Hospitals illegally firing nurses for refusing flu vaccines

gettingbsn2msn, MSN, RN · Jan 22, 2013

They are doing it where I am right now. I just finished a travel assignment with them, got the vaccine as required and now they will not hire me. This is a big hospital system that controls an entire city so no flu vaccine no job in this city. But they also don't want nurses smoking (I don't) but many nurses taking meds to get off smoking. They are the employers and they DO have the right to control what we do. If you do not like it you will not work--it is that simple.

Editorial Team / Admin · Jan 22, 2013

Employers have the right to set criteria by which their employees must abide. Don't want to comply with the criteria? Don't work there. Simple as that.

MunoRN, RN · Jan 22, 2013

First, it's not illegal. The doesn't actually require employers to honor religious beliefs, they just need a business related reason not to, an argument hospitals can make.

Second, opposition to vaccines isn't a religious belief. It's a personal belief held by people who sometimes also happens to be religious. Legally, religious beliefs have to be well established and commonly held within a particular religious group. The basis of a religion based opposition to vaccines is that preventing disease interferes with God's plan, which would then also mean one would have to shun healthcare in general to cite a religious opposition. A Nurse trying to argue that they consider the prevention or treatment of disease to be a sin is pretty much an opposing lawyer's wet dream.

AQEELSMOM · Jan 23, 2013

I looked up title vii of the civil rights act and your explanation makes sense. I'm not an American citizen, so can someone tell me whether the law protects an individuals right to make decisions about their own health care? And if so, why doesn't this carry over to protection in the workplace? It seems a little crazy to me that an employer could have such power over its staff that it could force them to take drugs/receive vaccines that they may not want, especially when there are many (noninvasive) ways of avoiding the flu.

Editorial Team / Admin · Jan 23, 2013

I looked up title vii of the civil rights act and your explanation makes sense. I'm not an American citizen, so can someone tell me whether the law protects an individuals right to make decisions about their own health care? And if so, why doesn't this carry over to protection in the workplace? It seems a little crazy to me that an employer could have such power over its staff that it could force them to take drugs/receive vaccines that they may not want, especially when there are many (noninvasive) ways of avoiding the flu.

The employer is not forcing anyone to take drugs or receive vaccines they do not want; if they do not want them, they are free to work elsewhere. The hospital is looking out for itself: fewer staff calling out sick, staff not infecting each other or patients because they come to work sick.

AQEELSMOM · Jan 23, 2013

The employer is not forcing anyone to take drugs or receive vaccines they do not want; if they do not want them, they are free to work elsewhere. The hospital is looking out for itself: fewer staff calling out sick, staff not infecting each other or patients because they come to work sick.

True they're not forcing anyone, they are just discriminating against those who don't want to comply.

Editorial Team / Admin · Jan 23, 2013

True they're not forcing anyone, they are just discriminating against those who don't want to comply.

This does not meet the legal definition of discrimination as those who choose not to receive vaccines are not a protected class.

AQEELSMOM · Jan 23, 2013

This does not meet the legal definition of discrimination as those who choose not to receive vaccines are not a protected class.

Which goes back to my previous question, why does the law not protect ones choices about their own healthcare? In the workplace specifically.

Could a hospital not then take it a step further and say, we don't hire obese people because they can't move as efficiently as fit people, we don't hire smokers because they take too many breaks, we don't hire people with a history of depression (unless they go on a pre approved list of antidepressants) because they might get sad and miss work?

MunoRN, RN · Jan 23, 2013

This isn't discrimination. Employers have the right to not employ those who refuse to meet the requirements of the job, which for Nurses includes complying with patient safety measures as defined by the facility and the organizations that guide them.

If I apply at McDonalds, but say that I have an ethical objection to serving or even being in a building that serves meat, they aren't discriminating against me for not hiring me. I don't have the right get paid for something I refuse to do.

Employers are required to make attempts to accommodate so long as there is not an undue burden on the employer, although they aren't required to move Nurses who refuse flu shots into non-clinical roles for 4-6 months out of the year.

There are measures that should be implemented in combination with vaccines, but they aren't alternatives to vaccines.

Editorial Team / Admin · Jan 23, 2013

Which goes back to my previous question, why does the law not protect ones choices about their own healthcare? In the workplace specifically.
Could a hospital not then take it a step further and say, we don't hire obese people because they can't move as efficiently as fit people, we don't hire smokers because they take too many breaks, we don't hire people with a history of depression (unless they go on a pre approved list of antidepressants) because they might get sad and miss work?

If I recall correctly, there is indeed a hospital out there that has been discussed on this board who has BMI restrictions on new hires. My facility tests for nicotine as a pre-employment requirement. If you test positive, you will not be permitted to work in the facility and cannot reapply for 6 months (and still must test nicotine free).

AQEELSMOM · Jan 23, 2013

This isn't discrimination. Employers have the right to not employ those who refuse to meet the requirements of the job, which for Nurses includes complying with patient safety measures as defined by the facility and the organizations that guide them.
If I apply at McDonalds, but say that I have an ethical objection to serving or even being in a building that serves meat, they aren't discriminating against me for not hiring me. I don't have the right get paid for something I refuse to do.[/Quote]
This isn't a fair comparison though. A nurse who doesn't receive a flu vaccine is no less capable nor less willing to do their job. It's not an issue of ethics here to me as I see it - it's an issue of autonomy over ones body and what one chooses to put in ones body.
Employers are required to make attempts to accommodate so long as there is not an undue burden on the employer, although they aren't required to move Nurses who refuse flu shots into non-clinical roles for 4-6 months out of the year.
There are measures that should be implemented in combination with vaccines, but they aren't alternatives to vaccines.
But don't flu vaccines only protect one from certain strains of flu? And this is besides the fact that no one knows whether someone is going to even get the flu or not.
Are these kinds of decisions based on any kind of studies, or just purely preventative "just in case" measures?