New Jersey court rules for nurse who refused vaccine on non-religious grounds

GREEN BROOK N.J. Thu Jun 5, 2014 8:03pm EDT

Related Topics

GREEN BROOK N.J. (Reuters) - A New Jersey appeals court ruled on Thursday that First Amendment protections allowing people to refuse medical procedures on religious grounds also extends to those opting out of treatment for secular reasons.

The Superior Court of New Jersey's appellate division said the state's Department of Labor erred in refusing to pay unemployment insurance to a nurse fired for declining to receive a flu vaccine out of personal conviction, rather than on religious or medical grounds.

"The Board's ruling unconstitutionally violated appellant's freedom of expression," said the three-judge panel.

June Valent was a nurse at the Hackettstown Community Hospital in September 2010 when the company issued a policy requiring employees to get a flu vaccination. The rule allowed workers to claim an exemption on religious or medical grounds provided they submitted a note from a religious leader or a doctor.

Valent refused the vaccine, opting to wear a protective face mask during flu season. But she did not have a note and was later fired. The New Jersey Department of Labor, at the behest of the hospital, then tried to deny her unemployment benefits on the grounds she had been fired for insubordination, the opinion said.

Valent, who argued on behalf of herself, rejected that claim, saying she agreed to wear a face mask, which was part of the new policy for those who chose to forgo the vaccination on religious grounds.

"The religion-based exemption irrefutably illustrates that the flu vaccination policy is not based exclusively on public health concerns," the opinion said.

Lee Moore, a spokesman for the state's attorney general, declined to comment on the case, other than to say: “The decision is under review.”

Valent could not be immediately reached for comment.

(Editing by Curtis Skinner and Peter Cooney)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
moweddell wrote:
The New Jersey Nurse decision to uphold her right to refuse a flu shot is a no brainer. One group or person can’s be granted a right while in effect another is denied the same right. Why can’t people understand the scope of discrimination practices, etc….. This nurse should receive her unemployment,along with costs, expenses, benefits, etc..Further, she should sue the Hospital for wrongful termination.

Jun 05, 2014 8:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
SixthRomeo wrote:
The concept that a health employee’s religious belief will keep their patients and others from the flu is a very strange thing indeed. If this were true, that hospital would be a revolving door for those going in lame and immediately coming out healthy, free from sin and leading a holy and sin free life after that. I think the world would have known about this modern day site of miracles.

Jun 06, 2014 9:34am EDT  --  Report as abuse
gilliardc wrote:
So do the patients that she may have infected get to sue her because she chose not to get vaccinated while working as a healthcare professional?

Jun 06, 2014 10:40am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.