Your browser does not support JavaScript
 Call Us: 513-533-2700        Send Us A Message  |    THIS IS AN ADVERTISEMENT
Facebook LinkedIN- SSP Firm Instagram



 

THE SSP FIRM BLOG

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OSHA Vaccine Mandate Effectively Nixed By U.S. Supreme Court
Wednesday, January 19, 2022

Authored by Joshua M. Smith and Matthew D. Soaper

This serves as an update to our November 19, 2021 post, “The OSHA Vaccine Mandate: Where it Stands and Where it’s Headed” and December 21, 2021 post, “Update to The OSHA Vaccine Mandate: Where it Stands and Where It’s Headed.” As a reminder, this post focuses primarily on the vaccine mandate to private employers with 100 or more employees. Other mandates, including for federal employees, federal contractors, and health care workers, are the subject of separate court actions. 

Supreme Court Reinstates Stay of OSHA Mandate

On Thursday, January 13, 2022, after its January 7 oral argument regarding whether to restore the stay of the OSHA vaccine mandate, the Supreme Court reinstated the stay initially ordered by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which was later lifted by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals following consolidation. What this practically means is that private employers with 100 or more employees are no longer required to comply with the OSHA Vaccine Mandate, until further notice.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that “OSHA has never before imposed such a mandate. Nor has Congress. Indeed, although Congress has enacted significant legislation addressing the COVID–19 pandemic, it has declined to enact any measure similar to what OSHA has promulgated here.”   The Court explicitly rejected OSHA’s authority to issue the mandate: “Although Congress has indisputably given OSHA the power to regulate occupational dangers, it has not given that agency the power to regulate public health more broadly. Requiring the vaccination of 84 million Americans, selected simply because they work for employers with more than 100 employees, certainly falls in the latter category.”  

The Court did seem to leave the door open for mandates targeted at certain high risk industries, stating, “[t]hat is not to say OSHA lacks authority to regulate occupation-specific risks related to COVID-19. Where the virus poses a special danger because of the particular features of an employee’s job or workplace, targeted regulations are plainly permissible.” While such targeted regulations have not been issued by OSHA to date, it is possible that the administration will take this approach going forward. Justice Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor all dissented.

CMS Mandate:

In another decision issued on January 13th, the Supreme Court upheld the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (“CMS”) Vaccine Mandate, which requires employees of healthcare facilities (that accept Medicare and Medicaid) to be vaccinated against COVID-19.  In that 5-4 decision, the Court found that Congress had authorized the Secretary of Health and Human Services to issue that Mandate. Thus, for healthcare facility employees accepting Medicare and Medicaid, the vaccine mandates remain in place.   

Next Steps

The Private Employer Mandate will now go back down to the Sixth Circuit and be stayed until there is a full hearing on the Mandate’s merits, which could be months from now. Until a decision is rendered following that hearing, the Mandate will remain on hold and not enforced. 

Practically speaking, the Mandate is now on life support with a slim chance of the Sixth Circuit going against the majority judgments of the Supreme Court.  Further, the stay of the Mandate will remain in effect during any subsequent review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision by the US Supreme Court, if the Supreme Court grants further review.  Given the language of the current Supreme Court decision, it seems highly doubtful that the Mandate will survive. 

The cases involved in the CMS mandate litigation will now return to the Fifth and Eighth Circuits for a full review of the applicability of that mandate. 

We will continue to update you as the litigation on the OSHA mandate for Employers with 100 or more employees proceeds forward, including any decisions by the Sixth Circuit if the Biden administration determines to proceed with the litigation. As always, employers are advised to consult with counsel before making any decisions concerning the vaccine mandates.



 
 

Blog Categories

  • The SSP Firm Blog
    • 04/28/2022 - Ohio’s Revised LLC Act Impacts
    • 01/19/2022 - OSHA Vaccine Mandate Effective
    • 12/21/2021 - Update to The OSHA Vaccine Man
    • 11/19/2021 - The OSHA Vaccine Mandate: Wher
    • 03/20/2020 - COVID-19
    • 07/25/2018 - 10 of the Strangest Employment
    • 05/17/2018 - Commercial Real Estate Financi
    • 03/30/2018 - Residential Core Law: Issues i
    • 03/06/2018 - Checklist for Protection of Se
    • 01/10/2018 - Why Your Ohio Business Should
    • 12/15/2017 - Is Your Deferred Compensation
    • 12/07/2017 - Business Succession Planning f
    • 11/08/2017 - 10 Common Items to Consider in
    • 05/27/2017 - Five Ways to Protect Your Busi
    • 05/25/2017 - The DOL Overtime Rules: A Caut

Tag Cloud
 

 
 
 

             
 ABOUT US OUR TEAM  SERVICES   BLOG  NEWS & EVENTS CAREERS  CONTACT US 

Request Consultation

               
2021 Best Law Firms Best Lawyers Best Law Firms 2020 2019 Best Law Firms 2017 Best Lawyers Florida State Bar Association
Super Lawyers 2020 Super Lawyers  Martindale Hubbell  



COPYRIGHT © 2022. STAGNARO, SABA, & PATTERSON. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED | TERMS AND CONDITIONS | PRIVACY POLICY

The Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson Co., LPA website is provided as a public resource for general information about our firm and a general overview and discussion of the subjects for which articles or blogs are posted. The material on this website may not reflect the most current legal developments and the content and interpretation of the law is subject to revision. Nothing provided nor disclosed through this website is intended nor should it be considered legal advice. As such, you should not act upon or rely on information disclosed or provided through this website without seeking professional legal counsel. Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson Co., LPA assumes no liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content on the site. The use and browsing of the site are at your sole risk. Stagnaro Saba & Patterson Co. LPA assumes no liability for any direct, incidental, consequential, indirect, or punitive damages arising out of your access to or use of the site or the information contained herein.

This website, including any inquiries that you send to us, does not constitute nor create an attorney-client relationship between you and Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson Co., LPA, nor is it intended to do so. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form or this website. Any information disclosed to us will not be privileged or confidential unless we have agreed to act as your legal counsel and you have executed a written engagement agreement with Stagnaro, Saba & Patterson Co., LPA.