Case updates this week:

Monday March 4th: The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that an employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate is not, by itself, the kind of intentional misconduct that would preclude an employee from receiving unemployment benefits. In Fallon Community Health Plan v. Acting Director of Department of Unemployment Assistance plaintiff, Fallon Community Health Plan (Fallon), appealed the decision of a district court that affirmed the decision of the Department of Unemployment Assistance granting unemployment benefits to Shanika Jefferson, Fallon’s former employee, whom Fallon had employed as a home health aide. Fallon had fired Jefferson after denying her request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination. On appeal, Fallon argued that refusing to receive a vaccine was “deliberate misconduct” and showed “wilful disregard” for her employer’s interests. The court agreed with both the Department of Unemployment review board and the district court that Jefferson’s efforts to negotiate reasonable accommodations undercut Fallon’s arguments that her misconduct was deliberate. Even if Jefferson’s misconduct had been deliberate, Fallon still had to demonstrate a willful attempt to undermine her employer’s interests. According to the court, Jefferson’s refusal to receive a vaccination was based on her sincere religious beliefs rather than an intent to harm her employer. The court pointed out that under Massachusetts statute governing unemployment, the critical question was whether the reason for the employee’s termination was such that they should be denied benefits, not simply whether the individual was fired for good cause.

Tuesday March 5th: The Court of Appeals of North Carolina upheld the dismissal of Happel v. Guilford County Board of Education, a suit brought by Emily Happel, the mother of a minor who received a COVID-19 vaccine without the consent or prior knowledge of his parents. Happel alleged both state and federal constitutional violations after her son received a COVID-19 vaccine when he had expected only to be tested for the virus. However, the lower court held, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the sweeping immunity for covered persons under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) shielded defendants from liability. Further, the PREP Act preempted North Carolina’s law requiring parental consent for an emergency use authorized vaccine to be administered to a minor, as well as North Carolina’s constitutional parental rights, asserted by Happel, and the right to individual liberty, asserted by Happel on behalf of her minor child.