On Balance, N.J. Court Finds More Up than Down for Vax Mandate

Newark, NJ (WorkersCompensation.com) – Although vaccination mandates don’t have the federal teeth they had at the beginning of 2022, state rules still persist and workers across the country are still grappling with whether they have to take the jab to keep their job.

For example, as Jon L. Gelman reported for the Blogwire earlier this week, a New Jersey court recently upheld the Garden State’s rule requiring corrections officers to get vaccinated.

So what was it about the state’s rules that led the court to uphold the mandate in New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association v. Murphy, Nos. A-1525-21, A-1548-21 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 02/11/22)? The following breakdown highlights the court’s reasons for why Executive Order 283 passed legal muster.

Omicron. The new variant, which generated a spike in infections and hospitalizations, gave the governor the basis for taking new action against what appeared to be a more transmissible version of COVID-19.

The Civilian Defense and Disaster Control Act gave the governor the authority to make the rule. According to the court, COVID-19 was a disaster, and the act allowed the governor to take action even if there was just a substantial likelihood of a disaster. 

The Emergency Health Powers Act also authorized the governor’s action. The court highlighted that this act, in addition to the other Disaster Control Act, authorized the governor to “take all reasonable and necessary measures to prevent the transmission of infectious disease,” and that the governor’s actions were consistent with CDC recommendations indicating that COVID-19 vaccination coverage was critical to protect staff and people who are incarcerated or detained.

There was a connection or “nexus” between the emergency and the means employed to combat it. According to the court, “vaccination mandates are a rational and permissible way to halt or limit the spread of the virus.”

Prisons and places of incarceration are “vectors for the spread of the virus.” The CDC has recommended staff vaccination coverage as “particularly important” for correctional facilities, and the pandemic caused closures at New Jersey facilities. The court pointed out that unvaccinated staff, which comprised 32 percent of the workforce, was responsible for about half the positive cases.

Cruel and unusual punishment. The court reasoned that the governor’s order upheld the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, as “infectious maladies” have been determined to be a form of cruel and unusual punishment.

The court ultimately concluded that the benefits of requiring vaccinations outweighed the downside of invading employer's personal decisions.

“Vaccinations will result in fewer missed workdays resulting from infections, and accelerated immunity via vaccination is far more likely to achieve a slowing of the rate at which variants will emerge as well as reduce the impact of future variants,” the court explained. “[The Executive Order] represents a rational and measured response to our present circumstances.”

Whether such a stance will change as the pandemic turns endemic remains to be seen, but the case serves as a lesson that states -- and their courts -- may find ways to veer from what federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, decide.

Share This Article: