2026年6月29日 / 美国东部时间上午11:19 / 哥伦比亚广播公司新闻
华盛顿讯 美国最高法院周一驳回了一起涉及纽约州现已废止的新冠疫苗强制令的诉讼案件，该强制令曾要求医护人员在新冠疫情期间接种疫苗。
这场纠纷源于纽约州卫生部2021年发布的一项紧急规定，该规定要求所有持照医护工作者必须完成新冠疫苗接种，以遏制病毒在医疗机构和养老院的传播。州政府官员表示，该规定允许医疗机构在特定情况下为员工提供宗教豁免 accommodation，但不允许针对疫苗强制令的全面豁免。
随着拜登政府结束联邦新冠疫情公共卫生紧急状态，这项疫苗要求于2023年10月正式废止。
一群纽约医疗机构的员工曾申请新冠疫苗强制令的宗教豁免，他们称自己坚定的宗教信仰使他们无法接种新冠疫苗。但雇主拒绝了他们的宗教 accommodation 请求并将他们解雇。
随后这些员工起诉了纽约州州长凯西·霍楚尔及其他州政府官员，同时起诉了他们的雇主——纽约长老会医疗系统、三一医疗集团以及韦斯特切斯特医疗中心高级医师服务机构。
这些在法庭文件中未具名的员工主张，雇主拒绝给予豁免违反了《民权法案》第七条，该条款禁止基于宗教的职场歧视，并要求雇主为宗教信仰提供 accommodation，除非这样做会给企业造成过度负担。
他们还称，《民权法案》第七条效力高于州疫苗强制令。
联邦地区法院驳回了此案，上诉法院维持了这一判决。
这些员工随后向最高法院提起上诉，辩称美国第二巡回上诉法院的裁决允许州级规定凌驾于《民权法案》第七条要求雇主提供宗教 accommodation 的规定之上。
“与联邦反歧视法律相悖的州级法律必须服从联邦法律的要求，”他们在提交给最高法院的文件中写道。
这些前医护人员主张，纽约州的新冠疫苗强制令认可了“全面拒绝”所有基于《民权法案》第七条提出的疫苗接种宗教豁免请求，无论这些请求是否合理，也无论是否可以在不造成过度负担的情况下提供 accommodation。
他们称，第二巡回法院“允许遵守相悖的州级法律来免除遵守《民权法案》第七条的义务。这不可能是现行法律，美国宪法要求得出不同的结果。”
但医疗机构辩称，州法律并未禁止雇主提供任何形式的宗教 accommodation，仅禁止“基于宗教理由的全面豁免”。
该规定“并未禁止医疗方被告向请愿者提供任何形式的 accommodation，只是禁止了请愿者坚持要求的特定 accommodation：即全面豁免，”他们在提交给最高法院的文件中写道。
与此同时，霍楚尔及其他州政府官员告诉最高法院，该州的疫苗规则并未禁止所有宗教 accommodation。相反，它允许雇主为未接种疫苗的员工安排不会使他人、患者或养老院居民面临新冠感染风险的岗位。
“因此，该规定允许提供宗教 accommodation，尽管并非请愿者所偏好的那种 accommodation，这符合《民权法案》第七条的要求，”他们在文件中辩称。“如果正确理解该规定的适用范围，本案并不涉及任何类似于本规定这样、禁止雇主提供任何形式宗教 accommodation 的州级法律的有效性问题。”
Supreme Court rejects legal battle over New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for healthcare workers
June 29, 2026 / 11:19 AM EDT / CBS News
Washington — The Supreme Court on Monday turned away a legal battle involving New York’s now-repealed mandate for healthcare workers to receive the COVID-19 vaccine during the pandemic.
The dispute arose after the New York Department of Health issued an emergency rule in 2021 that required all licensed healthcare workers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 to address the spread of the virus in medical facilities and nursing homes. State officials said the rule allowed healthcare employers to accommodate religious exemptions in certain ways, but did not permit blanket exemptions from the vaccine mandate.
The vaccine requirement was repealed as of October 2023 after the Biden administration ended the federal COVID-19 public health emergency.
A group of employees at New York healthcare facilities sought religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate, arguing that their sincerely held religious beliefs prevented them from receiving the COVID-19 shots. But their employers rejected the workers’ requests for religious accommodations and fired them.
They then filed a lawsuit against Gov. Kathy Hochul and other state officials, as well as their employers — New York-Presbyterian Healthcare System, Trinity Health and Westchester Medical Center Advanced Physician Services.
The workers, who are unnamed in court papers, argued that their employers’ refusal to grant exemptions violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits workplace discrimination because of religion and requires employers to make religious accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on their business.
They also said that Title VII trumps the state’s vaccination mandate.
A federal district court tossed out the case, and an appeals court upheld that decision.
The workers appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit allows state rules to supersede Title VII’s requirements that employers provide religious accommodations.
“State laws that are contrary to federal nondiscrimination laws must yield to the demands of federal law,” they wrote in a filing with the Supreme Court.
The former healthcare workers argued New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate sanctioned the “blanket rejection” of all requests for religious accommodations under Title VII regarding the shots, regardless of whether they were reasonable or whether the accommodations could be provided without undue hardship.
The 2nd Circuit, they said, “permitted compliance with contrary state laws to excuse noncompliance with Title VII. This cannot be the law, and the Nation’s Charter demands a different outcome.”
But the healthcare facilities argued that state law did not forbid employers from providing any religious accommodation, only “complete exemptions” on religious grounds.
The rule “did not prohibit the healthcare respondents from granting any accommodation whatsoever to petitioners. It merely prohibited the particular accommodation on which petitioners insisted: namely, a complete exemption,” they wrote in a Supreme Court filing.
Hochul and other state officials, meanwhile, told the high court that the state’s vaccine rule doesn’t prohibit all religious accommodations. Instead, it allowed employers to offer options that moved unvaccinated workers into roles that wouldn’t expose personnel, patients or nursing home residents to COVID-19 if they were infected.
“The rule thus allowed religious accommodations, albeit not petitioners’ preferred accommodation, in accordance with Title VII,” they argued in a filing. “When the rule’s scope is properly understood, this case does not present any question about the validity of a state law that, unlike the rule here, prohibits employers from providing any religious accommodations whatsoever.”
发表回复