小红帽直播app

The House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday passed a bill that opponents say will lead to increased civil litigation against employers. 

At issue was HB 2043, a bill sponsored by state Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott, which would allow an employee to recover no less than $500,000 if their employer denied a religious exemption and required the employee to receive a Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of their employment and the person suffered a significant injury.

A representative of the Arizona 小红帽直播app of Commerce & Industry says the state鈥檚 workers鈥� compensation system already offers employees an avenue to address claims against employers, while existing state and federal statutes protect against religious discrimination.  According to bill opponents, Nguyen鈥檚 legislation risks encouraging more civil lawsuits.

鈥淲e are opposed to this or any other legislation that would provide for a private right of action outside of the workers鈥� compensation program,鈥� 小红帽直播app Vice President of Government Affairs Courtney Coolidge said. 鈥淟egislation that provides a new way to sue businesses is a step backwards.鈥�

Mike Huckins, vice president of public affairs for the Greater Phoenix 小红帽直播app, agreed, saying the legislation contradicted legislation passed into law last year intended to limit pandemic-related liability. 

鈥淭he bill passed last year was reasonable and a model for the country and we should be proud of it,鈥� Huckins said. 鈥淏usinesses are each individually doing the best they can to protect their employees.鈥�

But Rep. Nguyen disagreed.

鈥淭his is not about whether you should take the vaccine or not,鈥� Nguyen said. 鈥淭here is no one in this room or in the business community that is going to tell me what goes in my body, what goes on with my soul, and how legitimate my religion is.鈥�

Tom Savage, testifying on behalf of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said the bill鈥檚 attempt to link the denial of a religious belief and a potential adverse health outcome was unclear.

鈥淭he bill is confusing (in) that it tends to relate the two,鈥� Savage said. 鈥淩eligious exemption is not related to the potential health concerns from Covid-19 vaccines.鈥�

Barbara Jennings testified in favor of the bill. 

鈥淚 think this bill is so important because right now we lack anything to protect employees,鈥� Jennings said. 鈥淲e see now that these jabs make no difference. People will never feel the pain if they are not held accountable.鈥�

to the Arizona Department of Health Services, the unvaccinated are 17.5 times more likely to be hospitalized and 31.1 times more likely to die from Covid-19 than the fully vaccinated. 

HB 2043 and bills like it this legislative session sponsored by Republicans have resulted in strange political bedfellows, with Republicans siding with interest groups and activists that traditionally advocate for greater governmental control over workplace policies. 

The American Tort Reform Association, the nation鈥檚 leading civil justice reform group, has noted the flip-flop by lawmakers who are usually resistant to efforts to create new avenues to litigation.

鈥淐onservative lawmakers traditionally oppose such liability-expanding initiatives, but in this case they鈥檙e leading the charge,鈥� ATRA President Tiger Joyce wrote in an opinion in The Wall Street Journal. 鈥淚t鈥檚 regrettable to see past proponents of civil-justice reform take such a turn. America is already litigious enough.鈥�

The U.S. Supreme Court earlier this month blocked an attempt by the Biden administration to require employers of 100 more employees to require their employees to be vaccinated or be subjected to regular testing. Facing long odds of success in the lower courts if the administration were to continue to press its case, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration on Monday withdrew its proposed rule.

鈥淛ust as we didn鈥檛 want the federal government to tell employers how to run their businesses, we don鈥檛 want state government to tell employers what their policies ought to be, either,鈥� Coolidge said.

The bill passed 5-4, with all of the committee Republicans supporting the bill and all the Democrats opposing.

Groups opposing the bill included the state chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, Arizona Academy Of Family Physicians, the Health System Alliance of Arizona, the Arizona Lodging and Tourism Association, and chambers of commerce from across the Valley and Flagstaff.

The bill heads to the Rules Committee and will then be considered by each party鈥檚 caucus before it鈥檚 taken up by the full House of Representatives.