Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another day, another lawsuit
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
Posted in:
* Fourth District Illinois Appellate Court. Justice Cavanagh wrote the decision…
According to the complaints in these three appeals, the plaintiffs work for or used to work for public employers in Illinois, either on the local level or the state level. We will refer to the plaintiffs, collectively, as “the employees.” In the circuit court of Sangamon County, the employees petitioned for the issuance of temporary restraining orders that would bar the public employers and Governor Pritzker from enforcing a workplace policy requiring all employees either to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or, alternatively, to undergo regular testing for COVID-19. The court denied the petitions for temporary restraining orders. The employees appeal. We find no abuse of discretion in that ruling. Therefore, we affirm the judgments in these three cases. […]
One of the reasons why the circuit court denied the employees’ petitions for temporary restraining orders was that recently the General Assembly passed an amendment making clear that it was not a violation of the Conscience Act for any employer to take measures calculated to prevent the spread of COVID-19. […]
To quote from Sutherland again, “while the views of a subsequent legislature cannot override the unmistakable intent of the enacting one, such views may be entitled to significant weight, particularly when the precise intent of the enacting legislature is obscure.”
That part’s a no-brainer.
* But here’s where it gets good…
The employees assert that their employers’ vaccination or testing requirement violates section 2 of the Health Act (20 ILCS 2305/2 (West 2020)). The employees do not offer much of an explanation, though, of how that requirement violates the statute.
Section 2(a) of the Health Act provides that the Health Department “has supreme authority in matters of quarantine and isolation.” Id. § 2(a). The employers, however, have not quarantined or isolated any employees, nor have the employers threatened to do so. Because the term “quarantine” is undefined by the Health Act, we give the term its dictionary meaning. See People v. Chapman, 2012 IL 111896, ¶ 24. A “quarantine” is “a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed.” New Oxford American Dictionary 1393 (2001). To “quarantine” someone means to keep that person isolated from other members of society. Cassell v. Snyders, 458 F. Supp. 3d 981, 1002 (N.D. Ill. 2020). The threatened penalty for noncompliance with the vaccination or testing requirement is merely the loss of employment, not quarantine or isolation. To be fired is not to be quarantined or isolated from the community at large.
Section 2(d) of the Health Act provides that “[t]he [Health] Department may order physical examinations and tests and collect laboratory specimens as necessary for the diagnosis and treatment of individuals in order to prevent the probable spread of a dangerously contagious or infectious disease.” 20 ILCS 2305/2(d) (West 2020). Section 2(d) further provides that if the individual refuses to consent to such testing and if “that refusal results in uncertainty regarding whether he or she has been exposed to or is infected with a dangerously contagious or infectious disease or otherwise poses a danger to the public’s health, the individual may be subject to isolation or quarantine.” Id. Similarly, section 2(e) (id. § 2(e)) provides that “[t]he [Health] Department may order the administration of vaccines *** to persons as necessary in order to prevent the probable spread of dangerously contagious or infectious disease” and that “the [Health] Department may, pursuant to the procedures in [section 2(c) [(id. § 2(c))], isolate or quarantine persons who are unable or unwilling to receive the vaccines.”
Just because section 2 of the Health Act confers upon the Health Department such authority, it does not logically follow that the employers lack authority over workplace safety, such as the authority to require employees, on pain of loss of employment, to undergo vaccination or testing for infectious diseases such as COVID-19. “Administrative agencies have, in addition to the powers conferred upon them by explicit statutory language, the power to do all which is reasonably necessary to effectuate the powers and authorities explicitly granted to them.” Taylor v. State Universities Retirement System, 203 Ill. App. 3d 513, 522 (1990). “An express grant of power or duty to do a particular thing includes the express grant of power to do all that is reasonably necessary to execute the power or duty.” Owens v. Green, 400 Ill. 380, 400 (1948). The employers surely have the power to lay down workplace safety rules, of which the vaccination or testing requirement is an example—because such power is reasonably necessary to effectuate the powers that the legislature explicitly granted to them.
Citing Austin v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District 300, 2022 IL App (4th) 220090-U, ¶ 15, the employees argue that the Governor lacks authority to “make final decisions on public health.” The vaccination or testing requirement that the employees challenge, however, is not a decision on public health. “Public health” is “[t]he health of the community at large” or “[t]he healthful or sanitary condition of the general body of people or the community en masse; esp[ecially] the methods of maintaining the health of the community, as by preventive medicine and organized care for the sick.” Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (sub-definition of “public health” in the definition of “health”). The vaccination or testing requirement is not calculated to maintain “the health of the community at large.” Id. Nothing in the employers’ policy prevents an employee, upon testing positive for COVID-19, from circulating in “the general body of people” outside the workplace and thereby spreading the infection. Id. The vaccination or testing requirement is, instead, a workplace safety rule and a workplace rule of considerate conduct toward the public that the agencies serve. [Emphasis added.]
By this reasoning, mask mandates aren’t a form of quarantine either, since the dictionary definition of “a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed” would obviously not apply. So Sangamon County Circuit Court Judge Raylene Grischow’s ridiculous rulings to the contrary will hopefully and finally be put to rest, as will the lawsuit filed by a handful of Department of Corrections workers that we discussed earlier today.
The dissent didn’t mention the quarantine argument.
*** UPDATE *** Tom DeVore on WMAY today…
(W)hen I saw the language about quarantine, I found that odd because we’re not talking about quarantine or isolation under Subsection C of the Health Act. We’re talking about other specific provisions.
Um, the justices clearly referred to the entire section as well as numerous subsections, not just one subsection. Swing and a miss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:15 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another day, another lawsuit
Next Post: *** LIVE COVERAGE ***
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Great ruling. More like this. The health of the public requires it.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:23 pm
Excellent opinion from a bright reasonable pragmatic Judge.
Comment by Galway Bay Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:26 pm
The knucklehead brigade won’t accept this anymore than they accept any of the other obvious rulings and decisions. It’s more fun to act foolish and victimized.
Comment by Lincoln Lad Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:32 pm
Finally…
This has been a journey.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:34 pm
Common sense prevails.
Comment by Glengarry Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:38 pm
Despite the goofy dissent this is a terrific decision.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:41 pm
And because it is published it is binding on all circuit courts statewide.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:42 pm
Hallelujah. Common sense prevails.
Comment by Shytown Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:48 pm
Bet the Grassy Knoll Convoy folks will be up in arms over this attack on freedom. Oh the humanity (banned punc)
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 6:54 pm
“we give the term its dictionary meaning”
That it took so long to get here, shows how far detached we were from reality.
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:09 pm
Wow this is like the real life Twilight Zone. Everyone must be of one mind and comply.
Comment by Real Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:16 pm
The question remaining- Does Darren Bailey use this as fundraiser messaging for his campaign, or to drum up business for his legal firm?
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:23 pm
Real, sort of like many laws. You don’t get to pick and choose because you have fringe politics.
Comment by Big Dipper Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:24 pm
DeVore is on the war path. He firing up the puppets.
Comment by Club J Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:24 pm
>Everyone must be of one mind and comply
So your position is that employers are not able to set rules for their own workplace?
Comment by Jimbo Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:25 pm
=== Everyone must be of one mind and comply.===
That’s what 1st world countries do in cases of global pandemic things.
Third world countries are those first unable, at times, financially to save their populations, then lack infrastructure, ability, and opportunity to save them.
Since we in Illinois are dealing with wholly ignorant (the dictionary definition, if you will) people willing to continue a global pandemic, the law stepped in, because, “the law” and realities to defeating a deadly virus.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:26 pm
Alrighty from the non state employee peanut gallery. Wake me up when this has any concrete effect on those of us that keep your state running.
Comment by ESR Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 7:39 pm
I smell toast.
Comment by H-W Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 8:19 pm
Sadly, we are in a “real life Twilight Zone.” How else can you explain so many people who were vaccinated and had kids vaccinated refusing to get vaccinated to prevent a deadly disease because they listened to the lies of a narcissistic sociopath. Lies he and his party spread so they could win elections. Rod Serling couldn’t come up with a story this insane.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 8:46 pm
I’m not surprised it’s Steigmann dissenting. He’s always been a bit of a loose cannon. Not to mention stuff like this: https://www2.illinois.gov/sites/jib/Documents/Orders%20from%20Courts%20Commission/JusticeRobertSteigmann.Order.pdf
Comment by JoanP Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 9:08 pm
Thanks HW (banned punctuation). I needed a good laugh today and you supplied it.
Comment by Manchester Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 9:40 pm
I bet this doesn’t get publicized / reported anywhere close to the extent the Grischow rulings were
Comment by New Englander Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 10:36 pm
Pretty clear, but I do see one bit of wiggle room the plaintiffs could try to argue. The law specifically states “to prevent the probable spread of a dangerously contagious or infectious disease.” 20 ILCS 2305/2(d) (West 2020).”
The only thing left to argue is the definition of “dangerously”. That should be a no brainer, but where Covid seems to be tapering off to a manageable flu-like level, the plaintiffs might try to argue it.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Apr 14, 22 @ 10:49 pm
==Rod Serling couldn’t come up with a story this insane.==
Rod Serling did so much more.
https://www.denofgeek.com/culture/the-words-of-rod-serlings-the-twilight-zone-are-more-relevant-than-ever/
Comment by TheInvisibleMan Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 7:30 am
Great opinion by Justice Cavanagh dissent was embarrassing
Comment by Dean Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 8:06 am
The argument that not being allowed in a building without testing or masks was a quarantine was always bogus. You’re not locked in some area, you just can’t enter some buildings. It’s not house arrest
Comment by Perrid Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 8:32 am
I have a sincere question for lawyers.
Would this case directly nullify the Grishow findings since it followed, or would this case serve as precedent going forward? I ask since the Supreme Court ruling seemed to simply argue that the Grichow argument was moot going forward, at that time.
I guess I have a second questions for the lawyers in the room. Would any future case set up a direct appeal to the Supreme Court?
Sorry to be naive.
Comment by H-W Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 9:18 am
= I bet this doesn’t get publicized / reported anywhere close to the extent the Grischow rulings were =
You sure wouldn’t know about it from the Trib or Sun-Times websites this morning.
Comment by JoanP Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 9:19 am
I am curious what this means for the current restraining order those six CPS teachers won that exempt them from the CPS testing requirements for unvaccinated employees.
Comment by skutt Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 9:25 am
Well not unexpectedly Tom Devore is taking it all in stride. And unfortunately the consequence to society from the likes of Devore and others is that public health continues to be undermined and there are no consequences for the hucksters. Tom’s “freedom” is not measured by wins and losses in court but how effective he is in lining his pockets.
Comment by Pundent Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 10:07 am
===He’s always been a bit of a loose cannon.===
That’s putting it mildly. He should have been sanctioned for participating in the Opinion that said the Blagojevich Administration, under State FOIA law, had to release federal subpoenas (that Patrick Fiztgerald’s office instructed them not to release them). Based upon family connections, he should have recused himself from participating in that case (which the Blagojevich Administration would have lost in any case).
https://www.news-gazette.com/news/academy-replaces-two-high-level-employees/article_7b481a23-2382-5cdf-879d-04eaae2bea16.html
Comment by Anyone Remember Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 10:07 am
DeVore on WMAY
It would be nice if someone would interview DeVore and actually ask him tough questions about these frivolous lawsuits. Greg Bishop might as well be his press secretary throwing him softball questions like he’s won every lawsuit.
Comment by Club J Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 10:24 am
Let the firings for vax noncompliance begin.
Comment by Anon Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 10:40 am
- Let the firings for vax noncompliance begin.-
This ^ is why there are lawsuits to begin with. I bet you think you are compassionate as well.
Comment by The Jollier Rancheros Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 11:13 am
Finally a judge who knows that words have meaning, unlike the remainder of the ignorati.
Comment by Jibba Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 11:17 am
=== This ^ is why there are lawsuits to begin with. I bet you think you are compassionate as well.===
A job is not a right.
Comply or move on. Freedom and ‘Merica
No compassion, “choose”
Comment by Oswego Willy Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 11:21 am
Funny how conservatives hate the government but want to hold public sector jobs.
Comment by Big Dipper Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 12:18 pm
==Funny how conservatives hate the government but want to hold public sector jobs. ==
Indeed. I am always amused when a long-term employee of a regulatory agency claims to be a Libertarian.
“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Comment by Pot calling kettle Friday, Apr 15, 22 @ 12:57 pm