Carpenter1 Niko Carpenter Professor Lucio Lanucara MGMT 310-003 November 11, 2021 Covid Employment Law Many significant events in history have affected employment law and liability. Employment law is created to protect employers and employees by outlining local, state, and federal guidelines and regulations for them to follow. As circumstances change, so does the need for additional regulations; one of these current circumstances is the Coronavirus pandemic. Coronavirus (commonly referred to as Covid-19 or Covid) is a highly contagious virus that spreads through airborne particles. Given its contagiousness, it has become a significant concern within many industries. As with most changes, there has been much resistance and questions about the legitimacy of these new regulations and guidelines recommended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). For joint health, these guidelines are necessary to provide a safe environment for many. The legality of this is evidenced by Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the Chevron Deference. The new Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s guidelines recommend that employers with at least 100 employees either prove that their employees are fully vaccinated or show that they tested negative for covid weekly. The argument for the legitimacy of a vaccine mandate comes from two main points, a case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts and the Chevron Deference. Jacobson v. Massachusetts is a 1905 case in response to a smallpox vaccine mandate in a town in Massachusetts. The mandate required that its residents either take the vaccine or be Carpenter2 subject to a five-dollar fine. The supreme court upheld the prior ruling and ruled in favor of the state. Justice Harlan, a justice on the Supreme court at the time, stated that “every well-ordered society” is “charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand” (Mariner et al.). This establishes that as much as one may have the liberty to decide what to do with their body, it does not outweigh the safety and health of the public. One may be concerned that an arbitrary interpretation of this ruling could be used to take advantage or oppress Americans. The court concluded their ruling by addressing this concern, stating, “the police power of a State, whether exercised by the legislature, or by a local body acting under its authority, may be exerted in such circumstances or by regulations so arbitrary and oppressive in particular cases as to justify the interference of the courts to prevent wrong and oppression” (Mariner et al.). This protects Americans from oppressive and deadly regulations by allowing the court to intervene. Some may concede to this point but argue that OSHA does not have the power to make such recommendations or enforce them. However, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s job is to make sure that workers' environment is safe and healthy. Occupational Safety and Health Administration provides and enforces such standards to allow for such an environment to exist. With the risk of infection and severe sickness (even death) with covid, especially in workplaces where the employees work in close quarters, this opposes a significant risk to employee safety. If a lawsuit was brought to court, similar to Jacobson v. Massachusetts, and the Chevron deference is invoked, the court will likely uphold the agency’s recommendations. According to the American Bar Association, the “Chevron deference is a Carpenter3 principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable” (Palumbo and Wilsdon). This is because those appointed to represent the citizens, Congress, has allotted them the capability to set such regulations and guidelines. In conclusion, OSHA is allowed to make regulations that center around the safety and the healthiness of work environments. At the same time, Johnson v. Massachusetts sets precedence for these regulations to be legal and enforceable. Provided that the Chevron Deference is used, it allows the courts to defer back to Osha’s regulations and guidelines. For the United States economy to function, it needs healthy workers, which cannot happen if a safe and healthy environment is not provided. Therefore, these regulations are necessary. Carpenter4 Works Cited AD Mariner, Wendy K., et al. “Jacobson v Massachusetts: It’s Not Your Great-GreatGrandfather’s Public Health Law.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 95, no. 4, Apr. 2005, pp. 581–590., https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.2004.055160. Palumbo, Ralph H, and Yarmuth Wilsdon. “Judicial Deference to Administrative Interpretations of Law: Will Chevron Survive?” American Bar Association, 28 Nov. 2020, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/litigation/materials/20172018/2018-joint-cle/written-materials/will-chevron-survive.pdf.
