People view health in greater perspective and not only as health care. While having access to health care is a contributing factor in this case, our behaviors and the social, economic as well as physical environment in which we work and live also act as significant drivers of health. As a result, there is more meaning in health policy along with how it impact employment. Thus, within this essay, there is the presentation of how various public policy issues that are health associated can influence the well-being and health of employees who will be identified in Deb and Gomez’s cases.
Scenario 1
Evidence Supporting Nurse Deb’s Case
Nurse Deb might not have much to support her case as part of the wrongful termination suit. However, she can argue that she has the rights to decide whether she requires any medication or not. Also, Deb has the freedom of choice considering that it is her body that is to be vaccinated and she has control over her body. Nurse Deb can also argue that the yearly vaccination is a nuisance and she is not comfortable with it thereby it should not be the reason for her termination. In case Deb had valid documentation of exemption from the flu vaccination, she would use this to support her case for wrongful termination. Nurse Deb can also support her case by stating that she was not provided with enough time to make up her mind whether to go through the vaccination process or not. She can reason that her job termination was so swift and she was not given a chance to make her mind as required of her according to employment laws. She has the right to think about the whole thing, and the hospital should also consider her interest before she can be sent away from her work.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"Healthcare In The Workplace".
Hospital Vaccination Mandate
The mandatory vaccination policy is a law that has been implemented, and it requires every healthcare professionals to receive flu vaccinations every year with the aim of protecting them from the influenza virus (Winston, Wagner, & Chan, 2014). Failure to accept the flu vaccination, a health care provider, is at risk of being terminated. Based on Deb’s case, it is notable that she should follow the hospital’s requirements as a nurse considering that she is part of the employee team. Also, in case she did not want to receive the flu vaccination and still wanted to keep her job, she should have provided valid documentation of exemption.
Hospital Concerns if the Lawsuit is a success
The hospital has to be ready to receive some serious charges if Nurse Deb’s lawsuit is a success. Besides, the hospital will be found with many accounts of breaking the policies that protect employees’ self-interest. Also, the hospital will answer for breaking the model act which requires all employees treated with respect and allowed to make judgments to some personal matters (Winston, Wagner, & Chan, 2014). The hospital will have to compensate the nurse for taking her through the trauma and stress of losing her job yet she performed her duties as expected of her and did not violate any laws.
Scenario 2
The concern about Joe’s Termination
As seen through Joe’s case, his termination is unlawful. Joe has made no mistake that should make him fired. Besides, he is doing the right thing by reporting the manager to the compliance officer because the manager has not met all the requirements expected of him like using OSHA-proved filters. It is essential always to feel responsible for other employees regardless of their position as a leader. Therefore, Joe was only carrying out his duties as a reliable employee. Based on these facts as the CEO, the manager had no rights to fire Joe because he was ready to expose him for not following procedures expected of him that could cause future harm to patients.
Legal Principles Involved
Joe’s termination was unlawful because it violated public policy. The manager went against public policy by firing Joe because he was going to be reported for not using OSHA-proved filters. It is not right to fire a person without any legal reason for executing such an action. Also, Joe’s termination is an indication that laws prohibiting discrimination were violated. As seen in this case, the manager discriminated against Joe’s concern and was willing to fire him so that he could protect himself from being reported to the compliance officer. Such is unlawful considering that Joe’s employee rights are violated since he caused no harm and did not go against anything expected of him in any way (Stewart & Cox, 2013). Furthermore, Joe was only performing his duties as a concerned employee willing to follow the rules and regulations as expected of every other person within this working environment. Termination of Joe was in retaliation for his rights of expression that is protected by law. The manager is not allowed by law to fire anyone for coming forward to report unlawful activities like the violation of OSHA.
Termination if Joe he was Member of Local Employee Service Union
Being a member of the local employment service union does not make Joe vulnerable to dismissal. He can only be terminated in this case at the end of his contract which specified agreed time of work. Being fired is not possible unless provision for this termination was expressly outlined in the contract and both parties agreed to it. An employer can terminate an employee under such circumstances if there are significant reasons that go against the contract (Stewart & Cox, 2013).
- Stewart, A. M., & Cox, M. A. (2013). State law and influenza vaccination of health care personnel. Vaccine, 31(5), 827-832.
- Winston, L., Wagner, S., & Chan, S. (2014). Healthcare workers under a mandated H1N1 vaccination policy with employment termination penalty: a survey to assess employee perception. Vaccine, 32(37), 4786-4790.
