Starbucks drops vaccine mandate for US staff

Coffeehouse chain Starbucks has announced plans to end its Covid-19 vaccine mandate for employees in the US.

It comes after a Supreme Court decision rejected President Biden’s administration call for all businesses with over 100 employees to put in place a vaccine mandate.

Earlier this month, the organisation announced that all of its employees would need to provide proof of vaccination or face weekly testing for the virus.

However, since the new decision, John Culver, CEO of Starbucks, said that “we respect the court’s ruling and will comply,” reported the Independent.

While this ruling is taking place in the US, the UK has also introduced similar mandates. For example, from April this year the Covid-19 vaccination will be mandatory for healthcare employees. Those who do not comply are set to face dismissal.

Meanwhile, data from Adzuna last year discovered that there is now a noticeable trend for fully vaccinated employees in the UK.

The jobs site found that the number of ads requiring the jab rose by 189% between August and October.

“A taboo appears to be breaking where large corporations are putting a stake in the ground and saying, ‘Right, you have to be vaccinated by certain date’,” said Andrew Hunter, co-founder of Adzuna.

Case-by-case basis

Commenting on vaccine mandates rolled out in the UK, David Sillitoe, partner at law firm Robinson Ralph, shared that those employers who have put in place such a rule could face discrimination claims, which is why many have opted to consider such situations on a case-by-case basis.

He told Reward Strategy: “They run a risk of discriminating against e.g. disabled people or pregnant women. What could be more difficult to overcome is the indirectly racially discriminatory effect of imposing a vaccine mandate, given that people from ethnic minorities are statistically less likely to have been vaccinated.”

The legal expert advised that if an employer was to face such a claim, they would need to ensure the mandate was a “legitimate aim and that action taken pursuant to it was a proportionate means of achieving that aim”.

“In case law, judges have said that there is no shame in having an indirectly discriminatory policy that can be justified, as that is not unlawful, but most employers will be wary of such a risk,” he added.

Effective mandates

Forcing employees to do something likely won’t always work as individuals rebel. With this in mind, Sillitoe believes that if employers do wish to put in place a rule on the jab, open discussions and transparency is key to the success.

He concluded: “My view is that, if employers wish to encourage their staff to get vaccinated, doing so through open discussion and the provision of information is likely to be effective and cause fewer employee-relations issues than imposing a divisive and arguably discriminatory policy.”

To receive stories like this straight to your inbox, sign up to the Reward Strategy newsletter here.