A federal judge has explained he recently refused to block the Illinois governor and Chicago mayor from forcing COVID-19 vaccinations upon Chicago city workers, saying the workers' evidence against the value of vaccines was "slim" and the city's evidence in favor was "substantial."
Judge John Z. Lee, of U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, issued the explanation Nov. 24, declaring the workers "do not have a fundamental constitutional right to refuse COVID-19 vaccinations."
On Oct. 21, a group of employees of Chicago's fire, water and transportation departments asked Lee to stop Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Mayor Lori Lightfoot from ordering them to be vaccinated and tested for COVID-19 or risk losing their jobs. The workers claim the mandate trespasses on their rights to bodily autonomy.
U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee
| https://www.law.uchicago.edu/
They also argued they are being denied due process, because they are not given the right to show they do not need the vaccine because of natural immunity. Further, they asserted it is almost impossible to obtain a religious exemption.
On Oct. 29, Lee refused to override the mandate. Last week, he gave his reasons.
"The core flaw with Plaintiffs’ claim that refusing vaccination is a fundamental right, then, is not that there is no privacy interest implicated when someone is required or coerced to take a vaccine that they do not want. There certainly is. Rather, the problem is that, when a person’s decision to refuse a vaccine creates negative consequences (even life-threatening at times) for other people, that interest is not absolute," Judge Lee concluded in his opinion.
Lee added, partly quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, "When an individual’s behavior directly affects the health and welfare of others in the community, she cannot rely on the Supreme Court’s longstanding protection of 'intimate and personal choices' to the utter exclusion of all other interests."
Lee also found it worth noting the "exigencies of the current pandemic justify the degree of intrusion at issue here."
According to Lee, the mayor has "broad policymaking discretion over City employees" and the City Council did eventually vote to maintain the city's vaccination policy as implemented by Lightfoot.
Lee said the workers presented "slim" evidence against the "substantial" evidence put forth by the city and state regarding the efficacy of vaccines.
As far as Pritzker, Lee pointed out federal courts "may not entertain a private person's suit against a State." The workers' suit should be addressed in state court, according to Lee.
The religious objection did not hold water with Lee, who said the city is within its rights to require a worker to give a reason why vaccination conflicts with their religion. Lee noted that if a worker is denied a religious exemption, he or she may challenge the denial, based on the individual facts of the case, rather than contest the entire religious exemption provision of the city's vaccination policy.
The city workers are represented by Skokie lawyer Jonathan Lubin, who is also representing Naperville firefighters in a similar action that remains pending.
The city of Chicago is defended by Michael A. Warner Jr., William R. Pokorny, Erin Kathryn Walsh and Richard Jason Patterson, of the Chicago firm of Franczek Radelet. City corporate counsel Celia Meza is also defending the city.
The state is defended by Assistant Illinois Attorney Generals Hal Dworkin and Mary Alice Johnston.
Unions for city workers have made headway, in separate court actions, to block the vaccine mandate on grounds it goes against collective bargaining agreements. The unions have argued the mandate didn't let them arbitrate grievances concerning the mandate. Those cases remain pending. However, the city has told a Cook County judge it expects to have arbitration on the unions' vaccine related grievances completed before the Dec. 31 COVID vaccine mandate deadline.