Accordingly, the university would have to prove that enforcing its vaccination requirement over the objections that it violated the students' free exercise of religion was justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored. The court acknowledged that the vaccine mandate would be subject to a rational basis review, however, the university's denial of the religious exemptions are subject to strict scrutiny review. In the underlying case, the students alleged that the university's denial of their requests for religious exemptions violate their free exercise of religion. All exemptions were denied on the basis that "prohibiting unvaccinated members of the team from engaging in practices and competition is the only effective manner of accomplishing this compelling interest.” All of the students requested exemptions from the policy on the basis of their religious beliefs. The students were subject to a vaccination policy requiring varsity athletes to be vaccinated by August 31, 2021. Plaintiffs in Emily Dahl v Western Michigan University are student members of the Western Michigan University women's soccer team.
#Rational scrutiny full#
Finally, the court found that the issue of EUA vaccine refusal was moot due to the fact that at least one vaccine had been granted full FDA approval by the time court issued its opinion.
The court also found that there was a presumption under Michigan law that the employee was at will and, therefore, she did not have a property interest in her job. The court refused to block the university's policy, acknowledging that that the 14th amendment permits universities to require vaccination to protect the public health of students, faculty and staff. of Indiana, to apply a rational basis standard (rather than the narrower strict scrutiny standard). In the underlying case, the employee asserted that Michigan State University's vaccination mandate infringed on her constitutional right to privacy, that she had a property interest in her job with the university and that she was required the opportunity to refuse the vaccination based on the vaccine's Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) statute. Despite the note, the university did not exempt the employee from the policy. The employee argued that she should be exempt from the policy because she previously had COVID-19 and she has a note from her physician stating that it is unnecessary for her to be vaccinated because she has natural immunity. The employee was subject to a vaccination policy requiring all university employees to be vaccinated by August 31, 2021. The plaintiff in Jeanna Norris v Michigan State University is a university employee.
Lessons from the decisions may assist universities and other employers in developing enforceable COVID-19 vaccination policies. The judge allowed one university's policy to remain in effect, but prohibited the other university from enforcing its policy. District Court for the Western District of Michigan issued two separate opinions on motions for temporary restraining orders requesting prohibitions against university enforcement of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. On August 31, 2021, Judge John Maloney of the U.S.
0 kommentar(er)
