Boston COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for City Workers Okay, Court Rules

A COVID-19 vaccine is prepared in Boston, Mass., on March 4, 2021. Joseph Prezioso/AFP via Getty Images

Boston’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for city workers was legal, the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled on March 30.

The city’s claim that COVID-19 could not adequately be combated without vaccination outweighed the risk of irreparable harm to workers who were facing termination, Justice Elspeth Cypher wrote in the ruling.

“The potential harm to the city and the public resulting from the spread of COVID-19 clearly outweighed the economic harm to the employees,” Cypher said.

The city’s 2021 mandate initially required proof of vaccination or weekly testing, but weekly testing was cut out after the emergence of the Omicron variant. That prompted a challenge from unions, which said the city had not properly negotiated the update.

Dr. Bisola Ojikutu, an adviser to Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, told the court that the update was needed because the testing alternative was likely insufficient to combat COVID-19 once Omicron appeared, even though the vaccines have performed much worse against the strain and its subvariants.

Overturns Injunction

The new ruling overturns a preliminary injunction entered in 2022.

Workers who failed to get a COVID-19 vaccine under the mandate faced repercussions, including termination. Unions asked for a preliminary injunction so workers could not be punished. Their bid was initially rejected, with a trial judge finding plaintiffs had not demonstrated irreparable harm absent an injunction. Massachusetts Appeals Court Judge Sabita Singh reversed that ruling, finding that workers faced “substantial harm” if the mandate was not blocked and that the city’s failure to negotiate the policy meant plaintiffs were likely to succeed.

Singh said the case differed from others because it implicated issues of “bodily integrity and self-determination.”

Singh “abused her discretion” in issuing the injunction, which remained in place until Thursday, the state’s top court said.

The harm the plaintiffs were facing is solely economic because “they could have continued to refuse to become vaccinated and instead challenged the decision both in court and before” the Commonwealth Employment Relations Board (CERB), the court said.

Further, due to the pandemic, the city was able to make the mandate change without bargaining with unions, the court ruled.

“Given the unique circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic and its threat to the health and safety of the public, the decision to remove the testing alternative in the defendants’ COVID-19 policy constituted a nondelegable policy decision that could not be the subject of decision bargaining because any such requirement would have impinged directly on the defendants’ ability to provide essential public safety services to city residents,” the ruling stated.

It’s unclear, though, whether the city’s deadline to get vaccinated was “reasonable and necessary,” Cypher said, noting that the deadline of three weeks was much shorter than that imposed by the state.

“Given CERB’s acknowledgement that the defendants’ initial deadline more than halved that of another employer in similar circumstances, we conclude that the plaintiffs have demonstrated at least some likelihood of success on the merits of their impact bargaining claim,” Cypher said.

Doesn’t Affect Firefighters

The city recently agreed to drop the mandate for the plaintiffs, firefighters and superior officers. The resolution was reached because “the parties desire to resolve this matter without the expense and uncertainty of further litigation, and in promotion of harmonious labor relations between them,” the Boston Herald reported.

“I respect the Court’s decision to lift the injunction however I do not see it having any impact on our Union and members given the agreement we reached with the City in February,” Sam Dillon, president of Boston Firefighters Local 718, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

“The Court’s decision in no way impacts the recent agreement between Local 718 and the City, and the Covid-19 mandate remains unenforceable to the members of Local 718,” Leah Barrault, representing the plaintiffs in the case, added.

Boston officials said in a statement that the decision “affirms that our policies were grounded in sound medical guidance and the public interest at a time of emergency, and it makes absolutely clear that the City of Boston had and continues to have full authority to act in the interest of public health and safety, both last winter and in the future.”

Wu’s office did not respond to a request for comment as to whether the city will impose a mandate for other workers in the future.