26 ms·
NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay
- VagueMag 4y ago
- 1MachineElf 4y agoNow how will we force people to do unpopular things without the ability to deprive them of their livelihood?
- georgeplusplus 4y agoWhat was wild is the amount of hate and vitriol directed towards those who chose not get to vaccinated and lost or risked losing their jobs. This forum was not exempt from that hate. I hope this court opinion is enough to sway the opinion of those who held such extreme beliefs in this vaccine mandate that there are different opinions, and it doesnt have to be so extreme when deciding how to move forward with things that affect peoples livelihoods. Sometimes you do what is best for you and I do what is best for me is a perfectly logical and sane reasoning.
- eganist 4y agoThere wasn't hate, at least not broadly. There was anger, sure, but not hate. At the time the focus was on making sure the vaccinations were taken seriously so as to protect those who couldn't do it, and plenty of people instead made ideological and self-centered decisions (their right to do so) rather than compassionate and ethical ones.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- mandmandam 4y agoThere wasn't broad levels of hate? Da fuq? People were being called plague rats, scum, degenerates, etc. At societal, national, international, levels, unvaccinated people were 'other'ed to an extremely disturbing degree - fired from work, separated from loved ones, locked indoors, bashed on national media at all levels. People were talking, and still talk of denying them medical treatment, ending the Geneva convention, altering the Declaration of Human Rights, etc, to force people into taking "perfectly safe and 100% effective" vaccines. Which weren't that at all. Anyone who spoke out for them was the target of immediate white-hot anger. Don't know where you live to have missed all this, but claiming there wasn't broad levels of hate is just gaslighting, and I don't like it.
- eganist 4y ago> There wasn't broad levels of hate? > Da fuq? > People were being called plague rats, scum, degenerates, etc. At societal, national, international, levels, unvaccinated people were 'other'ed to an extremely disturbing degree - fired from work, separated from loved ones, locked indoors, bashed on national media at all levels. > People were talking, and still talk of denying them medical treatment, ending the Geneva convention, altering the Declaration of Human Rights, etc, to force people into taking "perfectly safe and 100% effective" vaccines. Which weren't that at all. > Anyone who spoke out for them was the target of immediate white-hot anger. Don't know where you live to have missed all this, but claiming there wasn't broad levels of hate is just gaslighting, and I don't like it. Right, that sounds like what I said earlier, mandmandam: "There was anger, sure, but not hate" - and you affirmed it; white-hot anger. And it was deserved. But broad hate, no. We just wanted people to be responsible. When you violate the social contract (protecting others by doing what's due), you attract anger. I'm not really here to debate it; anyone saying otherwise is spinning our anger for others' irresponsibility and others' putting the immunocompromised in danger.
- fuckyah 4y ago
- paulwilsondev 4y agoanother win for the anti-vaxxers
- olliej 4y agoDoes that mean NY employees who don't want covid can stop working and still be paid?
- hitpointdrew 4y agoWow, NY finally does something right.
- stjohnswarts 4y agoThis will fail on appeal. NYC had every right to require vaccines.
- hitpointdrew 4y agoNo one, especially a government, has a right to require vaccines.
- DannyBee 4y agoThis will get appealed. NY supreme court is just their basic trial court
- Alupis 4y agoThat may be, but it is really difficult to see how anyone will honestly make a case this was not government overreach, and an arbitrary overreach at that. We'll have to let it play out...
- DannyBee 4y agoWhich part? Speaking as a lawyer, reading this, it feels like it will be overturned almost immediately, and possibly reassigned to a different judge. There is very little legal analysis, and a large amount of unnecessary, biased, diatribe. Appeals courts rarely look kindly on that.
- Alupis 4y agoAll of it? I think people of a particular viewpoint have allowed their bias to drown out reason. To top it all off, it will be very difficult to argue in good faith the mandate was not arbitrary. It quite literally came down to a single dude deciding who he liked better. Just in this very thread we have people admonishing Adams for "ruining" the mandate, and if he had just been more careful then all these anti-vaxxers would be out of luck... as-if the mandate was a weapon to use against those we don't agree with. That's wrong. So, while you may assert there isn't much substance to the case, I assert you are very wrong. There is no reality where what happened is legal and there should not be a reality where what happened is legal. This was the first step in undoing some very great injustices.
- anm89 4y ago
- upsidesinclude 4y agoCheers!
- idiotsecant 4y ago
- elenaferrantes 4y agoComparing polio and Covid is ridiculous
- anm89 4y agoYeah, it's really sad to see all the covid survivors in Iron lungs.
- TheRealPomax 4y agoLooks at the literal million dead Americans what survivors are we talking about again? If you got fired during the days where we finally had a vaccine and you refused to take it, you were fired for a very good reason.
- hunterb123 4y agoBut if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread that means you were fired because of... what? "Get the vaccine to reduce your symptoms or I'll fire you incase it kills you!" It's not like the vaccine prevents spread to other coworkers, why require it? Everyone has a different health risk, let them decide whether they can weather a certain viral load. That is, unless, you have a vaccine that can actually prevent trasmission.
- encryptluks2 4y ago
- notRobot 4y ago[pdf]
- czinck 4y agoBecause it's confusing: the NY Supreme Court is just a trial court, it's not at all like the US Supreme Court. The top appellate court is called the Court of Appeals. It's called "supreme" because it has general jurisdiction, as opposed to things like traffic court.
- phpisthebest 4y agoIt is confusing because NY likes to be confusing. Almost every other state the State Supreme Court, is the top court of the state, just like the federal court And the Court of Appeals is lower than the State Supreme Court. Why NY needs to needless complicate everything is beyond me
- jrockway 4y agoI guess it's because it's old. From the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court): > The New York Supreme Court is the oldest Supreme Court with general original jurisdiction. It was established as the Supreme Court of Judicature by the Province of New York on May 6, 1691. That court was continued by the State of New York after independence was declared in 1776. It became the New York Supreme Court under the New York Constitutional Convention of 1846. The name predates the US Supreme Court (in fact, predates the US itself), and many other state courts. Basically, someone changed the naming convention out from under them.
- phpisthebest 4y agoit being old does not explain why it could not have been made into being the Top court.
- xeromal 4y agoThanks for digging this up. How cool!
- midoridensha 4y agoThere's nothing stopping the state from renaming the courts now to conform with established convention in the rest of the nation, in order to reduce confusion.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- widowlark 4y ago
- jakogut 4y agoSomething I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by declaring nearly all public spaces "sensitive areas" in which licensed individuals may not carry for their protection. Regardless of one's opinion of said rights, how do courts blatantly ignore rulings and orders from higher courts with no repercussions? How do courts declare certain executive orders unconstitutional, and yet the perpetrators, who took an oath to uphold and defend said rights and values, face no consequences?
- calvinmorrison 4y agoUnless the government actually about faces and holds the elected officials responsible, it devolves into unsanctioned violence, be it domestic terrorism, civil war, unrest, whatever the game of the week. That's what happens.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago>Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? Unfortunately the penalty falls only on the taxpayer, and not at all on the lawmakers who pass unconstitutional laws or declare executive actions that they do not have the legal authority to declare as law. Indeed, lawmakers routinely flaunt their ability to enact laws that they know are unconstitutional across the political spectrum, to abortion laws (pre Dobbs) in "red states" to gun laws in "blue states". The recent NY legislation in the wake of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision is the perfect example. It contained all sorts of blatantly unconstitutional measures, like requiring those applying for gun permits to turn over all their social media accounts for scrutiny. But since there is no potential penalty suffered by lawmakers who willfully and knowingly violate the Constitution, this sort of unlawful, blatant political pandering is going to continue.
- 4y ago
- tptacek 4y agoThis is a confusing headline. The judgement here is in NY state court, and pertains to employees of and in the City of New York, which enacted a vaccine requirement for employees of the city and later private employers in the city. Months later, Eric Adams was elected mayor of NYC, and he issued an executive order exempting athletes, performers, and artists from the mandate. Petitioners sued, saying that the mandate with the exemptions was essentially arbitrary, and the courts agreed. So what happened here is that Eric Adams sabotaged NYC's vaccine mandate.
- VagueMag 4y ago
- midislack 4y agoCan you explain what's confusing about it? Seems perfectly crystal clear to me.
- quadrifoliate 4y agoIt's confusing because it makes it's technically correct [1], but doesn't really get at the heart of the matter. If 'tptacek hadn't pointed out the subtlety that it was the arbitrary nature of exceptions added later that was the reason for this judgement, I would not have understood or noticed it. It's like saying "On-call developer fixes problem caused by program written in Java" – correct, but doesn't point out, for example, that it was caused due to a commit pushed to production on Friday evening after overriding the failing CI tests. ---------------------------------------- [1] Which, as they say, is the worst kind.
- tptacek 4y agoThis whole thread sprawled! I just meant that it wasn't clear who the ruling applied to, because New York City is easy to confuse with New York State.
- ls15 4y agoI think that the headline describes the ruling better
- warbler73 4y ago
- aaomidi 4y agoBack pay? Seriously? I thought people weren’t happy about executive power through judicial means, but I’m seeing that same group of people celebrate this. Also note: the NY Supreme Court is actually the lowest court level in NY. Articles like this are being misleading on purpose.
- OrangeMonkey 4y agoCourts exist to make people whole. The court decided the executive branch didn't have the right to fire the workers. Because of that, the workers lost their jobs, insurance, and pay. How else would you suggest the court make them whole again?
- encryptluks2 4y ago
- PM_me_your_math 4y agoThe judicial branch is not in the executive or legislative branch. Courts can invalidate laws and regulations from the executive or legislative branches. It is called Checks & Balances. It has kept power distributed for almost 250 years, preventing it from becoming concentrated in any one branch of government. Should that occur, you'd have bad actors enacting a one-party tyrannical state and tens of millions would die, mostly through starvation, but a good many through a state apparatus. It is familiar music. Our civilization has had to deal with such bad actors for a very long time, but despite the lessons of the past, there are still some who desire the one-party state. There is no sign that we, as a species, has completely eliminated the lust for power that's innate in humanity. It is for this reason that the founding fathers hard-coded such things into our nation which act as a stop-gap for tyrants.
- prottog 4y ago> Articles like this are being misleading on purpose. Maybe your complaint should be with the State of New York for having such a misleading name for their lowest-level trial court, and not the OP for literally referring to it by its name ;-)
- tb_technical 4y agoThey took people's livelyhoods away, and now they gotta pay.
- Maursault 4y agoThey were fired for cause, namely, insubordination. The resistance to vaccination is entirely political. The mandate was not, but instead in the interests of public safety and health. Easing the mandate for special cases was a terrible decision. The decision to ease the mandate should be reversed, not the mandate itself. So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC.
- xfitm3 4y agoA growing number of doctors have threatened to withhold treatment from the unvaccinated, sparking backlash from doctors and bioethicists who say such sentiments violate the Hippocratic Oath. Those critics are even more troubled by the silence from professional organizations tasked with upholding medical ethics. The mandate should have never existed.
- Maursault 4y ago
- gruez 4y ago>The mandate was legal. says who? Another commenter has quoted a part of the decision >This Court aggress that the Commissioner cannot enact a term of employment on City employees and has exceeded his scope of authority
- drak0n1c 4y agoPlease be careful about spreading misinformation. Vaccines were not widely available until spring of 2021, after the election. Only select few essential healthcare staff were eligible in 2020, and US deliveries began December 14th, 2020.[1] During the 2020 election season you describe it was actually the opponents of President Trump who were encouraging vaccine skepticism.[2] [1] (see HHS timeline) https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html [2] (see bulleted video hyperlinks): https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-release-fact-kamala-harriss-anti-vaccine-rhetoric-anti-science-and https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-rel...
- hash872 4y agoI've been thinking a lot about judicial review in common law democracies recently, and I tentatively think a better system would be to vastly expand the number of judges that are involved in making a decision. Example, you'd still have a tiered court system, and your case would still be heard in front of say a 3-9 panel appeals court- but after they write their decisions, a couple hundred other appeals judges at the same level get to a simple cast up or down vote on the decision, remotely. That way the case is decided by a larger, more stable pool of qualified judges- it's not like 1 judge dies, is replaced by the other party, and now that appeals court starts issuing totally partisan decisions the other way on a 5-4 vote. It would hopefully make the judiciary overall less partisan, less of a high-stakes affair to nominate an appeals judge, and less swinging back and forth between 5-4 Democratic or Republican votes
- colechristensen 4y agoI have a feeling this would make things considerably more political. If you don’t like what judges decide, get people elected who will write things clearly into law. If they can’t do that, it sucks, go fix the political situation and stop trying to fix that dysfunction by making major systematic changes.
- hash872 4y ago>get people elected who will write things clearly into law You can pass whatever law you'd like now- the existing judiciary can simply decide that it doesn't apply or isn't 'constitutional', and their decisions aren't reviewable. It's awarding ultimate power in society to a very small group The vast majority of developed countries don't work this way, at all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty At a minimum, calling a law 'unconstitutional' should require a supermajority out of a fairly large body
- rosywoozlechan 4y agoI think you're just describing court packing because maybe you disagree with the outcome based on your partisan politics?
- pseudolus 4y agoFYI, the case was decided in Richmond County a/k/a Staten Island, arguably NYC's most conservative borough. The judge, a Republican, was elected in 2018. [0]. [0] https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Porzio https://ballotpedia.org/Ralph_Porzio
- lettergram 4y agoFun fact NY Supreme Court is actually a lower level court in New York. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Supreme_Court So this will likely be challenged
- Aunche 4y agoI can understand why the vaccine mandate would be unconstitutional as a whole, but why shouldn't the city be allowed to fire whoever they feel like firing? New York is an at will state.
- ls15 4y ago
- triceratops 4y agoI don't think you understand what "at will" means.
- ls15 4y agoWhere is that in the statement that I quoted?
- rasz 4y ago
- bufferoverflow 4y ago"At will" doesn't mean you can fire for any reason. Even if you don't state the reason (which they did), it would be illegal to fire all black people from a company, because it's trivial to prove for a large enough company. "at will" doesn't supercede civil rights act and other laws.
- Aunche 4y agoThis is bad faith interpretation of my comment. We all know what the Civil Rights Act is. My question is what rule exactly is NYC breaking?
- ClumsyPilot 4y agothats exactly what the court ruling explains