La. Supreme Court rejects challenge to Ochsner vaccine requirement

The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled Friday that Ochsner Health can require its employees to receive COVID vaccinations or be fired.

In two lawsuits, filed by 47 employees of Ochsner Lafayette General and 39 employees at two Ochsner facilities in Shreveport, the plaintiffs had argued that Ochsner's vaccination requirement violates the right to privacy enshrined in the Louisiana Constitution and the right to refuse medical care found in state statutes.

Ochsner Health operates Ochsner St. Mary in Morgan City.

Ochsner announced in August that its employees would be required to be vaccinated by Oct. 29 or face disciplinary action, including termination. The requirement made room for valid religious and health-related exemptions.

District court judges dismissed both lawsuits. But in the Caddo Parish lawsuit, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeal in Shreveport ordered the district court to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting disciplinary action under Ochsner's requirement. The ruling also ordered the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether a preliminary injunction should be granted.

The 2nd Circuit ruling said the employees had stated a cause of action and "the exception of no cause of action is not the appropriate procedure to dispose of this important constitutional issue."

Ochsner then asked the state Supreme Court to intervene.

Friday's Supreme Court opinion, written by Chief Justice John L. Weimer, noted that Louisiana is by law an "at-will" state in which employers are free to hire or fire at will, and employees are free to seek employment elsewhere. Weimer wrote that the plaintiffs' allegations don't fall within established legal exceptions, such as discrimination based on race or sex.

The claim that the Ochsner requirement violates the right to refuse medical treatment also fails, Weimer wrote. The chief justice said the informed consent statute on which the plaintiffs based their right to refuse a medical procedure applies to the relationship between a health care provider and a patient, or the patient's representative.

The plaintiffs are challenging Ochsner as an employer, not a health care provider, Weimer said.

The privacy claim is based on Article 1 Section 5 of the Louisiana Constitution: "Every person shall be secure in his person, property, communications, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches, seizures, or invasions of privacy."

The courts have consistently ruled that the limits in the privacy provision apply only to state actors, not private entities, Weimer wrote. And in a 1990 case in which the court ruled that the privacy rule can be applied to private actors, "that dicta is rejected by this court," he wrote.

"This court declines the invitation to extend the scope of La. Const. art. I, § 5 to restrict private actors," Weimer wrote.

In the Lafayette lawsuit ruling, Weimer said the district court's dismissal is upheld for the reasons set out in the Shreveport ruling.

The lawsuits are captioned Hayes et al v. University Health Shreveport LLC and Nelson et al v. Ochsner Lafayette General.