Does the court ruling on mandates mean litigation to come?

Please move to proper category.

Now with Bidens mandate being "halted", does this mean that everyone who was denied a job, fired, denied services, ect have grounds to bring suit against not only the administration, but the entities that denied them of whatever it was they were denied.

If anyone privy to the law could break this down, considering the mandates were never fully enacted until just a few days ago, where it was argued against in a court of law by I believe 3 (maybe more) separate states as unconstitutional.

I would say there will definitely be a lot of litigation, not just by the states who have taken a stand against unconstitutional tyranny, but by many injured in many ways by the illegal mandates.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed
I would say there will definitely be a lot of litigation, not just by the states who have taken a stand against unconstitutional tyranny, but by many injured in many ways by the illegal mandates.

Yeah, I would even say the people who were denied service at a restaurant have grounds for litigation to proceed.. Even as basic as that, you're denying someone the right to eat based on an arbitrary mandate that is in question at this point..

Final unchallenged court ruling is necessary before any "merits" are established.

In the meantime, lawyers get rich again 🤣🦃🤣

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n
Please move to proper category.

Now with Bidens mandate being "halted", does this mean that everyone who was denied a job, fired, denied services, ect have grounds to bring suit against not only the administration, but the entities that denied them of whatever it was they were denied.

If anyone privy to the law could break this down, considering the mandates were never fully enacted until just a few days ago, where it was argued against in a court of law by I believe 3 (maybe more) separate states as unconstitutional.

I know nothing about the law but it seems reasonable that "we refuse to the right to serve anyone (outside of legally protected classes)" would cover restaurants as being vaccinated or unvaccinated is not a protected status.

As far as jobs, most places are at will employment, again with the exception being the very difficult to prove thing of being in a protected class as the reason for a non hire / termination.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
I know nothing about the law but it seems reasonable that "we refuse to the right to serve anyone (outside of legally protected classes)" would cover restaurants as being vaccinated or unvaccinated is not a protected status.

As far as jobs, most places are at will employment, again with the exception being the very difficult to prove thing of being in a protected class as the reason for a non hire / termination.

I suppose if they can show that unvaccinated people are a protected class. As defined:

"A group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from employment discrimination on the basis of that characteristic."

I personally think they'd fall into the category, as by the governments own definition of people that are unvaccinated are "harmful" to society, there-fore wouldn't that fall under a disability or creed class?

Definition of creed (non-religious context):
a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

This one may be a little more far fetched, but what about predisposed genetic characteristics? Considering the vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, would that have any issue in the technical sense..?

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
I know nothing about the law but it seems reasonable that "we refuse to the right to serve anyone (outside of legally protected classes)" would cover restaurants as being vaccinated or unvaccinated is not a protected status.

As far as jobs, most places are at will employment, again with the exception being the very difficult to prove thing of being in a protected class as the reason for a non hire / termination.

I suppose if they can show that unvaccinated people are a protected class. As defined:

"A group of people with a common characteristic who are legally protected from employment discrimination on the basis of that characteristic."

I personally think they'd fall into the category, as by the governments own definition of people that are unvaccinated are "harmful" to society, there-fore wouldn't that fall under a disability or creed class?

Definition of creed (non-religious context):
a set of beliefs or aims which guide someone's actions.

This one may be a little more far fetched, but what about predisposed genetic characteristics? Considering the vaccine is an mRNA vaccine, would that have any issue in the technical sense..?

Those characteristics are usually immutable. Vaccination status is not.

a reply to: AScrubWhoDied

Why does suffering from HIV fall under the purview of anti-discrimination, but say, having a medical condition that precludes one from getting vaccinated means that, for example, restaurants in NYC can refuse to serve you?

Do you not see the hypocrisy here?

Is it acceptable to refuse service to someone from say, Cameroon or Thailand or Peru that has never been inoculated against small pox, a much more lethal illness than COVID?

In the link above you'll see it's very difficult (rightly so) to discriminate against someone suffering from HIV because nobody is really supposed to be privy to a person's private medical history (HIPAA).

Suddenly, in the post-COVID world, it's OK for businesses or your employer to know about your COVID vaccination status, and it's OK to ban non-vaccinated people from you establishment.

But it's a civil rights violation to do the same from someone infected with HIV.

And last I knew, nobody goes around in bars or restaurants asking folks about their MMR and Polio vaccination status.

None of this right. Hopefully the court cases in progress start to re-establish some semblance of normalcy WRT to how we deal with folks' private medical data.

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

What I personally think is right or wrong doesnt matter as we are discussing law - which I know nothing about. I do know enough to know my feelings dont matter.

Can a restaurant refuse service to the HIV infected? I don't know. Can a restaurant learn that a customer is infected then proceed to refuse service due to the owner not liking his blue shoes? Yes.

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Now with Bidens mandate being "halted", does this mean that everyone who was denied a job, fired, denied services, ect have grounds to bring suit against not only the administration, but the entities that denied them of whatever it was they were denied.

No. Because, Biden's mandate hasn't been "halted" because it hasn't started yet.. It wouldn't even go into effect until January 4, 2022. So, no one yet has been fired or denied a job because of Biden's mandate on small businesses through OSHA.

One BIG issue is the mandate gives OSHA full inspection and enforcement power !!!!!!

And those people have Badges !!! 🚨🚨🚨

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

Now with Bidens mandate being "halted", does this mean that everyone who was denied a job, fired, denied services, ect have grounds to bring suit against not only the administration, but the entities that denied them of whatever it was they were denied.

No. Because, Biden's mandate hasn't been "halted" because it hasn't started yet.. It wouldn't even go into effect until January 4, 2022. So, no one yet has been fired or denied a job because of Biden's mandate on small businesses through OSHA.

I don't think that's entirely accurate.

Many businesses, including hospitals, have already set their own deadlines that preceded the Jan 4th date by months.

There have already been nurses terminated in hospitals around here for non-compliance.

IMO if this all turns around, and it's not a foregone conclusion at this point, there will be copious suits against businesses that terminated people well in advance of the Jan 4th date, and because of what you say (the president's order was for a specific date), those businesses will be hung out to dry for trying to comply with the Biden order, but since the actual order called for Jan 4th or whatever, there will be no recourse for businesses that jumped the gun (as they were technically not following the explicit date set in the federal mandate)

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

But at will though. A business can set whatever policy (within the law) they'd like.
Background checks as conditions of employment.
Credit checks.
Domain specific things like requirements to get and hold certification for X.

The list goes on. This has nothing to do with the government. The mandate can be completely killed and companies can still say get vax'd or get #ed.

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

But at will though. A business can set whatever policy (within the law) they'd like.
Background checks as conditions of employment.
Credit checks.
Domain specific things like requirements to get and hold certification for X.

The list goes on. This has nothing to do with the government. The mandate can be completely killed and companies can still say get vax'd or get #ed.

I've never heard of a company stipulating getting shots/vaccines as condition of employment, OTHER than say the medical industry. Maybe there are a few other exceptions out there, but generally, there is no requirement to report your medical history/status.

The law is not immutable, as we saw with the introduction of HIPAA in 1996 and subsequent legislation to stop employers from discriminating against, say, someone with HIV.

Just on the surface, is it really arguable that requiring a background check or references is comparable to asking someone if they're vaccinated against COVID?

I think you are accurate in the sense that there is a void of applicable laws on the books to keep private businesses from enforcing vaccine mandates, but depending on these ongoing cases, new precedents might set that change the landscape.

The next round of court challenges and appeals are going to be very interesting.

Mass Chaos and Public Confusion is developing 🎩

a reply to: SleeperHasAwakened

These lawsuits are over Biden's mandates and States' rights. It's not about the rights of private businesses to require their employees or their customers to be vaccinated.

Plus, there's this:
Federal Court Upholds Employer’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate www.natlawreview.com...

originally posted by: AScrubWhoDied
Those characteristics are usually immutable. Vaccination status is not.

As for creed?

a reply to: JimmyNeutr0n

These vax mandates are not ok. They are nothing more than coercion. Its not a surprise that the Biden admin is now going after small bossiness despite first going after larger companies.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Mass Chaos and Public Confusion is developing 🎩

Precisely what happens when branches of government cross their boundaries. All these mandates and rulings to my knowledge haven't been passed by legislative bodies, with the exception of maybe local ordinances...

All the sudden, governors and presidents are not only the executioners, but judges and authors of the law...

originally posted by: JimmyNeutr0n

originally posted by: xuenchen
Mass Chaos and Public Confusion is developing 🎩

Precisely what happens when branches of government cross their boundaries. All these mandates and rulings to my knowledge haven't been passed by legislative bodies, with the exception of maybe local ordinances...

All the sudden, governors and presidents are not only the executioners, but judges and authors of the law...

Screaming yelling mob rule !!!🦇