UC Flu Mandate Injunction case Update, (nothing definitive yet)
Normal practice in most cases is that a tentative decision is issued the day before the “hearing” date, which normally is just an opportunity for the losing party to tell the judge why she is wrong. In big cases, like the State case against Uber and Lyft, the judge heard the argument, reserved decision, and three days later issued a ruling.
That’s what is going to happen in our case. The judge has postponed the hearing until Thursday at 2:30 and sent both sides an email invitation to participate in the blue jeans platform hearing. He could decide from the bench, but probably more likely he will tell us he is taking it under advisement and issue a written ruling in a few days. If so, I expect him to continue his de facto TRO barring the UC from taking any action against non-flu mandate-compliant members of the community. Maybe this time the UC will listen to him.
The public is free to watch or listen to the hearing. I’ll post a link on how to get there before the hearing.
So, at least we haven’t been thrown out of court yet, and the judge is obviously taking this very seriously. I suspect he will have some tough questions for both sides. Usually, you can get a good sense from a judge about what’s on his mind and what’s bothering him from his questions.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.
10 thoughts on “UC Flu Mandate Injunction case Update, (nothing definitive yet)”
Over 80% of staff have already gotten the vaccine on our campus, including some I know personally who did not want to. It seems UC has already won anyway. Why force the rest of us small percentage, who clearly don’t want to get it.
UC is completely wrong to have not publish this sooner. So many coworkers went on 10/30 not wanting one because management was telling them otherwise. Shame on UC for not being truthful.
Well those who went ahead and did it anyways when they didn’t want to, shouldn’t have. There’s a pending lawsuit and has been. I’m not letting my university force me into anything until a decision is made by the judge.
I still don’t understand why some UCs have declination forms for other than religious or medical exemptions and some don’t. Doesn’t seem to be the same requirement across all UCs for a “UC wide mandate.”
Some in my dept got the shot when they didn’t want to simply because they were worried about their job with a family to support, didn’t have the time to plan their busy life around getting the shot last minute if they had to and didn’t feel like fighting it or even looked that hard to find the lawsuit. The lawsuit isn’t advertised unless you are really looking.
Thank you, Thank you for over seeing this. We need to fight ALL mandated vaccines. My sister who works at UCI hospital only knew about the court order because of me passing the Physicians For Informed Consent information that they had posted on FB. Her boss and union never told the workers and they continued to pressure them. Luckily for her she resisted the pressure ONLY because she was informed. Tell that to the judge!
I haven’t applied for a religious exemption because to do so only validates their position. I do not need permission from my employer to NOT inject me. They need MY permission TO inject me.
Excited to watch/listen to the hearing tomorrow.
UC has played dirty with this whole thing to push their agenda. It makes me reevaluate my employment with them and wonder if I should move on to better things. UC claims the Ua re all about diversity and inclusion yet people are being bullied for have opposing political views, then pushing this vaccine. I’m really losing faith and respect for a so called “preferred employer.”
I feel like I am already being treated differently for my stance on this vaccine situation. I’m getting standoffish emails from people that now know.
Thank you Rick. Is that 2:30 Eastern or Pacific?