Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Handling COVID-19 Vaccination Mandates: Federal Agencies Continue to Issue Guidance

By Stephanie S. Sobkowiak & Salvatore G. Gangemi on October 27, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In response to COVID-19 vaccination mandates and employer-mandated vaccination policies, federal agencies continue to issue guidance.  The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the U.S. Health and Human Services’ Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have released additional guidance addressing common employer concerns regarding vaccination status, discrimination, and reasonable accommodations.

EEOC Guidance

On October 25, 2021, the EEOC updated and expanded its technical assistance related to COVID-19, addressing questions regarding the interplay between federal anti-discrimination laws and COVID-19 vaccination mandates.  Specifically, the updates relate to the application of federal anti-discrimination law to objections to vaccination based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

The EEOC enforces the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which, among other things, places limits on medical and disabled-related inquiries, prohibits disability discrimination, and requires employers to consider and grant requests for reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities, which would include those who are unable to comply with COVID-19 vaccination mandates because of medical issues. The EEOC also enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (Title VII), which prohibits religious discrimination and requires employers to consider requests for reasonable accommodations.  Neither the ADA nor Title VII prevents employers from requiring all employees physically entering the workplace to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of the ADA and Title VII discussed below.

ADA

Although we have addressed these issues before, we revisit them here for purposes of context.  With limited exceptions, the ADA requires employers to keep confidential any medical information they learn about any applicant or employee.  However, the ADA does not prevent employers from complying with CDC guidance and vaccination mandates. Regarding the confidentiality of medical information related to COVID-19, employers must keep the following guidance in mind:

  • Employers must maintain all medical information related to COVID-19 in existing medical files separate from personnel files.
  • Employers that require daily temperature checks may maintain a log of the results but must maintain the confidentiality of the data.
  • Employers may disclose the name of an employee to a public health agency when it learns that the employee has tested positive for COVID-19. However, employers should make every effort to limit the number of people who get to know the name of the employee who tested positive.
  • If an employee is working remotely or on leave while exhibiting COVID-19 symptoms, the employer may not disclose the reason for the leave, just the fact that the individual is on leave.
  • An employer may withdraw a job offer when it needs an applicant with COVID-19 or symptoms to start work immediately. The fact that an applicant is at a higher risk from COVID-19 does not justify unilaterally postponing a start date or withdrawing a job offer.  However, an employer may choose to allow telework.

The ADA also requires employers to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities unless the accommodation would pose an undue hardship.  An employee with a disability who does not get vaccinated because of the disability must let the employer know that he or she needs a reasonable accommodation. Employers are obligated to engage in an interactive process to identify workplace accommodation options that do not impose an undue hardship on the employer.  Under the ADA, courts define “undue hardship” as significant difficultly or expense.  If the requested accommodation would result in undue hardship, the employer must offer an alternative accommodation if one is available absent undue hardship.  In addition, employers can refuse an accommodation if allowing the unvaccinated employee to continue working would pose a direct threat to the health and safety of the employee or others.

Title VII

Title VII  recognizes the concept of reasonable accommodations based on religious objections.  With vaccine mandates stemming from both federal and state levels, the EEOC technical guidance addresses objections to employer vaccination requirements based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Employees and applicants must inform their employers if they seek an exception to the employer’s vaccine mandate due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance.  Employers are required to consider requests for religious accommodations and must assume that an employee’s request for a religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance.  However, if an employer knows of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning the religious nature or sincerity of a belief, practice or observance, the employer may request additional supporting information.  Employers that demonstrate “undue hardship” or direct threat criteria are not required to accommodate an employee’s request for an accommodation. Under Title VII, courts define “undue hardship” as having more than minimal cost or burden.  This is an easier standard for employers to meet than the ADA standard.

OCR Guidance

On September 30, 2021, OCR issued guidance “to help consumers, businesses, and health care entities understand when the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) applies to disclosures about COVID-19 vaccination status.” OCR issued the following guidance regarding employers inquiring into an employee’s vaccination status and whether such inquiry is in violation of HIPAA:

  • The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not prohibit any business from asking whether an individual has received a particular vaccine, including COVID-19 vaccines.
  • The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not prohibit businesses from asking whether their customers or clients have received a COVID-19 vaccine.
  • The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not apply to employment records, including employment records held by covered entities or business associates in their capacity as employers. Generally, the Privacy Rule does not regulate what information can be requested from employees as part of the terms and conditions of employment that an employer may impose on its workforce. Therefore, under HIPAA, an employer is not prohibited from requiring a workforce member to disclose whether such individual has received a COVID-19 vaccine to the employer, clients, or other parties.
  • The HIPAA Privacy Rule does not prohibit an employer from requiring or requesting each employee to:
    • Provide documentation of their COVID-19 or flu vaccination to their current or prospective employer.
    • Sign a HIPAA authorization for a covered health care provider to disclose the employee’s COVID-19 vaccination record to their employer.
    • Disclose whether they have received a COVID-19 vaccine in response to queries from current or prospective patients.
  • The HIPAA Privacy Rule does prohibit covered entities and their business associates from using or disclosing an individual’s protected health information (PHI) (e.g. information about whether the individual has received a vaccine) except with the individual’s authorization or as otherwise expressly permitted or required by the Privacy Rule.

Conclusion

Employers should be mindful of the restrictions that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does and does not impose with regard to COVID-19 vaccination status as set forth in the OCR Guidance.  When responding to reasonable accommodation requests under both the ADA or Title VII, employers must consider them on an individualized case-by-case basis.  Employers should not assume that there is no reasonable accommodation that would permit the employee to continue to perform the essential functions of the job.  Employers must engage in an interactive dialogue with employees who might need a reasonable accommodation.  Although employers are generally not required to provide the specific accommodation requested if a suitable alternative accommodation exists, depending on the employee’s job and the workplace, employers should  consider all the options, including but not limited to telework, regular testing, mask mandates, social distance requirements, or reassignment, before denying an accommodation request.  It is unlawful for an employer to disclose that an employee is receiving a reasonable accommodation or to retaliate against an employee for requesting an accommodation.  We will keep you informed of further developments on vaccine mandates and employer obligations.  In the meantime, Murtha Cullina’s attorneys are prepared to provide guidance on these and related issues.

 

 

Photo of Stephanie S. Sobkowiak Stephanie S. Sobkowiak

Stephanie Sprague Sobkowiak is chair of the firm’s Health Care practice and a prior member of the firm’s Executive Committee. Stephanie is recognized as one of Connecticut’s top lawyers for health care providers.

Described in Chambers USA as “a really strong lawyer” who…

Stephanie Sprague Sobkowiak is chair of the firm’s Health Care practice and a prior member of the firm’s Executive Committee. Stephanie is recognized as one of Connecticut’s top lawyers for health care providers.

Described in Chambers USA as “a really strong lawyer” who “cuts through the nonsense” to solve problems, Stephanie represents hospitals, physician groups, dental practices, community health centers and others in the health care industry. In her role, she partners with her clients on corporate, regulatory, compliance, risk management, fraud and abuse, medical staff and credentialing matters, Certificates of Need, and HIPAA and other patient privacy issues. In each relationship, she strives to understand her clients’ goals and strategic vision in order help develop strategies that make sense in the context of their businesses.

Known for her negotiation skills, Stephanie credits her success to applying a pragmatic approach when putting together transactions or resolving disputes between her clients and opposing parties. She has negotiated countless corporate agreements, advocated for clients in matters before the Connecticut Department of Public Health, the Office of Health Strategy and the Department of Social Services and handled a variety of complex Medicare matters. She also drafts and negotiates purchase and sale transactions for clients in the health care space.

Stephanie frequently shares her knowledge of federal and state health care regulatory requirements by speaking at seminars and authoring articles. Her insight on these topics, as well as other timely risk-avoidance issues, benefits a wide audience of health care professionals, lawmakers, accountants, lawyers and others.

Read more about Stephanie S. SobkowiakEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Salvatore G. Gangemi Salvatore G. Gangemi

Salvatore G. Gangemi, a partner at Murtha Cullina, is a veteran labor and employment lawyer with nearly 30 years of litigation and counseling experience.

Employers from across the industry spectrum, including established companies in the senior living and health care fields; manufacturing, construction…

Salvatore G. Gangemi, a partner at Murtha Cullina, is a veteran labor and employment lawyer with nearly 30 years of litigation and counseling experience.

Employers from across the industry spectrum, including established companies in the senior living and health care fields; manufacturing, construction, retail and service firms; and emerging companies, seek Sal’s legal counsel to navigate today’s complex local, state and federal employment laws. His practice includes resolving disputes; advocating in courts and before administrative agencies; counseling on employment-related issues arising from acquisitions; and guiding clients in both long-range strategy and day-to-day administration of their workplaces and employees.

At the federal level, Sal brings extensive experience in OSHA investigations, audits and proceedings; the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA); Title VII discrimination matters; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA); the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He is also well-versed in state and local employment regulations.

Sal regularly represents clients in matters before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the U.S. Department of Labor and other federal agencies. On the state level, he appears before the New York State Division of Human Rights; the New York City Commission on Human Rights; the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities; the Connecticut Department of Labor; and the New York State Department of Labor. He has litigated cases involving misappropriation of trade secrets, restrictive covenants, breach of employment contract, fiduciary duty and other work-related common law claims.

Clients rely on Sal’s advice on routine human resources matters that arise in their businesses, including requests for reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities, family and medical leave issues, hiring and termination, and wage and hour concerns. Known for his proactive approach to identifying issues before they escalate, he conducts compliance training on sexual harassment prevention and other topics, performs worker classification practice and policy audits, and drafts employment policies and agreements. Sal shares his knowledge of the ever-evolving employment law landscape by speaking at events, conducting continuing legal education seminars and writing articles for a variety of publications.

Read more about Salvatore G. GangemiEmailSalvatore G.'s Linkedin Profile
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Employment Law Perspectives
  • Organization:
    Murtha Cullina LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo