HogansHero said: "@ Fosse76 re union and contract employees. To the extent that's the case, I don't think it is a practical one. Unions that don't want this protection for its members will be few and far between (and in particular as to theatrical unions) and contract employees rarely have long-term contracts.
I agree that most unions would agree, my statement was based on the premise that employers cannot unilaterally change a contract/union worker's conditions for employment.
And re legal liability, that's easily solved legislatively if it presents as an issue.
Unlikely to happen, as far as amending liability laws. However, some states may simply mandate the vaccinations for its citizens, which would make employer mandates moot.
Finally, I think liability for mandates by employers (or others) is theoretical but not real.
Wrong. That's the law. Strict Liability (and caselaw) makes it real. But as you mentioned above, liability can possibly be resolved legislatively, but of course would most likely be challenged in court.
First, I think few will have significant side effects that are actionable, and second causation would be a tough road (meaning one would have to prove that they would not have been vaccinated but for the requirement and that's not going to be easy).
Any out-of-pocket expense as a result of an adverse reaction would be recoverable under the law. The second point is rather easy to prove, but ultimately irrelevant. Under strict liability, once the employer requires vaccination, they become liable for any adverse reactions.