8 ms·

NY Supreme Court reinstates all fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

32 points by typeofhuman 4y ago

typeofhuman 4y ago
Link to ruling, pdf: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JK5E3gx5XV1/ku37jnWR_PLUS_w==&system=prod&TSPD_101_R0=08533cd43fab20005be19f8f7eae7090d19c98790c8964dc6cde0268c28a9857ea50df0f17e1fca108ec17d8dc14480099af861d4b875d0d79995a3c86f6b0790c3e7cc160f5c7aa9917ebab619be21fae02aa46e7e0d9c222710fa80c2748190e1dc93d70fc61a1e7e6211778403b6f82bbe2602301fc36 https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet...
- JumpCrisscross 4y ago
  Interestingly, this ruling holds the Health Commissioner can issue vaccine mandates. What they can't do is create employment conditions, prohibit employees from going to work or terminate employees. Procedurally, the Health Commissioner could have created the mandate and then had the various departments go through their due process. (Though based on the vaccine being non-sterilizing, that mandate may not have held either.)
rogerkirkness 4y ago
Good. The Covid justice reckoning being unwound as expected.
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  Slowly but surely. The vaccine-free are due a well deserved apology (and compensation) for all the hate, torment, threats, and financial loss. Edit: downvotes without comments, feels like Reddit in here.
  - tricksforfree 4y ago
    - ben_w 4y ago
      I'm surrounded by holocaust memorials, in the city where I live. To me, reductio ad Hitlerum appears childish enough almost every time it's used, and it is disappointing to see people argue thusly while cheerleading for those who chose not to take a safe and effective treatment against an illness that has so far killed about 10% of all civilian and military deaths in WW2 combined, or 50% of the especially infamous genocidal deaths. It's not like the people who genuinely couldn't take the vaccine benefited from any of this.
      - tricksforfree 4y ago
        My comment in no way denigrates the experience of those affected by the Holocaust. It's merely to point out that even, "the people you should listen too" can be very wrong, especially when there's social pressure or regulatory capture behind the mandate.
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      - jlkuester7 4y ago
        > we will end the cycle by putting everyone who wanted concentration camps into their own camps Please tell me this is some clever satire! Solving the issue of "concentration camps" by putting people in camps seems like the very definition of repeating the cycle.... Amusingly, out of context, I cannot tell which ideology this comment is in support of (or opposed to). Modern polemics has caused public debate to become so disconnected from reality that it is little better than both sides merely shouting obscenities at each other. I suppose ad hominum is the next logical step.
        puffoflogic 4y ago
        I reject the claim that giving people exactly the kind of society they want (e.g. one which puts dangerous people into concentration camps) is merely "repeating the cycle". That is the rallying cry of those who do evil and then declare, "you can't punish me because that would be hypocritical!" "Do unto others as they publicly declare they want done unto society" does not continue any cycles. You can't apply the rule a second time and say, "well you put people into camps therefore you go into a camp", because the rule doesn't say "do unto others as they did unto you", but rather looks at what they advocated for. I wouldn't advocate for putting random "dangerous people" into camps; I only advocate for doing this to those who publicly declare it is to be done. What's unique about this rule is that I will more than happily submit to your application of it to me: because what that means is you will put me into the kind of society for which I advocate. That's exactly what I want! Everyone applying this rule isn't an eye for an eye as you imply; but rather a utopia where everyone lives in exactly the society he wants to live in. More realistic variants of this - can we curtail the free speech of those who campaign against free speech? I say yes. Can we declare to be thoughtcrime illiberal ideologies? Yes. A society which says, "anything is permitted, except explicit campaigns against this founding principle", is much more free in the long run than a society which permits itself to be co-opted by an opposite ideology.
  - chrsig 4y ago
    > The vaccine-free are due a well deserved apology (and compensation) for all the hate, torment, threats, and financial loss. They deserve nothing.
    - yucky 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - sn0w_crash 4y ago
    Do not expect any apologies. These people believe they are not only much smarter than you, they also have a moral superiority that was handed down from a state-run deity.
ganoushoreilly 4y ago
It's going to be interested to see how this impacts things like the national guard, whom are state employees. I expect lots of lawsuits in the coming years over mandated vaccination and the continued disclosures is going to make it worse. I fully suspect this is why the government agencies fought tooth and nail on releasing covid-19 vaccination test data. I'm vaccinated, but it's very clear a lot of what was presented wasn't just incorrect but materially false. That should concern everyone.
- samketchup 4y ago
  Nice to finally see people coming around
LatteLazy 4y ago
The logic in these rulings is very weak: being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection/transmission in the same way that being sober doesn't not guarantee you won't crash your car, it doesn't make drunk driving ok, especially for an employee...
- pexabit 4y ago
  It does not even discernibly prevent infection or transmission.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    Citation needed I think. Aside from mortality, those are the 2 main things you need from a vaccine...
    - pexabit 4y ago
      The many states and countries that had record outbreaks, the fact they were exceedingly well-vaccinated notwithstanding. (Vermont, Israel, etc. etc. this is pretty trivial to verify). It just does not prevent transmission. We know what it looks like as far as transmission goes for vaccines that work (smallpox, oral polio, etc.) This is not it. Just isn't.
      - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
        The further issue with a lot of this is that it was presented as having been validated as preventing spread from the beginning, which now Pfizer has stated did not transpire. It was pretty evident by early summer that it was not in fact doing that. It's a big piece of the narrative for forcing/mandating the vaccine and it's gone. Anyone questioning it immediately were lumped into the far right regardless of their reasons. It was bad medically and bad politically. The reality is it was needed to help comfort and calm the populous, it provided some efficacy, but ultimately should have been a personal decision. There's 0 chance we won't see lawsuits for the foreseeable future and honestly i'm still on the side of personal choice. You're right too, the vaccine never was on the level of "real" vaccines and we knew that, hence why they changed the legal definition to make it fit.
tssva 4y ago
The NY Supreme Court is not the highest court in NY. The NY Supreme Court is comprised of 62 local courts and this ruling came from one of them. The city is appealing this decision and it will next go to an Appellate Division court and after that can go to the Court of Appeals which is the court of last resort in New York.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  I always find it weird that in some states the "Supreme" court is the lowest court. Why did some states (like NY) name their courts this silly way?
  - czinck 4y ago
    It's called "Supreme" because it can hear trials about anything, as opposed to things like traffic court. Definitely confusing, but it's also significantly older than the US Constitution, so I can't fault whoever named it too much.
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      Yeah. It makes much more sense to me in jurisdictions that call that level of court a "superior" court instead. Calling any inferior court "The Supreme" court just seems absurd. I know, I know, the reason for smart people doing things that seem dumb now is always "learn the history", but still, it is just so strange.
eappleby 4y ago
In the end, both sides got what was probably best for them. Many people felt unsafe being around people that were unvaccinated during an especially dangerous time and the mandate helped to provide some protection for them. The people that were unvaccinated had to go through a lot of hardship, but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off. If you went back in time, this probably would have been the best option, even though both sides would have likely objected to it.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  > but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off That is dehumanizing BS. No compassionate human being could possibly hold this view. Going through the stress and humiliation of being fired for what turned out to be the wiser medical choice, and generally being unable to find a job for the same reason in a very uncertain economy, is not a vacation.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Avoidance was not (with very few exceptions) a wiser medical choice. If the effect on transmission had been zero (it wasn't zero, but it was lower than anyone would have liked), then it would absolutely have been their (unwise) choice to make. But it wasn't zero. 24% reduction in further transmission from the first dose of some of the vaccines, more powerful with more doses, less powerful with time. I'm not sure what threshold I'd use for making it mandatory in general, though I would still have a different threshold for doctors and nurses — even in an alternate reality where the available vaccines had zero effect on transmission while infected and the vaccines has been weaker and had more side effects, the healthcare systems in many nations were severely impacted and needed as many people as possible able to work.
    - puffoflogic 4y ago
      - ben_w 4y ago

32 points by typeofhuman 4y ago

Link to ruling, pdf: https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet?documentId=JK5E3gx5XV1/ku37jnWR_PLUS_w==&system=prod&TSPD_101_R0=08533cd43fab20005be19f8f7eae7090d19c98790c8964dc6cde0268c28a9857ea50df0f17e1fca108ec17d8dc14480099af861d4b875d0d79995a3c86f6b0790c3e7cc160f5c7aa9917ebab619be21fae02aa46e7e0d9c222710fa80c2748190e1dc93d70fc61a1e7e6211778403b6f82bbe2602301fc36 https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/fbem/DocumentDisplayServlet...

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
Interestingly, this ruling holds the Health Commissioner can issue vaccine mandates. What they can't do is create employment conditions, prohibit employees from going to work or terminate employees. Procedurally, the Health Commissioner could have created the mandate and then had the various departments go through their due process. (Though based on the vaccine being non-sterilizing, that mandate may not have held either.)

rogerkirkness 4y ago

Good. The Covid justice reckoning being unwound as expected.

typeofhuman 4y ago
Slowly but surely. The vaccine-free are due a well deserved apology (and compensation) for all the hate, torment, threats, and financial loss. Edit: downvotes without comments, feels like Reddit in here.
- tricksforfree 4y ago
  - ben_w 4y ago
    I'm surrounded by holocaust memorials, in the city where I live. To me, reductio ad Hitlerum appears childish enough almost every time it's used, and it is disappointing to see people argue thusly while cheerleading for those who chose not to take a safe and effective treatment against an illness that has so far killed about 10% of all civilian and military deaths in WW2 combined, or 50% of the especially infamous genocidal deaths. It's not like the people who genuinely couldn't take the vaccine benefited from any of this.
    - tricksforfree 4y ago
      My comment in no way denigrates the experience of those affected by the Holocaust. It's merely to point out that even, "the people you should listen too" can be very wrong, especially when there's social pressure or regulatory capture behind the mandate.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    - jlkuester7 4y ago
      > we will end the cycle by putting everyone who wanted concentration camps into their own camps Please tell me this is some clever satire! Solving the issue of "concentration camps" by putting people in camps seems like the very definition of repeating the cycle.... Amusingly, out of context, I cannot tell which ideology this comment is in support of (or opposed to). Modern polemics has caused public debate to become so disconnected from reality that it is little better than both sides merely shouting obscenities at each other. I suppose ad hominum is the next logical step.
      - puffoflogic 4y ago
        I reject the claim that giving people exactly the kind of society they want (e.g. one which puts dangerous people into concentration camps) is merely "repeating the cycle". That is the rallying cry of those who do evil and then declare, "you can't punish me because that would be hypocritical!" "Do unto others as they publicly declare they want done unto society" does not continue any cycles. You can't apply the rule a second time and say, "well you put people into camps therefore you go into a camp", because the rule doesn't say "do unto others as they did unto you", but rather looks at what they advocated for. I wouldn't advocate for putting random "dangerous people" into camps; I only advocate for doing this to those who publicly declare it is to be done. What's unique about this rule is that I will more than happily submit to your application of it to me: because what that means is you will put me into the kind of society for which I advocate. That's exactly what I want! Everyone applying this rule isn't an eye for an eye as you imply; but rather a utopia where everyone lives in exactly the society he wants to live in. More realistic variants of this - can we curtail the free speech of those who campaign against free speech? I say yes. Can we declare to be thoughtcrime illiberal ideologies? Yes. A society which says, "anything is permitted, except explicit campaigns against this founding principle", is much more free in the long run than a society which permits itself to be co-opted by an opposite ideology.
- chrsig 4y ago
  > The vaccine-free are due a well deserved apology (and compensation) for all the hate, torment, threats, and financial loss. They deserve nothing.
  - yucky 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  Do not expect any apologies. These people believe they are not only much smarter than you, they also have a moral superiority that was handed down from a state-run deity.

ganoushoreilly 4y ago

It's going to be interested to see how this impacts things like the national guard, whom are state employees. I expect lots of lawsuits in the coming years over mandated vaccination and the continued disclosures is going to make it worse. I fully suspect this is why the government agencies fought tooth and nail on releasing covid-19 vaccination test data. I'm vaccinated, but it's very clear a lot of what was presented wasn't just incorrect but materially false. That should concern everyone.

samketchup 4y ago
Nice to finally see people coming around

LatteLazy 4y ago

The logic in these rulings is very weak: being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection/transmission in the same way that being sober doesn't not guarantee you won't crash your car, it doesn't make drunk driving ok, especially for an employee...

pexabit 4y ago
It does not even discernibly prevent infection or transmission.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  Citation needed I think. Aside from mortality, those are the 2 main things you need from a vaccine...
  - pexabit 4y ago
    The many states and countries that had record outbreaks, the fact they were exceedingly well-vaccinated notwithstanding. (Vermont, Israel, etc. etc. this is pretty trivial to verify). It just does not prevent transmission. We know what it looks like as far as transmission goes for vaccines that work (smallpox, oral polio, etc.) This is not it. Just isn't.
    - ganoushoreilly 4y ago
      The further issue with a lot of this is that it was presented as having been validated as preventing spread from the beginning, which now Pfizer has stated did not transpire. It was pretty evident by early summer that it was not in fact doing that. It's a big piece of the narrative for forcing/mandating the vaccine and it's gone. Anyone questioning it immediately were lumped into the far right regardless of their reasons. It was bad medically and bad politically. The reality is it was needed to help comfort and calm the populous, it provided some efficacy, but ultimately should have been a personal decision. There's 0 chance we won't see lawsuits for the foreseeable future and honestly i'm still on the side of personal choice. You're right too, the vaccine never was on the level of "real" vaccines and we knew that, hence why they changed the legal definition to make it fit.

tssva 4y ago

The NY Supreme Court is not the highest court in NY. The NY Supreme Court is comprised of 62 local courts and this ruling came from one of them. The city is appealing this decision and it will next go to an Appellate Division court and after that can go to the Court of Appeals which is the court of last resort in New York.

codefreeordie 4y ago
I always find it weird that in some states the "Supreme" court is the lowest court. Why did some states (like NY) name their courts this silly way?
- czinck 4y ago
  It's called "Supreme" because it can hear trials about anything, as opposed to things like traffic court. Definitely confusing, but it's also significantly older than the US Constitution, so I can't fault whoever named it too much.
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    Yeah. It makes much more sense to me in jurisdictions that call that level of court a "superior" court instead. Calling any inferior court "The Supreme" court just seems absurd. I know, I know, the reason for smart people doing things that seem dumb now is always "learn the history", but still, it is just so strange.

eappleby 4y ago

In the end, both sides got what was probably best for them. Many people felt unsafe being around people that were unvaccinated during an especially dangerous time and the mandate helped to provide some protection for them. The people that were unvaccinated had to go through a lot of hardship, but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off. If you went back in time, this probably would have been the best option, even though both sides would have likely objected to it.

puffoflogic 4y ago
> but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off That is dehumanizing BS. No compassionate human being could possibly hold this view. Going through the stress and humiliation of being fired for what turned out to be the wiser medical choice, and generally being unable to find a job for the same reason in a very uncertain economy, is not a vacation.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Avoidance was not (with very few exceptions) a wiser medical choice. If the effect on transmission had been zero (it wasn't zero, but it was lower than anyone would have liked), then it would absolutely have been their (unwise) choice to make. But it wasn't zero. 24% reduction in further transmission from the first dose of some of the vaccines, more powerful with more doses, less powerful with time. I'm not sure what threshold I'd use for making it mandatory in general, though I would still have a different threshold for doctors and nurses — even in an alternate reality where the available vaccines had zero effect on transmission while infected and the vaccines has been weaker and had more side effects, the healthcare systems in many nations were severely impacted and needed as many people as possible able to work.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    - ben_w 4y ago