So Decide Jon Levy (D. Me.) held at the moment in Lowe v. Mills. An excerpt:
On this case, the amended grievance and the correctly thought of paperwork, data, and info earlier than me present that the aim of requiring COVID-19 vaccinations for healthcare employees is solely to guard public well being. Exempting people whose well being might be threatened in the event that they obtain a COVID-19 vaccine is an important, constituent a part of a reasoned public well being response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It doesn’t categorical or counsel a discriminatory bias towards faith.
Within the context of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, the medical exemption is rightly seen as an important side of the vaccine’s core function of defending the well being of sufferers and healthcare employees, together with those that, for bona fide medical causes, can’t be safely vaccinated. As well as, the vaccine mandate locations an equal burden on all secular beliefs unrelated to defending public well being—for instance, philosophical or politically-based objections to state-mandated vaccination necessities—to the identical extent that it burdens spiritual beliefs.
Thus, the medical exemption out there as to all necessary vaccines required by Maine regulation doesn’t mirror a price judgment unfairly favoring secular pursuits over spiritual pursuits. As an integral a part of the vaccine requirement itself, the medical exemption for healthcare employees doesn’t undermine the vaccine mandate’s common applicability. The amended grievance doesn’t plead any info that plausibly assist the conclusion that the COVID-19 vaccine mandate will not be typically relevant. As a result of the COVID-19 vaccine mandate is each impartial and customarily relevant, rational foundation overview applies.
The court docket additionally concludes that the mandate does not violate Title VII’s responsibility of cheap lodging of spiritual objections; I could have extra to say about that in a later put up.
