Nurse: 'I was fired for refusing flu shot'

Nurses COVID

Published

Respectfully, the hospital is not forcing you to do anything. They are making a voluntary action a condition of employment. Unless case law or legal precedent can be provided, I will stand by my assertion that an employer is well within its legal rights to require certain things as conditions of employment.

There are several lawsuits under way in Washington, to my knowledge, and in New York, a judge halted their ability to mandate vaccinations - at that time, it was for medical contraindications, but last I heard, the Supreme Court put a full hold on mandatory vaccinations in the state until the lawsuit was finished.

I believe the majority of 'precedent' is set in cases involving Title VII of the civil rights acts of 1964 - that you cannot force someone into vaccinations or medications if their religious beliefs disallow it. There is also a precedent more recently in 2007, in Virginia (the Mason Hospital, I believe) in which the nurses that were fired for not receiving the vaccines won the case. There are plenty of cases in several states if you wish to look into them. In fact, it's been a pretty consistently held precedent for decades, so I'm questioning whether you've looked into it at all, or just wanted someone else to bring you the case studies.

Specializes in Vents, Telemetry, Home Care, Home infusion.

Without a valid written contact and violation of US laws, employers may change conditions of employment to meet their business needs.

Not after the fact, they can't! If it isn't a condition of employment when you are hired then they are opening themselves to massive wrongful termination suits by trying to force it in later. (Yes, even in "at will" employment.) And I wouldn't agree to any employment situation that made me open to having to accept whatever chemical they wanted injected in to me at any time as a condition of employment.

Again, people are not thinking here. There are far more reliable means to protecting our patients than the flu shot. And none of them force a person to accept a foreign substance injected into their body.

Elisabeth Halligan, RN

Just a note, not thinking like you does not equal "not thinking". There are many ways to protect against things. I will also note that I have not even addressed whether or not I am in favor of flu shots. you ought not assume things.

As someone who has some experience with this sort of thing, policy can be changed at any time. One who was hired before policy changed does not get an indefinite "pass" from having to adhere to policy. People can bring suit for whatever they like, it doesn't mean it is founded in law or will even be allowed to progress to trial and if it does, does not mean it will win. The fact that people may bring suit is really a red herring in this debate, as it doesn't change an employer's rights one iota.

I am glad you have beliefs that you strongly support and would refuse to work in such a place. I support your right to stand up for what you believe as much as I do any employer to do the same.

Specializes in Pediatrics, Rural, L&D, Postpartum.
Just a note, not thinking like you does not equal "not thinking". There are many ways to protect against things. I will also note that I have not even addressed whether or not I am in favor of flu shots. you ought not assume things.

As someone who has some experience with this sort of thing, policy can be changed at any time. One who was hired before policy changed does not get an indefinite "pass" from having to adhere to policy. People can bring suit for whatever they like, it doesn't mean it is founded in law or will even be allowed to progress to trial and if it does, does not mean it will win. The fact that people may bring suit is really a red herring in this debate, as it doesn't change an employer's rights one iota.

I am glad you have beliefs that you strongly support and would refuse to work in such a place. I support your right to stand up for what you believe as much as I do any employer to do the same.

Amazingly, stating "people are not thinking" (a general statement) is not the same as saying that you specifically aren't thinking. I wasn't responding JUST to you. It was to the thread as a whole.

As a previous poster noted, so far the times that it HAS been brought to trial, the courts have found in favor of the rights of individuals to not have their bodily integrity violated by an injection of foreign substances.

We aren't talking about changing company policy to make it so that all nurses wear one color, all PCTs another, all respiratory a third and so on....

We are talking about forcing an individual to have a foreign substance injected INTO their body against their will... and we are talking about doing so in a situation where (1) there is no proof that by doing so patients will necessarily be safer and (2) there is a risk of bodily injury and harm to the individual being forced (and before anyone goes off on how there are medical exemptions... not all side effects and reactions are predictable or known beforehand.)... and (3) there are acceptable alternatives that have borne up under scientific scrutiny as to actually demonstrate a protective benefit to the patient (the supposed intent) without violating the rights of the individual employee.

Amazingly, stating "people are not thinking" (a general statement) is not the same as saying that you specifically aren't thinking. I wasn't responding JUST to you. It was to the thread as a whole.

As a previous poster noted, so far the times that it HAS been brought to trial, the courts have found in favor of the rights of individuals to not have their bodily integrity violated by an injection of foreign substances.

We aren't talking about changing company policy to make it so that all nurses wear one color, all PCTs another, all respiratory a third and so on....

We are talking about forcing an individual to have a foreign substance injected INTO their body against their will... and we are talking about doing so in a situation where (1) there is no proof that by doing so patients will necessarily be safer and (2) there is a risk of bodily injury and harm to the individual being forced (and before anyone goes off on how there are medical exemptions... not all side effects and reactions are predictable or known beforehand.)... and (3) there are acceptable alternatives that have borne up under scientific scrutiny as to actually demonstrate a protective benefit to the patient (the supposed intent) without violating the rights of the individual employee.

And I would, respectfully, again ask for documentation of this being brought to trial and the outcome.

Specializes in Pediatrics, Rural, L&D, Postpartum.
And I would, respectfully, again ask for documentation of this being brought to trial and the outcome.

Well, the previous post listed the exact law and the lawsuits brought forth under it and the latest case. Feel free to look them up at any time.

In the meantime, I am going reiterate my premise of bodily integrity.

Could you imagine the hullaballoo and lawsuits that would ensue if we forced, as a condition of entering the hospital, every patient to accept a flu shot? That is because bodily integrity is sancrosanct.

The proposed remedy (the flu shot) is medically invasive. It is not proven to confer the benefits to the patients that is claimed. There are less invasive measures that are proven to confer those benefits.

NOT THAT I CONDONE/RECOMMEND/LIKE false documentation but, when it comes to my rights, eh..........to heck with the rest of em.

At a hospital near me, they started to try the same iron fisted approach the OP and some others are talking about. IDK why, but they seemed to have an awful lot of nurses who didn't want to. None of them did either, and they did not lose their jobs. Its this simple:

Go to an immunization clinic (Drug store like Ekerd, one of the many that set up shop in Wal-Mart or other retailers), pay for the shot, get your paperwork, then turn it down. The people working there know what is up, will even offer a refund half the time, but almost never ask for the paperwork back.

At the hospital near me that was feeling its oats about making people get the shot, they ended up changing gears and taking a more "We strongly suggest getting the flu shot" attitude. Turns out too many people were so turned off by their iron fist approach, everyone called their bluff and said "No". Too many in fact. Still, the people who really didn't want it that feared for their job simply went to a clinic and paid for it but.........well...............

Apparently you DO condone and even recommend false documentation as long as you see it as protecting your "rights". How is that not fraud? I cannot imagine that this is legal and therefore I certainly hope that no one takes your advice.

The Virginia case is the only one I have found that reached any conclusion. It is extraneous to our argument here, though, in that only nurses who have a legally binding union contract are exempt. That is obvious that anyone with a contract could not have the new policy enforced upon them in any field. However, if it isn't implemented in the next contract, the employer need not offer them the same contract again.

On another line of thinking, who is saying the only reason for the flu shot is to protect patients? IMO, health care facilities are places where people are more likely to come in contact with various flu strains. Would requiring a flu shot for nurses not also be a way of trying to maintain productivity of the nursing staff?

Specializes in Pediatrics, Rural, L&D, Postpartum.
Apparently you DO condone and even recommend false documentation as long as you see it as protecting your "rights". How is that not fraud? I cannot imagine that this is legal and therefore I certainly hope that no one takes your advice.

Agreed. I'd far rather see people standing up for the right to bodily integrity than "play along" with a facade and charade. There are legitimate reasons that all states have some form of "opt-out" for vaccinations.

Where does it stop? If the government (or our employers) can mandate that substances be injected into our bodies whether we want them or not, where does it stop?

I have seven children. I know plenty of people who think that it should be within the rights of the government to violate my bodily integrity by mandating that I be forced to accept sterilization or chemical birth control "for the good of the world, which is so over-populated". There are other governments in this world who do just that, along with forced abortions.

While at this time, this may seem a stretch in the U.S., once we open the door to say that the government or our employers or so on have the right to violate our bodily integrity "for the greater good".... we are opening the door to that type of tyranny.

The people in the beds wouldn't be exposed if the nurses were actually allowed to call out sick! Don't get me wrong I'm not condoning abuse of calling off, but my hospital has a very strict policy and even if you have a Dr. excuse it's not an excused absence. I have never had a flu shot in the 13 years that I have been in healthcare... never had the flu either. It's my constitutional right not to inject something into my body if I don't want it. Personally I think that the flu vaccine is a gimmick, and a crap shoot. The virus changes each year and who knows if the shot actually covers what's going around. Just another money making scheme from the drug companies if you ask me. Nope, I'll take my chances and follow good old fashion universal precautions, cause it hasn't failed me so far.

Please let me know which part of the constitution details out the right to not "inject something in to your body"

Then show me in the the constitution where it says that employers are required to employ you.

This isn't a case of constitutional rights. Employers are allowed to set conditions of employment....some hospitals establish being immunized as a condition of employment. That is their right. There is no government agency holding people down and forcing vaccinations on them....this is just a case of an employer setting a condition of employment. Any who do not wish to be vaccinated are free to not be vaccinated and work elsewhere.

Specializes in Pediatrics, Rural, L&D, Postpartum.
The Virginia case is the only one I have found that reached any conclusion. It is extraneous to our argument here, though, in that only nurses who have a legally binding union contract are exempt. That is obvious that anyone with a contract could not have the new policy enforced upon them in any field. However, if it isn't implemented in the next contract, the employer need not offer them the same contract again.

On another line of thinking, who is saying the only reason for the flu shot is to protect patients? IMO, health care facilities are places where people are more likely to come in contact with various flu strains. Would requiring a flu shot for nurses not also be a way of trying to maintain productivity of the nursing staff?

My employer has the right to insist that I be productive and work within the rules in terms of allowed sick days and time off. It does not have the right to tell me HOW I must protect my health.

Specializes in Pediatrics, Rural, L&D, Postpartum.
Please let me know which part of the constitution details out the right to not "inject something in to your body"

Then show me in the the constitution where it says that employers are required to employ you.

This isn't a case of constitutional rights. Employers are allowed to set conditions of employment....some hospitals establish being immunized as a condition of employment. That is their right. There is no government agency holding people down and forcing vaccinations on them....this is just a case of an employer setting a condition of employment. Any who do not wish to be vaccinated are free to not be vaccinated and work elsewhere.

And if it was not made a condition of employment when that person was hired, that person has a case for wrongful termination. A good employee who does their job faithfully and well, abides by universal precautions (which actually DOES protect patients) and does not exceed their company's policies in terms of sick days, absences, etc., and who, at their time of hire, was not required to accept mandatory vaccination, has a good case. Whether it would succeed or not is up to the courts... (obviously, if it was made clear at the time of hiring that the policy was mandatory vaccination, the employee would have no right to complain.)

... and if the employee IS doing all of those things... the employer is being more than a little stupid in firing them for not wanting a vaccination.

+ Add a Comment