Under Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine?
States and employers, under federal law, can’t mandate emergency use products such as the Pfizer and Moderna COVID vaccines. But that doesn’t mean some won’t try.
By: Greg Glaser, Esq. & Mary Holland
Are state governments and private employers about to mandate COVID-19 vaccines?
There are many opaque current and future legal issues around COVID-19 and the measures to contain it. Fortunately, because the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are emergency use products, and as such, not fully licensed, the law is clear: States may not mandate the vaccines, and private entities do so at the peril of violating federal law.
The law governing vaccines approved for emergency use
For the time being, there are only two COVID-19 vaccines available in the United States: the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and the Moderna vaccine. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has issued them both Emergency Use Authorizations (EAU) but not yet full vaccine licenses.
New York State Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal recently proposed a bill to mandate COVID-19 vaccines, but she apparently neglected to consult federal law on emergency use authorization.
“Emergency Use Authorization” means that any product with this designation must be voluntary. Under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, “Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies”:
(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —
(I) that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] has authorized the emergency use of the product;
(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
Under federal preemption doctrine, this federal EUA law trumps state law, meaning that states and municipalities may not mandate EUA products. As the FDA states:
“FDA believes that the terms and conditions of an EUA issued under section 564 preempt state or local law, both legislative requirements and common-law duties, that impose different or additional requirements on the medical product for which the EUA was issued in the context of the emergency declared under section 564 … In an emergency, it is critical that the conditions that are part of the EUA or an order or waiver issued pursuant to section 564A — those that FDA has determined to be necessary or appropriate to protect the public health—be strictly followed, and that no additional conditions be imposed.”
This was also confirmed in August 2020 at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where its Executive Secretary Dr, Amanda Cohn, stated (@1:14:40):
“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”
Governors may not mandate EUA vaccines, or EUA tests for COVID infection. States cannot override federal law or set up their own mandatory scheme. See for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570-71 (2001), which overturned a state public health law because it was already the subject of a comprehensive federal scheme to manage public health, and Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988). For more information on state and local law, see this Emergency Use Authorization Toolkit from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.
What about private employers?
A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital, cannot circumvent the EUA law. For example, this Fact Sheet approved last month by the FDA for the Pfizer vaccine states:
“It is your choice to receive or not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”
The previously referenced section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act governing medical products approved for emergency states that the FDA-approved fact sheet must state “the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product.”
Nowhere in the fact sheet does it specify that a person may be fired from their employment, denied education, disciplined or otherwise discriminated against for refusal.
With that said, the law on private entities is likely to be litigated. Even the most ardent advocates for COVID vaccines acknowledge that employer mandates would be “problematic” and would likely lead to litigation.
One of the initial issues in litigation would be that EUA law applies to “a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued.” While this phrase plainly refers to healthcare workers, i.e. those who vaccinate the public, it can also refer to anyone who participates in the EUA activity, such as employers requiring the product (see e.g., reference below to private employers as “program planners”).
The FDA even applies the term to those that advertise the product. So courts are likely to find that EUA law covers employers carrying out their own vaccination requirements, as well as states and municipalities.
But what if a private employer stubbornly refuses to heed the EUA law and attempts to require its employees to get EUA vaccines anyway?
Employers are likely to lose if challenged in court for the above-stated reasons, and also because the FDA did not issue an Emergency Dispensing Order to even attempt to circumvent EUA requirements.
Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that we found only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine, and the court held that the vaccine could not be mandated, even to people in the military. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5573 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005).
In that case, six soldiers challenged the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD), which at the time mandated EUA anthrax vaccines, often leading to what has been called Gulf War Syndrome. Six soldiers sued DOD to refuse vaccination and won. A federal court held that because the anthrax vaccine was an EUA product, the soldiers had the right to accept or refuse vaccination.
It’s a solid precedent showing that because a federal court upheld soldiers’ rights to decline EUA vaccines, it’s likely that courts would uphold employees’ rights to refuse EUA vaccines as well.
The FDA Fact Sheet for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine states:
“It is your choice to receive or not receive the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. Should you decide not to receive it, it will not change your standard medical care.”
In other words, people cannot lose healthcare coverage for refusal.
But again, what if a private employer mandates EUA vaccines anyway? Official statements suggest that the employer might lose liability protection against damages from vaccine injury.
According to the Congressional Research Service, private businesses are subject to civil liability unless they “acted consistent with applicable directions, guidelines, or recommendations by the Secretary regarding the administration or use of a covered countermeasure” [and] “private businesses may qualify as ‘program planners’ (and thus covered persons) when performing certain functions).”
EUAs for past medical emergencies are instructive. In 2009, when the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) declared the H1N1 virus emergency, the FDA authorized the emergency use of the drug Peramivir IV. The fact sheet stated that the healthcare provider should communicate to the patient:
The Secretary of HHS has authorized the emergency use of Peramivir IV, which is not an FDA approved drug.
The patient has the option to accept or refuse Peramivir IV.
About this articles authors:
Greg Glaser, Esq. is a vaccine rights attorney with a litigation and transactional law background. He is a graduate of UCLA and the University of San Francisco. As a lawyer, he is committed to protecting the fundamental right of informed consent, and is devoted to helping doctors write medical exemptions to vaccination, in compliance with SB277.
Mary Holland is President and General Counsel of Children’s Health Defense. She has been writing and advocating for better vaccine law and policy for many years, including while she served on the faculty at NYU School of Law from 2002-19. She is co-author of two books on vaccines, Vaccine Epidemic and The HPV Vaccine on Trial, as well as several law review articles.
Related COVID-19 Vaccine Articles
This article (Under Federal Law, Can Your Employer Make You Get the COVID Vaccine?) was published on The Defender and is re-published here by ‘contribution’ with attribution to the authors Greg Glaser, Esq. and Mary Holland and the website of origin childrenshealthdefense.org/defender.
TLB Editors Note: TLB highly recommends you click on the image (the Defender) below, visit this great website, and do whatever you can to help see this vital forum succeed … for the sake of our children !!!
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
Stay tuned to …
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.