Legal Status of Vaccine Mandates

01 December 2021 Blog
Author(s): Felicia S. O'Connor
Published To: Coronavirus Resource Center:Back to Business Manufacturing Industry Advisor Labor & Employment Law Perspectives

As the COVID pandemic nears the two year mark, manufacturing employers, like many employers, face a complicated and quickly changing legal landscape with respect to COVID protocols and requirements for employees. This is particularly true with respect to employer vaccine mandates. On a seemingly daily basis, there are new headlines proclaiming what an employer must do and must not do with respect to requiring employee vaccinations. Often, what is required one day, is prohibited the next. It is no wonder that one of manufacturing employers’ main challenges is trying to comply with a constantly changing array of federal, state and local rules, requirements, and prohibitions.

While early on in the pandemic it was generally understood that employers could mandate that their employees be vaccinated, since that time several states have imposed restrictions regarding employer vaccine mandates, including Texas, Montana, and Florida among others. As most manufacturing employers are aware, there are vaccine mandates imposed by the federal government for certain employers based on size, connection to the health care industry and federal contractor status. The federal vaccine mandates have all been subject to legal challenges.

With the respect to the vaccine mandate for federal contractors, on Tuesday, November 30, 2021, a Kentucky federal court granted a request for a preliminary injunction halting implementation of the mandate in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee. The court held that President Biden likely does not have the power to mandate that certain employees of federal contractors be vaccinated. While the preliminary injunction issued in Kentucky is limited to certain states, there are already similar challenges in other states and likely to be more developments on the horizon in the near future.

Similarly, for those manufacturing employers who are covered by the CMS vaccine mandate, which requires vaccines for employees that interact with staff at health care facilities that participate in Medicare and Medicaid programs, additional legal challenges have been launched. On Monday, November 29, 2021, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted a request for a preliminary injunction halting implementation of the mandate for Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota. The next day, a federal court in Louisiana entered a preliminary injunction for the CMS mandate on a nationwide basis, except for the states covered by the prior day’s injunction.

Finally, the Biden administration’s general vaccine mandate applying to employers with over 100 employees is also subject to multidistrict litigation and a preliminary injunction which stopped its implementation. After challenges by multiple states, and an injunction issued by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, the lawsuits were consolidated and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals was chosen to hear the challenges.

The preliminary injunctions implemented with respect to all three mandates are just the first step in the litigation process. These cases will all continue through the court system, with impending consequences for employers. With so many changes to the legal requirements affecting their businesses and employees, manufacturing employers must be sure to be in close contact with their legal counsel and stay up to date on the myriad of lawsuits and near daily updates regarding this quickly changing area of the law. 

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.


Related Services