On March 18, 2022, a group of providers successfully obtained a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of a Montana statute that prohibits employers, including healthcare providers, from compelling their employees to disclose their vaccination status or otherwise take any adverse employment action based on any refusal to provide this information.
CMS has issued a final rule that makes it a condition of participation under Medicare that healthcare providers must ensure that their covered staff have been fully vaccinated from COVID-19 or otherwise qualify for a religious or medical exemption. Montana state law prohibits employers, including healthcare providers, from denying goods, services, or employment based on a person’s lack of COVID-19 vaccination. The Montana law in question allows employers to ask employees if they have been vaccinated but does not allow them to take any adverse action against an employee that chooses not to respond or to provide the requested information.
In Montana Medical Association v. Knudsen, the healthcare providers argued that the Montana statute makes it nearly impossible for them to comply with the CMS regulation, possibly jeopardizing their compliance and participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The providers also claimed they would suffer irreparable harm due to this conflict between federal and state law and the prospect of having to violate one of the applicable legal regimes.
The federal district court for the District of Montana granted plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the federal regulation likely preempts the Montana state law. The district court noted: “While these two purposes are not inherently irreconcilable, the current codification of the state's attempt to elevate individual privacy rights above all other rights is likely to be superseded by the clear purpose evinced in the Interim Final Rule.” In granting the preliminary injunction, the district court also determined that the plaintiff providers are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of immediate relief because they may risk termination from the Medicaid and Medicare programs for not being in compliance with the interim final rule, and that the balance of the equities and the public interest weigh in favor of an injunction. The district court did place limits on the scope of the preliminary injunction, finding that the Montana law was enjoined as to healthcare providers only so long as the CMS vaccine mandate is in effect.
All this comes on the heels of the U.S. Supreme Court’s determination that CMS did not exceed its authority in adopting the vaccine mandate, and current CMS guidance requires that facilities show they have policies and procedures ensuring covered staff are vaccinated or have a pending request for an exemption.
The district court’s Opinion is available here.
