Congress has cut federal funding for public media — a $3.4 million loss for LAist. We count on readers like you to protect our nonprofit newsroom. Become a monthly member and sustain local journalism.
Can Your Employer Require You To Get A COVID-19 Vaccine? Well, Yes. Maybe. But...

Our news is free on LAist. To make sure you get our coverage: Sign up for our daily coronavirus newsletter. To support our nonprofit public service journalism: Donate now.
Frontline health care workers are receiving the first doses of the new COVID-19 vaccine this week, followed by vulnerable communities such as nursing home residents and, eventually, the general public. As the vaccine becomes available to more people, some may be wondering whether their employers can require them to take the injection.
The short answer is: yes, maybe.
Several legal and employment experts have said employers likely have that right, noting that companies have been allowed to require flu vaccinations in the past.
But others suggest the answer is not so clearcut, or that it's too soon to tell.
"If the employer has a policy that mandates the employee get a vaccine, and then they develop an allergic reaction or some sort of medical condition, the worker might be able to bring a worker's compensation [claim] against that employer," Marcelo Dieguez, an employment law attorney, told NBC7 in San Diego.
If an employee can sue in protest, is it really a legal mandate? Why so ambiguous?
EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION
For one thing, there is no precedent for requiring employees to take a vaccine released under an emergency use authorization, according to Dorit Reiss, a professor of law at the University of California Hastings and a member of The Vaccine Working Group on Ethics and Policy.
Vaccines are granted formal approval by the federal Food and Drug Administration, but under an emergency use authorization, that process is expedited so it can be distributed to the public faster, say, during a public health crisis such as the coronavirus pandemic.
"This is new territory," Reiss told our local news and culture show Take Two. "We have never had an [emergency use authorization] used to give a vaccine to the general population."
New territory means there is room for legal interpretations.
Both the FDA and the Centers for Disease Control have said in the past that an emergency use authorization does not allow for vaccine mandates, according to Reiss.
However, Reiss said she believes the language of the law does allow for them -- with several important caveats. First, the language of the emergency use authorization law spells out that people must have the option to refuse the vaccine, be informed of the consequences of doing so, and be offered alternatives.
For businesses with unionized workforces, collective bargaining agreements may make negotiations necessary before a vaccine mandate could go into effect. Finally, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- especially in terms of religious exemptions -- could give employees the right to refuse or to ask for alternative accommodations, such as working from home.
BUT SHOULD THEY?
Even if employers could issue vaccine mandates, the question remains whether they should. A recent survey from the Associated Press and the NORC Center for Public Affairs Research showed almost half of Americans have some level of hesitancy about the new COVID-19 vaccines. According to Reiss, it's important to recognize that mandates are not the only solution for making sure workplaces are safe:
"Mandates can be a really important additional tool, but they're not a solution for high levels of concern or mistrust, by themselves. The other thing to remember is that [the] legal framework is one thing, the question of whether it is a good idea to mandate is another. If you know that 40% of your workforce are very scared of the vaccine, that may be a reason not to mandate."
LISTEN TO THE FULL INTERVIEW:
Brian Frank contributed to this story.
As Editor-in-Chief of our newsroom, I’m extremely proud of the work our top-notch journalists are doing here at LAist. We’re doing more hard-hitting watchdog journalism than ever before — powerful reporting on the economy, elections, climate and the homelessness crisis that is making a difference in your lives. At the same time, it’s never been more difficult to maintain a paywall-free, independent news source that informs, inspires, and engages everyone.
Simply put, we cannot do this essential work without your help. Federal funding for public media has been clawed back by Congress and that means LAist has lost $3.4 million in federal funding over the next two years. So we’re asking for your help. LAist has been there for you and we’re asking you to be here for us.
We rely on donations from readers like you to stay independent, which keeps our nonprofit newsroom strong and accountable to you.
No matter where you stand on the political spectrum, press freedom is at the core of keeping our nation free and fair. And as the landscape of free press changes, LAist will remain a voice you know and trust, but the amount of reader support we receive will help determine how strong of a newsroom we are going forward to cover the important news from our community.
Please take action today to support your trusted source for local news with a donation that makes sense for your budget.
Thank you for your generous support and believing in independent news.

-
The L.A. City Council approved the venue change Wednesday, which organizers say will save $12 million in infrastructure costs.
-
Taxes on the sale of some newer apartment buildings would be lowered under a plan by Sacramento lawmakers to partially rein in city Measure ULA.
-
The union representing the restaurant's workers announced Tuesday that The Pantry will welcome back patrons Thursday after suddenly shutting down six months ago.
-
If approved, the more than 62-acre project would include 50 housing lots and a marina less than a mile from Jackie and Shadow's famous nest overlooking the lake.
-
The U.S. Supreme Court lifted limits on immigration sweeps in Southern California, overturning a lower court ruling that prohibited agents from stopping people based on their appearance.
-
Censorship has long been controversial. But lately, the issue of who does and doesn’t have the right to restrict kids’ access to books has been heating up across the country in the so-called culture wars.