Brown v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – reported, precedential decision -
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1306CD18_5-5-22.pdf?cb=1
Held: Claimant, a senior nursing assistant at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, committed willful misconduct by failing to get annual flu vaccine or, in the alternative, provide a religious or medical reason for not getting vaccinated – as set out in the employer’s 2012 rule.
The employer rule was reasonable –
As a children’s hospital, employer had a legitimate interest in protecting the health and safety of its patients. Employer made a business decision that requiring its employees to be vaccinated against the flu each year was necessary to protect its patients’ health.. See Rebel v. UCBR., 723 A.2d 156, 159-60 (Pa. 1998) (recognizing that “[t]he creation of rules and requirements that govern the workplace is the prerogative of the employer” and that “[a]n employer has the right to make decisions as to how [it] is going to run [its] business”) (emphasis added).
Claimant did not have good cause for violating the employer rule –
Any legal relationship that a person voluntarily enters into can, and usually does, diminish some common law right he could otherwise exercise with impunity: be the right personal or proprietary. Virtually every legal relationship assumed by a person creates duties and obligations to the other party that are not owed to people outside the relationship. Such a relationship is that of employee and employer. An employee owes his employer, among other duties, a reasonable level of cooperation regarding matters that are important to the employer’s interest. . . . [I]f an employer’s request can be deemed circumstantially reasonable, after considering the burden to the employee, then the employee has an implied obligation to cooperate. Although there might be practical reasons that can justify an employee’s refusal to cooperate, such noncompliance cannot be predicated upon asserted common law personal and property rights. As to employer requests that are reasonable in the above sense, the employee has waived those rights as a basis for noncompliance; [she] waived them when [she] voluntarily assumed the legal relationship with [her] employer. Simpson, 450 A.2d at 311 [emphasis omitted]) accord Rebel, 723 A.2d at 158-59.
With regard to Claimant’s informed consent argument, it is true that Claimant has a legal right, as a patient, to refuse a vaccine or other medical treatment. However, Claimant was not Employer’s patient; she was its employee. By voluntarily entering into an employment relationship with Employer, Claimant was obligated to comply with Employer’s reasonable directives related to its business interests. See Simpson, 450 A.2d at 311 (recognizing that an employee waives certain legal rights as a basis for noncompliance with a reasonable employer directive when she “voluntarily assumed the legal relationship with [her] employer”).
While Claimant had a right to choose to not be vaccinated for a non-religious, non-medical reason, she was notified and aware that, under Employer’s policy, that choice would have a consequence: termination of her employment. . . . Claimant cites no authority for the proposition that an employee can refuse a vaccine as an express condition of employment . . . .“[C]laimant’s mistaken understanding of her legal rights does not justify her refusal to comply with [E]mployer’s reasonable request.” . . .; see Rebel, 723 A.2d at 159-60 (holding that the claimant’s refusal to submit to drug testing pursuant to his employer’s policy, on the ground that the drug policy violated his right to privacy, was willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law).
