10/05/2021 (3) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

This right is viewed as more broad than the right to privacy found in the U.S. Constitution and is considered a fundamental right. The Florida Supreme Court has applied this provision to set parameters on personal health care decisions: "We conclude that a competent person has the constitutional right to choose or refuse medical treatment, and that right extends to all relevant decisions concerning one's health", In Re Guardianship Browning 568 Sold 4 (Fla. 1990). Certainly, one cannot have a right without a remedy. The right to privacy as defined in Florida's Constitution is meaningless if one who is damaged by its violation is not afforded the ability to enforce and recover if harmed by its violation. A termination violative of Florida law is by definition a wrongful termination. Such a violation creates exposure for damages. Florida Statute section 381.00316 (2) has been interpreted to prohibit units of local government from conditioning continued employment on getting vaccinated. Additionally, at subpart (4) of the statute section a $5000 penalty can be imposed by the state for each violation. The legislature structured the two sections so as to establish the worker's right separately. In other words, the statute separately or distinctly gives government employees the right to be free to choose to be vaccinated or not without risk+ng the loss of employment. This right also acts as a limitation of power for units of local government. The prohibition stands alone and creates the right of the employee and the responsibility of the unit of local government. In addition to creating the right the statute imposes a potential penalty by the State of Florida. This structure has likely given the government employee personal right to sue. As you may be aware, statutes and regulations are part of an employment relationship or contract. For instance, wage and hour protections, OSHA standards, and workers' compensation laws are part of every employment relationship/contract even if not overtly discussed or contemplated by employers and employees. Therefore, it would appear that the right to not be forced to be vaccinated as a condition of employment by a unit of local government is now a part of each government worker's employment contract. If an employee is terminated based upon a reason not allowed by law that termination would seem to be a wrongful termination by definition. The unit of local government that bows to the federal overreach is unwittingly exposing their entity to wrongful termination litigation in addition to the $5000 penalty. Another consideration is the occurrence of any adverse reaction to a forced vaccination and how that raises workers' compensation considerations. The vaccines are new and their adverse reactions are still unfolding. Incurring the additional risk of workers' compensation liability will have immediate expenses with long term exposure implications. How will your workers' compensation program properly underwrite/reserve this risk? How will you protect your employees while being good stewards? Will you cover all claims? How will you pick and