And so it begins…

The first set of lawsuits against companies that have imposed vaccine mandates on their staff have been filed.  This was not unexpected.  In my newsletter on August 29, I wrote, “I suspect there will be multiple lawsuits over this matter in the future.” A mere two months later, here we are. 

CariMed Group and AIC Jamaica are the first to be sued by employees over their vaccine policies.  At CariMed, five female employees, including a pregnant woman and an anemic woman preparing for surgery, have taken legal action because their employer has refused to allow them medical or religious exemption and barred them from the workplace. CariMed is also reportedly not allowing them the option of working from home.

According to a report in the Gleaner, the pregnant woman claims that her doctor advised her not to take the COVID-19 vaccine because she previously had a negative reaction to the H1N1 and H3N2 (versions of the flu) vaccine.  The doctor reportedly said the advice was for her safety and that of her unborn child.

“But despite the danger to my life and child, (the company) has not granted me a medical exemption, thereby requiring me to comply with the policy and to face the consequences therein,” the woman is quoted in the Gleaner as saying.

Although I am on record as supporting a national COVID-19 vaccination mandate, such a mandate cannot be imposed in a situation where it would create a credible threat to life.  The entire point of a vaccine mandate is to save as many lives as possible.  As such, medical exemptions must be allowed upon the written advice of a doctor.

Some of the claimants in the two cases have refused for religious reasons.  However, as this is not a threat to their life, I do not believe this is a strong enough reason for this exemption to be granted.

The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms under Jamaica’s Constitution protects:

(a) The right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof….  

(b) The right to freedom of thought, conscience, belief and observance of political doctrines

(c) The right to freedom of expression

(g) the right to equality before the law

(i) the right to freedom from discrimination on the ground of:

     (i) being male or female

     (ii) race, place of origin, social class, colour, religion, or political opinions

Perhaps an argument could be raised that a vaccine mandate infringes on one’s right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of religion, if one’s religion prohibits vaccination.  However, the following questions may also be asked: 

• Has the government previously allowed exemptions on the basis of religion for other mandatory vaccines?
• Have the claimants sought such exemptions for other other vaccines, or have they received other vaccines? 
• Is this the only vaccine that their religion prohibits?  

You see where I am going with this?  If indeed the claimants have received other vaccines and have not sought religious exemption, I believe their argument here is tenuous at best.  But this is just my layman’s interpretation.

The “right to life, liberty and security of the person” is a much more credible reason for exemption, in my opinion.  Neither employers nor the government can compel someone to do something that is a credible threat to their life.  

Now it may be argued that many people believe the vaccine is a threat to their life, hence the high level of hesitancy in the first place.  However, the facts do not support this belief.  According to the COVAX website, 578,242 Jamaicans have received at least one dose of the vaccine as of October 23, 2021. Worldwide, 2.7 billion people have been vaccinated.  If the vaccine was indeed a credible threat to life, we would expect to see an equal or nearly equal number of deaths reported over this period. Even if there was some mass conspiracy or cover-up by the media, government, etc, we would all have noticed if half a million Jamaicans suddenly died over the last six months.  There is nothing that would be able to hide that reality.  Therefore, this mistaken belief is not enough to reason for vaccine exemption.  

However, a credible threat, based on a person’s historic reaction to a similar type of vaccine, is indeed, a credible reason for medical exemption.  The fact that–of all places–a pharmaceutical company has proven so inflexible is worrying.  It is even more reason for the government to act now in establishing a policy framework on this issue, rather than leaving the private sector to determine their own individual policies.  

And that’s The Bottom Line.