Aptivaboy wrote:Welll, some of us have been to law school... I'm not practicing attorney, but I know enough to be dangerous.
Constitutional scholars will argue whether an executive order is constitutional or not in court. For example, does a federal action intrude into the realm of a state's protected 10th Amendment reserved powers? Does a mandatory jab result in a 4th Amendment violation? Maybe, maybe not. That can lead to lawsuits being viable, or not. After that, the litigators may take over. I make no predictions and take no sides, I'm just scratching the surface of what could be argued and litigated.
And remember, just because the federal gov't orders something doesn't mean that its legal, and that private industry is shielded from liability. There are exceptions to every "rule."
If you have been to law school then you should have at least 1st read the executive order, and see what it does.
Executive Order 14042: COVID Safety Protocols for Federal Contractors (title summarized)
President Biden ordered that the “Safer Federal Workforce Task Force” develop guidelines and standards for Federal Contractors within the United States. The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force is a multi-federal agency/department committee.
These guidelines and standards would apply to all New contracts, New revisions of existing contracts, and any New options exercised under existing contracts (which by standard contract rules require a revision to the contract to activate the option). They would not apply to existing contracts (many of which run for years), as long as there are no revisions (or changes) to those contracts.
The Safer Federal Workforce Task Force decided to implement a Covid-19 vaccine requirement for all new or revised federal contracts based on CDC recommendations that vaccines were the best method of controlling Covid-19 effects on the economy and workforce. Standard medical and religious exemptions, CDC working condition exceptions, and newly hired employee grace periods are all included.
This would affect any revised or renewed agreements involving federal contracts. The timing of that requirement could easily extend up to a year or more depending on the company and the contracts they have (how often does the company sign a revised or updated contract, and the government purchasing agencies like to have renewals spread out across the year).
However, in the case of Boeing. I'm betting they are signing new, revised, and updated contract every month. Now they could either say no to all of those new goverment contracts and various revisions and updates; or implement the vaccine requirement.
No one is forcing any company to sign a new or revised or updated contract with the Federal Government. Thus, the Federal Goverment is not forcing any company to accept the vaccine mandate.
However, most employees would likely appreciate it if their company did not eliminate their jobs because they company leadership decided to not accept new, revised, or updated contracts.
There is legally nothing you can sue the goverment for. The Boeing management team has made the decision to accept this new contract clause. Not the Federal Goverment.