Government sues Silver Cross Hospital over mandatory COVID-19 vaccines; ex-employees say rights violated
The employees had asked for, and been denied, reasonable accommodation when they asked to be exempt from the vaccination policy due to religious and disability reasons, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission charged in lawsuits filed Thursday in federal court in Chicago.
A spokeswoman for Silver Cross said Friday the hospital does not comment on pending or ongoing litigation or employment-related matters.
'As a regional healthcare provider, Silver Cross Hospital's foremost responsibility is to ensure the health and safety of our patients, our staff and the communities we serve,' she said in an email.
One employee, Sarah Kotan, who worked in the hospital's lab, requested a religious accommodation because taking the COVID-19 vaccine conflicted with her religious beliefs and practices, one of the EEOC's lawsuit alleges.
Debra Phillips, who worked in the hospital's insurance department, requested an accommodation based on disability after she had a severe allergic reaction to the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC said in her lawsuit.
Silver Cross denied their requests for accommodation and fired them, even though the hospital could have put safeguards in place, such as requiring both to undergo weekly COVID-19 testing, the EEOC lawsuits say.
Kotan and Phillips are seeking unspecified monetary damages, including back pay, according to the complaints.
Silver Cross enacted a policy in September 2021 requiring all employees be vaccinated by the end of October of that year, but allowed for employees to seek exemptions, the lawsuits say.
The EEOC said Kotan and Phillips had their exemption requests denied, and when they appealed those were denied as well.
The EEOC said it tried negotiating with the hospital in both cases in order to avoid a lawsuit, but was unable in either instance to secure a settlement agreeable to the commission.
Krotan was fired from her lab job in October 2021, and Phillips from her insurance department job in December 2021, although she was never told she had been fired after being placed on unpaid leave from Silver Cross, according to the EEOC.
Phillips' lawsuit alleges that she didn't find out she had been fired and believed she was still on unpaid leave until February 2022, when she asked the hospital for a copy of her personnel record.
'Absent an undue hardship, civil rights laws affirmatively require employers to accommodate an employee's disability and religious practices,' said Andrea Lucas, the EEOC's acting chair, in a news release Friday announcing the lawsuits.
'Unfortunately, many employers' vaccine mandates turned a blind eye to these long-standing civil rights laws. However, the novelty of the COVID-19 pandemic is not a shield for employers to engage in garden variety discrimination.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
2 hours ago
- Newsweek
Six More States Ban Junk Food From SNAP Benefits
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. Six more states have banned junk food purchases from being bought with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has announced. West Virginia, Florida, Colorado, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas have all had new waivers approved that allow each state to modify what can and can't be bought using food benefits. Across all of these states, the change will impact approximately 8.5 million people. It brings the total number of states banning junk purchases to 12, following similar waiver approvals earlier this year for Arkansas, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska and Utah. Why It Matters SNAP benefits, also known as "food stamps," are paid to low- and no-income households across the U.S. that would otherwise struggle to afford groceries. Across the country, more than 40 million people receive the allowance. A customer shops for produce at an H-E-B grocery store on February 12, 2025, in Austin, Texas. A customer shops for produce at an H-E-B grocery store on February 12, 2025, in Austin, Texas. Brandon Bell/GETTY What To Know A waiver grants flexibility by modifying specific USDA program rules, enabling states to administer the SNAP program in different ways. Various states currently have SNAP waivers in place, and they were widely implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic to help Americans get better access to food benefits. The new waivers, while different for each state, mean that starting in 2026 certain types of foods can no longer be bought using electronic benefit transfer cards, which are loaded every month with payments to spend in participating grocery providers across the country. Junk food generally refers to foods that have lots of calories, particularly those high in macronutrients such as sugar and fat, but little nutritional value. In Texas, the ban will cover soda, energy drinks, candy, and prepared desserts, while in Louisiana, soft drinks, energy drinks, and candy will be banned. Some of the waivers are less restrictive: in Colorado and West Virginia, only soft drinks will no longer be eligible for purchase. The push to tighten rules around unhealthy purchases has been led by Republican states, with Colorado being the only Democratic state to join the throng. Proponents of limiting SNAP purchases have argued removing unhealthy foods from the program will improve health outcomes, while others have argued that it controls how America's poorest eat and fails to address wider problems regarding access to affordable, healthy food. What People Are Saying Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy: "For years, SNAP has used taxpayer dollars to fund soda and candy—products that fuel America's diabetes and chronic disease epidemics. "These waivers help put real food back at the center of the program and empower states to lead the charge in protecting public health. I thank the governors who have stepped up to request waivers, and I encourage others to follow their lead. This is how we Make America Healthy Again." Texas Governor Greg Abbott: "To ensure the health and well-being of Texans, we must promote better, healthier food habits. Earlier this year, I requested a waiver from the USDA to ensure SNAP benefits cannot be used to purchase junk food. "I applaud [Agriculture] Secretary [Brooke L.] Rollins and the Trump Administration for their approval of this waiver to support and promote healthy eating habits. The state of Texas will continue to consider innovative ways for Texans to lead healthy and productive lives." Kavelle Christie, a health policy and advocacy expert and director at the Center for Regulatory Policy and Health Innovation, previously told Newsweek: "The issue isn't about individuals misusing their benefits, but their limited choices. In many rural areas and food deserts, convenience stores and fast-food chains are often the only available options. "For many families, fresh produce and healthy meals are luxuries that are unattainable, not because they do not want these foods, but because they are unavailable or too expensive." A food desert refers to an area, usually a low-income community, where residents have limited access to affordable and nutritious food, particularly fresh fruits and vegetables. What Happens Next Each of the waivers will go into effect in 2026, meaning there will be no immediate changes for SNAP beneficiaries across the impacted states for now. Most come into effect early next year.
Boston Globe
3 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Congress should reauthorize Hospital-at-Home
Advertisement Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up The Congressional Budget Office scored the Hospital-at-Home Program as Advertisement But these programs are at risk if Congress doesn't act. That's because the at-home experiment was only possible because in 2020, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services issued a waiver requiring Medicare to reimburse for Hospital-at-Home care at the same rate as inpatient care. The waiver also let states reimburse via Medicaid, and Massachusetts is one of around a dozen states where Medicaid pays the same rate for at-home and inpatient care, according to the American Hospital Association. The waiver was extended in 2022 and 2024. Federal regulators have approved Hospital-at-Home programs Now, though, the waiver is set to expire Sept. 30, unless Congress approves a Constantinos Michaelidis, medical director of Hospital at Home at UMass Memorial Health, said UMass started the program in August 2021 when patients were waiting hours for a hospital bed. Since then, around 3,600 patients have been cared for at home after presenting at one of three hospitals. According to data provided by UMass Memorial, compared to patients using its brick-and-mortar hospitals, Hospital-at-Home patients had 60 to 70 percent lower mortality, 15 to 30 percent higher patient satisfaction, 5 to 15 percent fewer readmissions, and 80 to 90 percent fewer transfers to skilled nursing facilities after discharge. Michaelidis said he wants to eventually offer Hospital-at-Home throughout the system, and a five-year extension would provide the financial certainty to expand. 'These programs take a lot of money to get off the ground,' Michaelidis said. 'We need Congress to make sure if we spend $3 million expanding the program, it won't go away in two months.' Advertisement A similar calculation is underway at Beth Israel Lahey Health, which started offering Hospital-at-Home in August 2023 at Lahey Hospital and Medical Center. The program has grown gradually, as specialists in different fields established protocols for who can be served at home. It now admits around 100 patients a month, and the hospital recently started offering physical therapy virtually to at-home patients. Sue Stempek, vice president of BILH Hospital at Home, said the system is considering expanding the program to additional hospitals, and a long-term waiver would allow for growth and for research studies to evaluate the model's effectiveness. An open question is the cost impact. Today in Massachusetts, some commercial insurers pay inpatient rates; some pay less. Lora Pellegrini, president of the Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, said some insurers balk at paying inpatient rates when home care doesn't have the same overhead costs. But hospital officials say start-up costs are hefty for staff, equipment, and technology. South Shore Health closed its Hospital-at-Home program May 17, after 11 months. Chief of Medicine Jason Tracy said participants loved the program. But it took time for patients and clinicians to adjust to the idea, and when serving only five or six patients a day, the program lost millions of dollars. 'In this environment, you have to put your resources toward stronger financially performing programs that have greater patient demand,' Tracy said. There are efficiencies in bigger hospital systems. Mass General Brigham has treated over 7,000 patients since January 2022 in Hospital-at-Home programs run through five hospitals. The health system saved 35,000 'bed days,' a measure of how many days inpatient beds would have been filled by those patients. Advertisement Heather O'Sullivan, MGB's president of Healthcare at Home, said the program has expanded to new patient populations — like those in post-operative recovery — and the federal waiver lets the hospital scale up knowing it can recoup costs. Without the waiver, O'Sullivan worried that all but the largest health systems would be unable to make those investments. Congress should also ask federal regulators to study the costs associated with Hospital-at-Home, to determine whether insurance should continue to pay the same as for inpatient care or whether home hospital can achieve cost savings. The need to study costs shouldn't prevent Congress from reauthorizing the waiver for five years, though. Hospital-at-Home provides the care patients want with improved health outcomes, while preserving beds for patients who need inpatient care. That's a win-win-win. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
6 hours ago
Tennessee readies for execution of man with working implanted defibrillator
NASHVILLE, Tenn. -- Tennessee is gearing up for an execution on Tuesday that experts say would likely mark the first time a man has been put to death with a working defibrillator in his chest. Gov. Bill Lee declined Monday to grant a reprieve, clearing the way for Byron Black's execution after a legal battle and ongoing uncertainty about whether the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator will shock his heart when the lethal drug takes effect. The nonprofit Death Penalty Information Center said it's unaware of any other cases in which a person on death row made similar claims to Black's about defibrillators or pacemakers. Black's attorneys said they haven't found a comparable case, either. Lee said the courts have "universally determined that it is lawful to carry out the jury's sentence of execution given to Mr. Black for the heinous murders of Angela Clay and her daughters Lakeisha, age 6, and Latoya, age 9." The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected Black's appeals. The execution would be Tennessee's second since May, after a pause for five years, first because of COVID-19 and then because of missteps by state corrections officials. Twenty-seven men have died by court-ordered execution so far this year in the U.S., and nine other people are scheduled to be put to death in seven states during the remainder of 2025. The number of executions this year exceeds the 25 carried out last year and in 2018. It is the highest total since 2015, when 28 people were put to death. Black, 69, is in a wheelchair, and he has dementia, brain damage, kidney failure, congestive heart failure and other conditions, his attorneys have said. The implantable cardioverter-defibrillator he has is a small, battery-powered electronic device that is surgically implanted in the chest. It serves as a pacemaker and an emergency defibrillator. Black's attorneys say in order to be sure it's off, a doctor must place a programming device over the implant site, sending it a deactivation command, with no surgery required. In mid-July, a trial court judge agreed with Black's attorneys that officials must have his device deactivated to avert the risk that it could cause unnecessary pain and prolong the execution. But the state Supreme Court intervened July 31 to overturn that decision, saying the other judge lacked the authority to order the change. The state has disputed that the lethal injection would cause Black's defibrillator to shock him. Even if shocks were triggered, Black wouldn't feel them, the state said. Black's attorneys have countered that even if the lethal drug being used, pentobarbital, renders someone unresponsive, they aren't necessarily unaware or unable to feel pain. Kelley Henry, Black's attorney, said the execution could become a 'grotesque spectacle.' The legal case also spurred a reminder that most medical professionals consider participation in executions a violation of health care ethics. Black was convicted in the 1988 shooting deaths of his girlfriend Angela Clay, 29, and her two daughters. Prosecutors said he was in a jealous rage when he shot the three at their home. At the time, Black was on work-release while serving time for shooting Clay's estranged husband. Linette Bell, whose sister and two nieces were killed, recently told WKRN-TV: 'He didn't have mercy on them, so why should we have mercy on him?' In recent years, Black's legal team has unsuccessfully tried to get a new hearing over whether he is intellectually disabled and ineligible for the death penalty under U.S. Supreme Court precedent. His attorneys have said that if they had delayed a prior attempt to seek his intellectual disability claim, he would have been spared under a 2021 state law. Nashville District Attorney Glenn Funk contended in 2022 that Black is intellectually disabled and deserved a hearing under that 2021 law, but the judge denied it. That is because the 2021 law denies a hearing to people on death row who have already filed a similar request and a court has ruled on it 'on the merits." In Funk's attempt, he focused on input from an expert for the state in 2004 who determined back then that Black didn't meet the criteria for what was then called "mental retardation.' But she concluded that Black met the new law's criteria for a diagnosis of intellectual disability.
