The Lieb Cast answers the following questions about Biden's employment vaccine mandate in the latest podcast: 

1. Can Biden / OSHA issue an Executive Order / Regulation mandating employment vaccines? 
2. Can the Federal Congress issue a statute mandating employment vaccines or is that a state's rights issue?
3. What is the precedent for an individual state to issue a vaccine mandate and would it be upheld?
4. Does it matter if an individual state's Governor or Legislature issued an employment vaccine mandate for enforceability?
5. How does a sincerely held religious belief against vaccines avoid employment vaccine mandates?
6. How can employers refuse an accommodation who has a disability or sincerely held belief and requests to avoid an employment vaccine mandate?

Plus, we discuss brisket, ice cream, 9/11, Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur, horse dewormers, and most importantly, we break down the hiring / staffing issues faced by employers everywhere.

Link to Podcast: https://www.listentolieb.com/876124/9172946-legal-breakdown-and-analysis-of-biden-s-employment-vaccine-mandate

Landlords and brokers should pay close attention to Long Island Housing Servs. Inc. v. NPS Holiday Square LLC in the Eastern District of New York. 

This case addressed whether minimum income requirements for rentals are discriminatory. 

What do you think?

Should a landlord be able to screen tenants based on their income?

The landlords in this case utilize "a two-to-one income requirement, which generally requires applicants without housing vouchers to have an income double the monthly rent." If they have vouchers, the vouchers are credited "as one month's rent and [the] applicants [] have [to have] an income equal to between 80 percent and 100 percent of one month's rent." 

To be discriminatory, this policy would have to have "'a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact' on housing voucher users." 

Currently the plaintiffs and defendants are battling over experts, but this case is going to teach landlords, brokers, property managers, and the like how to frame their policies moving forward. 

So, keep a close eye on this one. 

The New York State Supreme Court (lowest level court with jurisdiction) issued a temporary restraining order until the sooner of a hearing or 9/22/21 concerning New York City's vaccine mandate for public education employees who instead argue for a Vax-Or-Test policy. 

To see the arguments yourself, in The New York City Municipal Labor Committee et al vs. The City of New York et al, click here. 

Specifically, the Order, at issue, "requires [vaccines for] all DOE staff, City employees, and contractors who 'work in person in a DOE school setting or DOE building'; and '[a]ll employees of any school serving students up to grade 12 and any UPK-3 or UPK-4 program that is located in a DOE building who work in-person, and all contractors hired by such schools or programs to work in-person' to – no later than September 27, 2021"

The teachers union makes three arguments against the Order, as follows:

• "[B]odily integrity and the right to refuse medical treatment;"
• A violation of "due process rights" because it prevents "permanently-appointed DOE and City employees declining vaccination from engaging in their employment;" and 
• It "fails to provide required exceptions for those with medical contraindications or sincerely-held religious objections". 

The best argument is clearly the third because "DOE has advised that it will not allow those with medical or religious exceptions – should those be accepted – to continue working in person under a strict testing regimen, or remotely with those students receiving remote instructions. Nor is it clear at this stage how those who refuse vaccination will be treated as to leaves, benefits, and other statutory rights." 

While DOE may be able to refuse a given accommodation request that results in an employee working in a building, accommodations must be decided on a case-by-case basis, under binding law, and therefore, such a blanket policy is legally problematic. 

As we've been suggesting from the outset, NYC Government should negotiate with the Union as to appropriate accommodations. Think about it like a class action of the cooperative dialogue (required mediation following an accommodation request under NYC employment discrimination law).

Otherwise, NYC Government will continuously find itself engaging in individualized cooperative dialogues with each employee that requests an accommodation. That is a financially infeasible result for NYC plus it will cause many teachers to bring suit following each cooperative dialogue. All of this can and should be amicably resolved through advance negotiations by giving the Unions a seat at the table.

In an effort to further provide adequate COVID-19 safety protocols for federal contractors and subcontractors, on September 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14042, requiring federal agencies to ensure that contractor and subcontractor contracts contain a clause requiring contractors and subcontractors to comply with all guidance for workplace locations published by the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force ("SFWTF").

President Biden established the SFWTF in order to provide guidance to the heads of Federal Govt. agencies on employee safety during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. By September 24, 2021, the SFWTF will provide explanations of protocols required of contractors and subcontractors to ensure workplace safety compliance at workplace locations. Stay tuned for further information as it becomes available. 

It appears that Executive Order 14042 goes hand-in-hand with Executive Order 14043, also signed by President Biden on September 9, 2021, which requires COVID-19 vaccinations for all federal employees, subject to certain exceptions. Additionally, by September 16, 2021, the SFWTF is required to provide guidance to federal agencies who must implement a program requiring COVID-19 vaccination for its employees. Stay tuned for our analysis of that guidance as well. 

Clearly, President Biden has taken drastic steps in an attempt to slow down the spread of the ongoing COVID-19 virus. 

It will be interesting to see what guidance protocols the SFWTF comes up with over the course of this month - do you think it will be challenged in court? 

Stay tuned...

We have been inundated with calls this morning, since Andrew Lieb's appearances on Fox 5, LI News Radio, and WFAN this past week so we thought it was important to put some general information out there for those seeking a vaccine exemption based upon sincerely held religious beliefs. 

To be clear, a sincerely held religious belief DOES NOT automatically get you an exemption from a vaccination requirement.

Instead, your religious belief will, at best, get you an adjustment (known as an accommodation) to a vaccine requirement if such adjustment does not create an undue hardship for your employer. 

Let's break that down a little further.

First, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) tells us what a sincerely held religious belief is means here. In summary, a sincerely held religious belief "concerns 'ultimate ideas' about 'life, purpose, and death.' Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not 'religious'," 

As a result, if you want to claim a religious exemption, DO NOT make vaccine mandates POLITICAL. Instead, make your objection to vaccines SOLELY about your vision for life, purpose, and death. 

Moreover, don't be defeated if you are not a practicing member of an organized religion or if your religious leaders disagree with your ultimate ideas. Specifically, EEOC tells us that "new, uncommon, [beliefs, which are] not part of a formal church or sect, [and] only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others" also qualify.  

That being said, there is another prong to the law that is being lost in the conversation today. 

An exemption to a vaccination requirement need only be given if it does not present an undue hardship to your employer.

Under federal law, employers are in the driver's seat because an undue hardship is anything that creates more than a de minimis cost. So, unless a worker works from home and wants to continue to work from home it will be a challenge to find a vaccine accommodation request that qualifies. Barriers, masks, tests, changed hours, modified locations, and the like will likely pose more than a de minimis cost and therefore, an accommodation request can be denied. But, that is ONLY under federal law. 

States, like New York, afford workers with more rights. In New York, a worker should receive an accommodation unless it imposes a significant expense or difficulty on an employer. That being said, accommodations that compromise the safety of others, such as co-works, customers, and the public, at large, always create undue hardships on employers. Therefore, workers should be highly conscious of public health when making their requests.

Putting this all together, a worker should carefully draft their accommodation request form and emphasize that they truly have a sincerely held religious belief by focusing away from politics and instead, on such issues as life, purpose, and death. Then, a worker's request should suggest alternatives to the vaccine such as limiting contact with others, regular COVID testing, and masking. Then, if the worker gets denied, they will have a good case for employment discrimination, which can and should be filed in court.

If that is the route that you are thinking, please hire a lawyer from the get go. Get any employment lawyer, at the start of it, because you are going to need to ensure that your initial accommodation request form (and other communications) do not kill your case before it's filed. You are also well advised to keep your politics out of it, out of social media, and away from your daily conversations. If you are truly seeking a religious exemption, politics aren't what is relevant, your right to worship freely is what matters.

The Federal Court for the Northern District of New York has enjoined vaccine mandates based upon sincerely held religious beliefs by way of issuing a Temporary Restraining Order in the case of Dr. A v. Hochul.  

Here is how the plaintiffs' argued that the vaccine violate their sincerely held religious beliefs - "vaccines [] were tested, developed or produced with fetal cells line derived from procured abortions." According to the plaintiffs:

 Johnson & Johnson/Janssen: Fetal cell cultures are used to produce and manufacture the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and the final formulation of this vaccine includes residual amounts of the fetal host cell proteins (≤0.15 mcg) and/or host cell DNA (≤3 ng).

 Pfizer/BioNTech: The HEK-293 abortion-related cell line was used in research related to the development of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

 Moderna/NIAID: Aborted fetal cell lines were used in both the development and testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Further, plaintiffs religious beliefs are that they "oppose abortion under any circumstances, as they believe that abortion is the intrinsically evil killing of an innocent" and follow "spiritual leaders... who urge Christians to refuse said vaccines to avoid cooperation in abortion and to bear witness against it without compromise" and finally, their "religious conviction [is] against involuntary or coerced vaccination as an invasion of bodily autonomy contrary to their religious beliefs."

To be clear, the case is far from over with the next court deadline for the defendants to respond being set at September 22, 2021 at 5pm. As of this moment, no preliminary injunction or permanent injunction has been ordered. At this stage, the court has merely granted a temporary restraining order, which prohibits the denial of "religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination" until round two of the case.

However, if you are the type of person who has a sincerely held religious belief against vaccination, you should use this case as your blueprint to request an accommodation.

NYC Council has enacted local law 1339-2019, which amends Title 21 of the NYC Administrative Code by adding section 21-142, requiring the DSS to provide CityFHEPS (a rental assistance program designed to help individuals and families find and keep housing) applicants with written notice about source of income discrimination at the time an applicant receives a shopping letter from the DSS. 

The notice would provide information about protections under the NYC Human Rights Law related to source of income discrimination.  

The notice will provide the following: 

• Examples of phrases that may indicate discrimination based on lawful source of income.
• A statement that it is illegal for landlords, brokers, and other housing agents to request additional payments for rent, security deposit, or broker's fee because an individual receives rental assistance.
• A statement that it is illegal for landlords, brokers, and other housing agents to publish any type of advertisement that indicates a refusal to accept rental assistance.
• A statement that an individual has a right to be free from discriminatory, harassing, or threatening behavior or comments based on individuals' receipt of rental assistance. 
• Contact information for the department's source of income discrimination unit.

Clearly, this local law significantly stops landlords from discriminating against prospective or existing tenants that qualify for source of income under the CityFHEPS program. On the flip side of the coin, the law undoubtedly benefits those receiving source of income from the CityFHEPS program and prospective tenant applicants of the CityFHEPS program, by greatly reducing the likelihood of landlord discrimination based on source of income, while also providing a method to report any future source of income discrimination. 

What's missing is that CityFHEPS recipients should know that they can file suit and get their attorneys' fees paid if they are victims of discrimination. While the BYC Council has made it clear that source of income discrimination will not be tolerable on any level, are landlords prepared to avoid claims of discrimination?  

Landlords - what are you doing to enact policies so your teams don't discriminate?