Draft:Hustvet v. Allina Health System
Hustvet v. Allina Health System, 910 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2018), is a 2018 case of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, holding that a purported disability preventing a person from being able to be vaccinated fell under the protection of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), but that an employer with a compelling public policy reason for requiring vaccination of employees could nonetheless terminate an employee who could not be vaccinated.
The Eighth Circuit upheld dismissal of an ADA claim brought by an "independent living specialist" terminated from employment for refusing to take steps to develop immunity to rubella, following a health system merger under which her employer changed. Plaintiff also asserted to her employer allergies and chemical sensitivities, as well as previous severe cases of mumps and measles, and asserted to the court (but not to her employer), a seizure disorder. Eighth Circuit found that these conditions rose to the level of disability relevant to the requested accommodation of non-vaccination; public policy considerations favoring immunization justified termination of an employee who failed to become immunized.
Janice Hustvet sued her former employer, Allina Health System ("Allina"), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act ("MHRA"), after Allina terminated Hustvet's employment for refusing to fulfill a job requirement that she take necessary steps to develop immunity to rubella. Hustvet appeals the district court's adverse grant of1summary judgment to Allina. After de novo review of the record, we affirm.
[1]
An "employee who was terminated for refusing to take a rubella vaccine was not discriminated or retaliated against, under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended".[2]
"[I]n order for the accommodation to be reasonable, the request must relate to the individual's disability." Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399, 410 (8th Cir. 2018) Hopman v. Union Pac. R.R. (E.D. Ark. 2020)
Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399, 412-13 (8th Cir. 2018) (no pretext when employee was terminated due to her failure to comply with legitimate policy of receiving vaccinations in a healthcare setting). Bivens v. Turner (E.D. Ark. 2020)
"Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399, 409 (8th Cir. 2018) (medical testing of future employees who work with potentially vulnerable patients for immunization to diseases, including rubella was job-related and consistent with business necessity in light of evidence that the CDC recommended vaccination for most individuals)".[3]
"Hustvet v. Allina Health Sys., 910 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2018) (successor health care employer's decision after merger to require incoming employees with patient contact to complete health assessment screening that tested for immunity to infectious diseases was job-related, consistent with business necessity, and no more intrusive than necessary)".[4]
References[edit]
- ^ Pasternak, Daniel; Legault, Melissa (December 14, 2018). "Healthcare Worker's Vaccine Refusal Not Immunized by Americans with Disabilities Act (US)". Employment Law Worldview.
- ^ Burke, Cary (December 12, 2018). "Employers May Require Employee Vaccination as Employment Term". National Law Review.
- ^ Michael Zimmer, Charles A. Sullivan, White, Rebecca Hanner, Employment Discrimination: Selected Cases and Statutes 2020 (2022), p. 130.
- ^ John F. Buckley IV, Equal Employment Opportunity 2020 Compliance Guide (2019), p. 7-34.
External links[edit]
Text of Hustvet v. Allina Health System, 910 F.3d 399 (8th Cir. 2018) is available from: Justia law360.com
This open draft remains in progress as of July 5, 2023.