or their dependents, the expenses related to the vaccines are covered by the health insurance organizations to which they belong and, for the beneficiaries of the medical aid of the State, under the conditions provided for under V of Book II of the Code of Social Action and Families and in the manner provided for in Article L. 182-1 of the Social Security Code (see European Immunization Policy Database. http://venice.cineca.org/documents/france_ip.pdf  Code de la santé publique [Public Health Code]- Article L3111-2 [Internet]. [cited 2018. Oct 29]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do;jsessionid=373768AB4093719B6A89BB7E218723AE.tplgfr29s_1?idArticle=LEGIARTI000036393260&cidTexte=LEGITEXT000006072665&dateTexte=20180120 World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, France (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=FRA. Id. Id. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to France (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/france. Loi sur le financement de la Sécurité sociale (PFSS), l’article 49. Provision in the criminal code that criminalizes neglect of parental duties “to the point of risking the health… of a minor child”, with a fine of 30,000 euros and up to two years in prisons as penalty (article 227-17: “Le fait, par le père ou la mère, de se soustraire, sans motif légitime, à ses obligations légales au point de compromettre la santé, la sécurité, la moralité ou l’éducation de son enfant mineur est puni de deux ans d’emprisonnement et de 30 000 euros d’amende”. The new law removed the provision of the Public Health Code that foresaw a maximum of 6 months imprisonment and a 3750 euros fine for refusing to vaccinate children with vaccines mandated by law. Lévy-Bruhl D, Desenclos J-C, Quelet S, et al. Extension of French vaccination mandates: from the recommendation of the Steering Committee of the Citizen Consultation on Vaccination to the law. Eurosurveillance [Internet] [cited 2018; Oct 28]. Available from: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.17.18-00048 [PMC free article] [PubMed] https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/france-constitutional-court-confirms-legal-obligation-to-vaccinate-children/ Decision No. 2015-458 QPC, Epoux L. (Mar. 20, 2015), Conseil Constitutionnel website. Constitution du 4 octobre 1958, arts. 61, 61-1, 62 (as posted Dec. 13, 2013), LEGIFRANCE. Code de la Santé Publique [Public Health Code], arts. L3111-1 – L3111-3 (version of June 6, 2015), LEGIFRANCE.) Pauline Fréour, L’obligation vaccinale confirmée par le Conseil constitutionnel [Mandatory Vaccination Confirmed by the Constitutional Council], LE FIGARO (Mar. 20, 2015).  Conseil Constitutionnel, Commentaire, Decision No. 2015-458 QPC du 20 mars 2015 [Commentary, Decision No. 2015-458 QPC of March 20, 2015], at 3.  Id.  Conseil Constitutionnel, Decision No. 2015-458 QPC, Epoux L., supra.  http://www.hproimmune.eu/downloads/HProImmune_State_of-the-art-report.pdf  Vaccination Info Service.fr, Surveillance des effets indésirables des vaccins (Nov. 16, 2017), https://vaccination- info-service.fr/index.php/Generalites-sur-les-vaccinations/Qualite-securite-et-efficacite-des-vaccins/Securite-et-qualite-des-vaccins/Surveillance-des-effets-indesirables-des-vaccins (in French) (in the original, “qu’aux mêmes conditions de surveillance que les autres medicaments”). Id.   Public Health Code; Article L.10-1, Law No. 64-643 of July 1, 1964, as amended by Law No. 75-401 of May 26, 1975, Journal Officiel de la Republique Francaise, July 2, 1964, pp. 5762-5763, May 27, 1975, p. 5267  Rki.de. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Vaccination/recommandations/34_2017_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Small-Pox and Vaccination in Germany, 2 BRITISH MED. J. 26 (July 2, 1898). Handbookgermany.de. (2019). German Vaccination Schedule. [online] Available at: https://handbookgermany.de/en/live/vaccination.html [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Germany, (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=DEU. Id. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Germany (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/germany. Rki.de. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Vaccination/recommandations/34_2017_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Susan Scutti, How Countries Around the World Try to Encourage Vaccination, CNN, Jan. 2, 2018. Oltermann, P. (2019). German parents may face fine for refusing measles vaccination. [online] the Guardian. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/may/06/german-parents-face-fine-for-refusing-measles-vaccination [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Venice.cineca.org. (2019). [online] Available at: http://venice.cineca.org/documents/germany_ip.pdf [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Rki.de. (2019). RKI - Unit 33: Immunization - Unit 33: Immunization. [online] Available at: https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/Institute/DepartmentsUnits/InfDiseaseEpidem/Div33/Div33.html [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Rki.de. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.rki.de/EN/Content/infections/Vaccination/recommandations/34_2017_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Clare Looker & Heath Kelly, No-fault compensation following adverse events attributed to vaccination: a review of international programmes, BULL. WORLD HEALTH ORG. (Mar. 21, 2011), http://www.who.int/bulletin/10-081901.pdf (citing Protection against infection act (Infektionsschutzgesetz - IfSG), 1045; 20 July 2000. Berlin: Federal Law Gazette (2000)). https://www.nhp.gov.in/universal-immunisation-programme_pg https://mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/5628564789562315.pdf http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767418 https://www.nhp.gov.in/mission-indradhanush1_pg https://mohfw.gov.in/sites/default/files/Mission%20Indradhanush%20Guidelines.pdf http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767409 http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767410 http://www.indianlegislation.in/BA/BaActToc.aspx?actid=11899 http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767411 World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, India (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=IND. Id. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to India (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/india. Id. Id. http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767419 http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767420 http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767424 http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767424 http://www.bareactslive.com/ACA/ACT1177.HTM http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/haryana/1953/1953HR49.pdf http://www.lawsofindia.org/pdf/himachal_pradesh/1969/1969HP17.pdf http://theindianlawyer.in/statutesnbareacts/acts/v1.html#_Toc38767415 Dr Durga Nursing Home vs K. Dhanasekharan, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai, F.A. Nos. 1070/2011 and 683/2012 State of Gujarat and Others vs Shahenazbanu Ashrafali on July 13, 1995. Gujarat High Court. 1997 ACJ 176, AIR 1996 Guj 136 [Internet] [cited 2017 Mar 31] Resource Group for Women and Health and others vs Union of India and others (WRIT PETITON (CIVIL) NO 921 OF 2013) By Professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of UC Hastings. Public Health Ordinance, 1940, I.R. 1065, arts. 19, 20(1)(c), p. 191 (Isr.). The charter is available at: https://www.health.gov.il/Services/Committee/IDAC/Documents/Minuy01082018.pdf (It is, unfortunately, in Hebrew). https://www.health.gov.il/Services/Committee/IDAC/Pages/default.aspx National Health Insurance (NHI) of 1995. See also: ROSEN & KEITH KANEL, HEALTHCARE IN THE US AND ISRAEL: A COMPARATIVE OVERVIEW (2010), http://www.prhi.org/resources/resources-article/archives/monographs/86-monographs-1-healthcare-in-the-u-s-and-israel/file.

Vaccines for Babies and Children, STATE OF ISR., MINISTRY OF HEALTH, https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/Pregnancy/Vaccination_of_infants/Pages/default.aspx. https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/Pregnancy/health_centers/Pages/family_health_centers.aspx See: Israeli Ministry of Health, Guidelines on parental consent to the vaccination of their child in school (17/6/2018), https://www.health.gov.il/hozer/bz_062018.pdf. Note that efforts to mandate vaccines were made in the past, but were not enacted, for example Adopting School Entry Vaccination Requirements, HAIFA DIST. HEALTH OFF., MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Feb. 17, 2008), http://www.health.gov.il/Services/Committee/IDAC/Documents/CMV17022008.pdf (Isr.); Meeting Summary of the Advising Committee Regarding Infectious Diseases and Vaccines, Using Children Enrolment to Kindergarten to Improve Childhood Vaccination Rates and Integrating the HPV Vaccine to School Vaccination Program, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (Jan. 30, 2013), http://www.health.gov.il/Services/Committee/IDAC/Documents/CMV11022013.pdf (Isr.); Vaccination Program for Children, Adults and Health Staff, STATE COMPTROLLER OF ISRAEL (2014), http://www.mevaker.gov.il/he/Reports/Report_248/c51ffb79-e3a9-49b3-9654-8054462506ba/214-ver-4.pdf (Isr.). Public Health Ordinance, 1940, I.R. 1065, arts. 19, 20(1)(c), p. 191 (Isr.). Ido Efrati, Israel Bars 11 Children not Vaccinated for Measles from Preschools, Haaretz (January 15, 2019) (available at: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-israel-bars-11-children-not-vaccinated-for-measles-from-preschools-1.6846463). HCJ 7245/10 Adalah v. Minister of Welfare and Soc. Aff. (2013) (Isr.). Id. Passed Preliminary Hearing: National Immunization Policy and Incentivizing Vaccines Bill. Avaiable at: https://m.knesset.gov.il/news/pressreleases/pages/press21.11.18f.aspx Rotem Elizra, Daycares in Ramat Hasharon: No Vaccines, No Entry, YNET (August 8, 2018), available at: https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5324725,00.html. The initiative’s own site can be found here: https://www.mehusgan.org.il  Rotem Elizra, Vaccine Opponents: We will Sue the Vaccinated Daycare, YNET (August 23, 2018) available at: https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5333804,00.html World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Israel (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=ISR. Id. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Israel (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/israel. Reporting Side Effects and Drug-Related Adverse Events, STATE OF ISR., MINISTRY OF HEALTH, https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/PharmAndCosmetics/Pages/side_effects_reports.aspx. Vaccine Injuries Insurance Law, 5750-1989, art. 2-4. (Isr.). Vaccine Injuries Insurance Law, 5750-1989, art. 4(A) (Isr.). Vaccine Injuries Insurance Law, 5750-1989, art. 7 (Isr.) Vaccine Injuries Insurance Law, 5750-1989, art. 5 (Isr.). Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, History, https://www.pmda.go.jp/english/about-pmda/outline/0002.html; Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Regulatory Information Task Force, Pharmaceutical Administration and Regulations in Japan (2018), http://www.jpma.or.jp/english/parj/pdf/2018.pdf. Mhlw.go.jp. (2019). [online] Available at: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/wp/wp-hw4/dl/honbun/2_1_5.pdf [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Dennis Normile, Japanese court rules against journalist in HPV vaccine defamation case, SCIENCE MAGAZINE (March 27, 2019), https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/03/japanese-court-rules-against-journalist-hpv-vaccine-defamation-case. Norimitsu Kuwabara, M. (2014). A Review of Factors Affecting Vaccine Preventable Disease in Japan. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300546/#R19 [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Norimitsu Kuwabara, M. (2014). A Review of Factors Affecting Vaccine Preventable Disease in Japan. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300546/#R19 [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Sakanishi, Yuta et al. (2018). Public subsidies and the recommendation of child vaccines among primary care physicians: a nationwide cross-sectional study in Japan.[Online] BMJ PubMed Central (PMC). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300546/#R19 [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Norimitsu Kuwabara, M. (2014). A Review of Factors Affecting Vaccine Preventable Disease in Japan. [online] PubMed Central (PMC). Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4300546/ [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Japan (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=JPN. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Japan(August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/japan. Med.or.jp. (2010). [online] Available at: https://www.med.or.jp/english/journal/pdf/2010_02/111_117.pdf [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. Med.or.jp. (2010). [online] Available at: https://www.med.or.jp/english/journal/pdf/2010_02/111_117.pdf [Accessed 11 Oct. 2019]. By Professor Dorit Rubinstein Reiss of UC Hastings. World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Mexico (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=MEX. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Mexico (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/mexico. Section by Antonia Akwule, J.D., District of Columbia School of Law (2005). NPHCDA Annual Programme Implementation Report 2013. Current Trends of Immunization in Nigeria: Prospect and Challenges at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139536. BMC Public Health Published Online 2008 Nov doi 10.116/1471-2458-8-381. World Health Organization, WHO vaccine-preventable diseases: monitoring system. 2019 global summary, Nigeria (July 15, 2019), http://apps.who.int/immunization_monitoring/globalsummary/countries?countrycriteria%5Bcountry%5D%5B%5D=NGA. CDC, Health Information for Travelers to Nigeria (August 2, 2009), https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/destinations/traveler/none/nigeria. Id. Current Trends of Immunization in Nigeria: Prospect and Challenges at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139536. Current Trends of Immunization in Nigeria: Prospect and Challenges at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139536. Current Trends of Immunization in Nigeria: Prospect and Challenges at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139536. Current Trends of Immunization in Nigeria: Prospect and Challenges at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4139536. David Smith, “Pfizer pays out to Nigerian families of drug trial victims,” Guardian [UK] (August 12, 2011), http://www.business-humanrights.org/Links/Repository/1008065.

(anti-vaxxish website): A no-fault scheme involving 92 nations was set up in February with the support of the WHO to compensate persons who suffer a serious adverse event with a Covid-19 vaccine resulting in permanent injury or death without having to resort to the courts. Affected persons can apply to the scheme until June 30 of next year as long as the vaccine was administered in one of these nations and was received through the special facility for low and middle-income countries to access the drugs, known as COVAX. Jamaica received vaccines through COVAX, but it is not among the 92 that are eligible for this compensation scheme, because, unlike nations including the Caribbean islands of Grenada and St. Vincent and the Grenadines that received donations of vaccines through COVAX and whose donors pay a levy on each vaccine toward the compensation fund, Jamaica self-financed its vaccines through the program. https://18degreesnorthtv.substack.com/p/free-access-unlike-us-and-program

2023 E-Ee cases

 * Mone v. N.Y. State Unified Court Sys., 21 CV 6914 (DG)(LB), 21 CV 6915 (DG)(LB) (E.D. N.Y. Mar 22, 2023)
 * p. 2-3: New York State Unified Court System (“UCS”)-the Judicial Branch of New York State government-began a mandatory COVID-19 testing program for all judges and nonjudicial employees who had not submitted proof that they were fully vaccinated against the virus.
 * p. 4: On September 10, 2021 ... (UCS) sent a memorandum to UCS staff stating that all judges and nonjudicial employees were required to have taken at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, or to apply for a religious or medical exemption, by September 27, 2021 (hereafter the “vaccine mandate”). No. 21-CV-6914, Am. Compl. at 36-38; No. 21-CV-6915, Am. Compl. at 35-37. Employees who failed to comply would be “prohibited from reporting to work” and “may be considered absent without authorization,” with continued noncompliance resulting in possible “disciplinary action, up to and including termination.”
 * p. 7: The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate plaintiffs' claims for employment discrimination and retaliation under the ADA because they are barred by state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Boiled down to its most basic understanding, the doctrine of state sovereign immunity means that federal “courts may not ordinarily hear a suit brought by any person against a nonconsenting State.” Torres v. Texas Dep't of Pub. Safety, 142 S.Ct. 2455, 2461-62 (2022).
 * p. 13: In enacting the Rehabilitation Act, Congress exercised its authority to condition receipt of federal funds (as defined by the Act) on a waiver of sovereign immunity. T.W., 996 F.3d at 92 (citing Garcia v. S.U.N.Y. Health Scis. Ctr. of Brooklyn, 280 F.3d 98, 113 (2d Cir. 2001) and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-7 (“A state shall not be immune under the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution of the United States from suit in Federal Court for a violation of section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973[.]”)). Assuming defendant has accepted federal funds and waived sovereign immunity to a claim under the Rehabilitation Act,[14] plaintiffs' Amended Complaints fail to state a claim for discrimination or retaliation and defendant's motions to dismiss should be granted.
 * p. 17: While the Court empathizes with plaintiffs, who were terminated after many years of dedicated service to the UCS, plaintiffs are simply “mistaken” in their “belief that COVID precautions instituted to protect public health translate into a belief or perception that all people are disabled.” Linne v. Alameda Health Sys., No. 22-CV-4981, 2023 WL 375687, at *2 n.2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023). Plaintiffs therefore fail to plausibly allege that defendant regarded them as disabled.


 * Nanakumo v. N.Y.C. Health + Hosps. Corp., 23-CV-00314 (LTS) (S.D. N.Y. Jul 04, 2023)
 * p. 1: In his original complaint, Plaintiff asserted that HHC discriminated against him on the basis of his religion, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Plaintiff further alleged that the New York State COVID-19 Mandate in place at that time was, among other things, a “crime against humanity,” “patently and solely motivated by an un-American and antiAmerican tyrannical political ideology,” and a “Satanic policy.”
 * p. 2: Plaintiff names multiple defendants who were not Plaintiff's employer, and reasserts claims that the Court previously dismissed as frivolous.