Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLCScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Firm Insights

Can NJ Employers Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations for Employees to Return to Work?

Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC

Date: June 24, 2021

Key Contacts

Back
Can NJ Employers Mandate COVID-19 Vaccinations for Employees to Return to Work?

While return to work plans involve a number of important considerations, one of the most significant (and controversial) is whether employees should be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19...

With vaccination rates up and infection rates down, many employers are preparing for a return to the workplace. While return to work plans involve a number of important considerations, one of the most significant (and controversial) is whether employees should be required to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

So far, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted emergency use authorization for the Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson vaccines. While many workers have willingly been vaccinated, a sizable segment of the population remains hesitant to get a COVID-19 vaccine, which leaves employers in a tough position.

EEOC Guidance Regarding Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations

Generally, whether an employer may require COVID-19 vaccination is a matter of state or other applicable law. While federal law does not directly address mandatory vaccination, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently issued updated guidance confirming that employers can require their employees who are returning to the job get vaccinated against COVID-19, so long as they comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII).

As the EEOC guidance highlights, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business. The undue hardship depends on whether the accommodation is for a disability or for religion.

Disability Accommodation

Under the ADA, an employer may require an individual with a disability to meet a qualification standard applied to all employees, such as a safety-related standard requiring COVID-19 vaccination, if the standard is job-related and consistent with business necessity. If an employee can’t be vaccinated due to a disability, the employer may not require compliance for that employee unless it can demonstrate that the individual would pose a “direct threat” to the health or safety of the employee or others in the workplace.  A “direct threat” is a “significant risk of substantial harm” that cannot be eliminated or reduced by reasonable accommodation.

Under 29 C.F.R. 1630.2(r), employers must conduct an individualized assessment of four factors in determining whether a direct threat exists: the duration of the risk; the nature and severity of the potential harm; the likelihood that the potential harm will occur; and the imminence of the potential harm.  “The determination that a particular employee poses a direct threat should be based on a reasonable medical judgment that relies on the most current medical knowledge about COVID-19,” the EEOC guidance states.  “Such medical knowledge may include, for example, the level of community spread at the time of the assessment.”

If the assessment demonstrates that the employee would pose a direct threat to self or others, the employer must then consider whether providing a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, would reduce or eliminate that threat. According to the EEOC guidance, potential reasonable accommodations could include requiring the employee to wear a mask, work a staggered shift, making changes in the work environment (such as improving ventilation systems or limiting contact with other employees and non-employees), permitting telework if feasible, or reassigning the employee to a vacant position in a different workspace. 

Religious Accommodation

Once an employer is on notice that an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance prevents the employee from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, the employer must provide a reasonable accommodation unless it would pose an undue hardship. 

As the EEOC guidance explains, the definition of religion is broad and protects beliefs, practices, and observances with which the employer may be unfamiliar.  Therefore, the employer should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, unless an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance. In such cases, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information. 

The EEOC guidance also notes that the undue burden standard under Title VII is more lenient than the ADA standard. Under Title VII, courts define “undue hardship” as having more than minimal cost or burden on the employer. According to the EEOC, considerations relevant to undue hardship can include, among other things, the proportion of employees in the workplace who already are partially or fully vaccinated against COVID-19 and the extent of employee contact with non-employees, whose vaccination status could be unknown or who may be ineligible for the vaccine. 

New Jersey Guidance on Requiring COVID-19 Vaccinations

Several states have enacted or are considering employment laws that address COVID-19 vaccination. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, at least 85 bills have been introduced to restrict an employer’s ability to require workers to get vaccinated and/or to terminate someone who refuses to get immunized.

New Jersey is not one of those states. Rather, it has issued COVID-19 vaccination guidance confirming that employers may require workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of entering the workplace. The guidance provides:

If an employee has a disability that precludes them from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, has been specifically advised by their doctor not to get the COVID-19 vaccine while pregnant or breastfeeding, or has a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance that precludes them from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, employers must provide a reasonable accommodation from their mandatory vaccine policy, unless doing so would impose an undue burden on their operations.

In determining the burden placed on employers by unvaccinated workers, the New Jersey guidance advises that safety, including the safety of the employee, coworkers, clients, and customers, is a factor in evaluating whether a potential accommodation would be reasonable. “An employer must base its decisions regarding any potential safety hazard on objective, scientific evidence, including evidence reflected in policies and guidance from federal, state, and local authorities (including the CDC), and not on unfounded assumptions or stereotypes,” the guidance further states.

With regard to reasonable accommodations, New Jersey’s guidance advises that a reasonable accommodation may include allowing the employee to continue to work remotely, or otherwise to work in a manner that would reduce or eliminate the risk of harm to other employees or to the public. It may also include providing the employee with personal protective equipment that sufficiently mitigates the employee’s risk of COVID-19 transmission and exposure.

Finally, the guidance states that under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, if there is no reasonable accommodation that the employer can provide that would mitigate the risk of COVID-19 transmission to its employees and customers, then the employer may enforce its policy of excluding unvaccinated employees from the physical workplace, even if the employee is unvaccinated because of a disability, pregnancy, or breastfeeding, or a sincerely held religious belief. However, it is important to note that employers must also consider other applicable laws, regulations, or policies before imposing discipline.

Next Steps for Employers

To lower the risk of liability, many employers are encouraging vaccination rather than mandating it. For instance, many companies have enacted policies stating that unvaccinated employees must be tested daily for COVID-19 and wear masks when they return to the office. Other employers are moving forward with plans to require vaccination. Mandatory vaccination is particularly prevalent among colleges, hospitals, and nursing home facilities, where there is a higher risk of infection.

If you are considering a mandatory vaccine policy for your employees, there are steps you can take to reduce the legal risks. To start, it is important to clearly communicate the policy to your employees. The vaccine policy should address how employees can receive their shots, i.e., on their own or through the employer; the date by which employees must receive the vaccine; how workers should provide proof of vaccination; the procedure for requesting an exemption from the mandatory vaccine requirement; and the consequences of failing to get vaccinated without an exemption. Additionally, prior to instituting a mandatory vaccination policy, employers should provide managers, supervisors, and those responsible for implementing the policy with clear guidance regarding how to handle accommodation requests related to the policy. Finally, it is always advisable to work with experienced counsel when implementing a new employee policy, particularly one that has the potential to result in legal challenges. At Scarinci Hollenbeck, we are here to help New Jersey employer safely reopen their workplaces while also reducing the liability risks.

If you have questions, please contact us

If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss the matter further, please contact me, Sarah Tornetta, or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work, at 201-896-4100.  

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC, LLC

Related Posts

See all
Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs post image

Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs

When a family member can no longer make important decisions for themself, the question is often not whether the family will step in, but whether they have the legal authority to do so. A spouse may manage household finances, or an adult child may arrange medical care and pay bills. Still, informal assistance does not […]

Author: Marc J. Comer

Link to post with title - "Guardianships in New Jersey: When a Loved One Can No Longer Manage Personal or Financial Affairs"
New Jersey’s Revised UHAC Regulations: What Residential Developers Need to Know About Affordable Housing Commitments post image

New Jersey’s Revised UHAC Regulations: What Residential Developers Need to Know About Affordable Housing Commitments

New Jersey residential developers with affordable housing obligations should carefully review their existing approvals, development agreements, and proposed deed restrictions in light of the State’s revised UHAC regulations (Uniform Housing Affordability Controls). The regulations, which took effect on November 6, 2025, significantly change the administration and physical requirements for affordable housing units. For developers with […]

Author: Wendy Rubinstein Quiroga

Link to post with title - "New Jersey’s Revised UHAC Regulations: What Residential Developers Need to Know About Affordable Housing Commitments"
“No Comment” Culture: Why Silence Is Often the Riskiest Legal Strategy post image

“No Comment” Culture: Why Silence Is Often the Riskiest Legal Strategy

A “no comment” response is sometimes the right call when a legal problem arises. As a blanket policy, however, it lets allegations go unanswered, deadlines pass, evidence disappear, and manageable disputes grow into expensive litigation. The businesses that fare best are usually the ones that say little publicly while acting decisively behind the scenes. When […]

Author: Sean M. Pena

Link to post with title - "“No Comment” Culture: Why Silence Is Often the Riskiest Legal Strategy"
Utility-Scale Battery Storage Projects: A Legal Roadmap for Developers, Property Owners and Other Stakeholders post image

Utility-Scale Battery Storage Projects: A Legal Roadmap for Developers, Property Owners and Other Stakeholders

Utility-scale battery energy storage systems (BESS) are becoming an increasingly important component of the electric grid throughout New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. As renewable generation expands, electricity demand increases and grid operators seek greater flexibility, battery storage can help balance supply and demand while providing additional capacity and reliability. For developers, battery storage presents […]

Author: Nicholas Wall

Link to post with title - "Utility-Scale Battery Storage Projects: A Legal Roadmap for Developers, Property Owners and Other Stakeholders"
Navigating Disputes: Hire a Partnership Dispute Lawyer post image

Navigating Disputes: Hire a Partnership Dispute Lawyer

A falling out between partners can be disastrous for any business. In many cases, the partnership will not survive. If you are in an unworkable situation with your partners, it may be time to consult a partnership dispute lawyer experienced in handling partnership breakups and dissolutions before the situation deteriorates any further. It is easy […]

Author: Jay McDaniel

Link to post with title - "Navigating Disputes: Hire a Partnership Dispute Lawyer"
Section 363 Sales in Bankruptcy: What Businesses, Lenders, and Buyers Need to Know post image

Section 363 Sales in Bankruptcy: What Businesses, Lenders, and Buyers Need to Know

When a company enters Chapter 11 bankruptcy, many assume the process will culminate in a lengthy reorganization plan. However, distressed businesses are increasingly being sold through a different mechanism — a sale under Section 363 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. A Section 363 sale allows a company, as a debtor-in-possession in bankruptcy, to sell […]

Author: John D. Giampolo

Link to post with title - "Section 363 Sales in Bankruptcy: What Businesses, Lenders, and Buyers Need to Know"

No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!

Explore What Matters Most to You.

Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.

Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.

Let`s get in touch!

* The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form. By providing a telephone number and submitting this form you are consenting to be contacted by SMS text message. Message & data rates may apply. Message frequency may vary. You can reply STOP to opt-out of further messaging.
“If you would like to submit a file, please email it directly to info@sh-law.com.

Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!