Sleeves Up?

Louisiana REALTORS • November 22, 2021

The Status of COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace

Written By: B. Troy Villa, with contributions from Jerry “Jay” Stovall, E. Frederic Preis, Jr., Rachael Jeanfreau and Phillip Giorlando

Even prior to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s full approval of the leading COVID-19 vaccines began this past August, the debate has raged as to whether employers could/should/must adopt a vaccine policy in the workplace and how businesses and their customers would interact with in-person commerce returning in the economy. There has been no shortage of opinions from all sides.


To state the obvious, the residential real estate industry is not immune from the debate, nor the effect of governmental mandates, private company policies, and the personal beliefs of its customers. We all are susceptible to information overload and misinformation, which makes sound business decision-making much more difficult. With a little help my friends (aka my law partners), the goal of this article is to provide some context and direction to brokers, agents and customers as they navigate through the unchartered waters of a vaccine-enabled world. 


A caution to the reader: the answers provided below are meant to be brief and instructive, not necessarily definitive or completely thorough, for two reasons: (1) quite obviously, there has not been much of a chance for existing laws to be applied by the courts to the current pandemic, so much of our interpretations are not able to factor in how a judge or jury would apply them; and (2) if we have learned anything since the COVID-19 pandemic began, it’s that there are going to be shifts, adjustments, and changes. Hopefully one day, there will be clarity. But not yet. So, away we go!


  • Are all employers, regardless of the number of employees, required to mandate vaccines of their employees?

    Besides Federal employees and contractors, and employees of health care provides that receive federal reimbursements, only private employers that employ 100 or more employees are required to adopt a mandatory vaccine policy, maybe.


    As reported by my law partner, Jerry “Jay” Stovall, in an update published on November 4, 2021 , the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard for COVID-19  in furtherance of an Executive Order from President Biden providing that “covered employees” (most public and private employers with 100 or more employees) must develop, implement and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy or adopt a policy requiring employees to either (1) choose to either be vaccinated or (2) undergo regular COVID-19 testing and wear a face covering at work in lieu of vaccination.  


    Jay’s article further explains the employer’s policy must require vaccination of all employees, including all new employees, as soon as practicable other than those employees (1) from who a vaccine is medically contraindicated, (2) for whom medical necessity requires a delay in vaccination or (3) those legally entitled to a reasonable accommodation under federal civil rights laws because they have a disability or sincerely-held religious beliefs, practices or observances that conflict with the vaccination (more on this last exception below).  Through several rushed and confusing updates, the timeline for compliance with the OSHA vaccine mandate has been pushed back several times and is now set for compliance not later than January 18, 2022.


    However, a funny thing happened on the way to the company infirmary for your mandatory vaccine. 


    On Friday, November 12th, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals out of New Orleans issued a nationwide injunction, staying OSHA’s vaccine mandate, which means OSHA cannot move forward with its vaccine mandate unless it can prove to the Court that its Emergency Temporary Standard is necessary to protect employees from “grave danger” due to exposure of “substances or agents determined to be toxic or physically harmful.” This leaves large employers, who would otherwise be required to satisfy the mandate, developing whiplash from watching all the medical, legal and political back-and-forth. In the meantime, my partners suggest it is advisable for employers that are covered by OSHA’s mandate to proceed with developing their vaccine policies under the assumption the injunction may be lifted.  Otherwise, stay tuned.  


  • Can an employer voluntarily adopt a vaccine mandate?

    While OSHA’s vaccine mandate for large employers remains on the judicial ping-pong table, there seems to be a consensus that employers are not prohibited from adopting a vaccine mandate in the workplace, regardless of the size of their business or staff, but with exceptions.  As Jay Stovall wrote in an article published on August 27, 2021, Federal law does not prevent an employer from requiring all employees entering the workplace to be vaccinated for COVID-19, subject to the reasonable accommodation provisions of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and other Equal Employment Opportunity considerations.  The few judicial interpretations of a voluntarily-adopted vaccine mandate all seem to be consistent in this regard. 


    As Jay further explains in his article, the ADA requires an employer to provide reasonable accommodations to employees who object to being vaccinated due to an existing disability, unless providing that accommodation poses an undue hardship on the business’ operations or poses a direct threat to the employee or others. If the vaccine mandate tends to screen out workers with a disability, the employer must show that unvaccinated employees pose a “direct threat” in order to take action against the employee.  If an employee who cannot be vaccinated poses a direct threat to the workplace, the employer must consider whether a reasonable accommodation can be made, such as allowing the employee to work remotely or take a leave of absence.


    Whether an employee may claim a “sincerely-held religious belief” under Title VII as the basis for not complying with a vaccine mandate in the workplace is, well, not a simple answer as you probably suspect. Both Jay Stovall and my other partners, Fred Preis, Jr., Rachael Jeanfreau, and Phillip Giorlando have written extensively on this topic , and I would encourage you to read their materials for a detailed analysis. 


    In short, the definition of “religion” is broad and protects the beliefs and practices beyond the more commonly-recognized religions.  As my partners suggest, employers should generally assume that an employee’s religious objection is based on a sincerely held religious belief and should only challenge the employee’s belief if the employer has an objective basis for questioning the employee’s objection. 


    As my law partners also caution, employers must also be conscious to not adopt a vaccination mandate in a way that has a disparate impact on employees because of their disability, race, religion, color sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation and gender identity), national origin, age, or genetic information, unless there is a legitimate non-discriminatory reason for doing so.


  • Would a vaccine mandate, whether voluntarily or compulsively adopted, apply equally to both employees and independent contractors?

    This question has yet to be specifically answered by governmental policies or by the courts. We believe business owners should expect that independent contractors will be considered on the same level as employees for purposes of any vaccine mandate. While there are distinct legal differences between employees and independent contractors, those differences do not apply in the areas of health and safety of a workforce, so it is best to assume they will be treated equally for vaccine mandates.

  • Could a seller instruct their agent to not allow un-vaccinated potential buyers from showing of a listed property?

    The answer to this question has both a legal aspect and a practical one. With respect to the unchartered “legal” waters, the Fair Housing Act (Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968) prohibits housing discrimination by real estate firms and homeowners.  Homeowners may not refuse to sell or lease property based on race, religion, color, gender, or national origin, and in some jurisdictions, sexual orientation.  Similar to the voluntary vaccine mandate in the workplace, there does not seem to be a specific prohibition based on vaccine status. 


    However, the concern is that a real estate firm honoring a listing homeowner’s request might be viewed as having an unintended impact on one or more of the protected classifications under the FHA.  In a litigious environment, there are legal practicalities that real estate professionals should consider and may be better served by providing more information to potential listing clients.


    Besides the legal risks, there are also practical considerations.  For instance, it will be likely very challenging for any listing agent to “police” the vaccine status of potential buyers and their agents.  If a listing client insists on using a “no vaccine, no entry” policy, real estate professionals should consider a written acknowledgment that the client understands there can be no guarantee that only vaccinated persons will enter the property.  


Conclusion

The ink has yet to dry on the “fine print” related to the world’s response to COVID-19, including vaccine mandates, government policies and business best practices. In some regards, the ink has yet to touch the page. Drawing final legal conclusions regarding any of it is nearly impossible. All business owners should stay vigilant as these policies and the law develop. Until then, common sense and careful consideration should be used to guide your business practices in relation to COVID-19 and vaccines. 

Affordable housing information for Louisiana real estate professionals

Understanding Affordable Housing Options in Louisiana: A Guide for Real Estate Professionals

By Louisiana REALTORS® • May 21, 2026
What qualifies as affordable housing in Louisiana? Learn about AMI, HUD income tiers, and housing support programs for clients.
Affordable housing resources for real estate agents in Louisiana

How Louisiana Real Estate Professionals Can Support Affordable Housing

By Louisiana REALTORS® • May 18, 2026
Learn how Louisiana real estate agents can support affordable housing through LHC programs, buyer education, and housing advocacy efforts.

2026 Legislative Session Scoop - Week 10 Recap

By Louisiana REALTORS® • May 15, 2026
Week 10 brought meaningful movement on several Louisiana REALTORS® priorities affecting real estate, property rights and insurance. And Week 11 is shaping up to be one of the most important stretches of the session. The biggest developments last week were the final Senate passage of HB 468 by Rep. Troy Hebert with amendments, movement of HB 1027 by Rep. Hebert to the Governor for executive approval, continued Senate progress on HB 1187 and HB 1166 , and final legislative action on SB 180 . REALTOR® Day at the Capitol also came at an important time, giving members the opportunity to reinforce industry priorities with legislators as several key bills neared final passage or awaited committee, concurrence or floor action. Just as importantly, the Louisiana REALTORS® legislative package has now cleared most of its major hurdles, and barring any late-session surprises, the remaining package’s bills should be headed to the Governor’s desk shortly. On the core real estate package, HB 468 , the wholesale regulation bill, remains the most immediate priority. The Senate passed the bill 34-0 on May 12 with amendments, and it now returns to the House for concurrence. That places it in a fast-moving posture, and members should be prepared for quick House action once concurrence is called. HB 1027 , the appraiser liability bill, has now moved into final executive posture after passing the Senate 35-0 without amendments and being sent to the Governor. Together, those two bills represent major wins for consumer protection, market integrity and greater certainty in the real estate transaction process. Insurance remains one of the busiest and most important policy areas as we head into Week 11. HB 1187 , dealing with Louisiana Citizens for emergency assessments, was reported favorably by the Senate Insurance Committee and is now pending Legislative Bureau for review in the Senate. HB 759 , addressing fortified roof endorsement offers, remains one of the more important insurance and mitigation bills still in play and is positioned for Senate floor action. HB 408 , which would prohibit insurers from non-renewing residential policies when homeowners timely mitigate risks, remains pending in House Insurance, as does HB 1210 , which would create a mandatory pre-suit claim review process for residential property insurance. Additional insurance measures, including HB 850 on Standard Fire Policy cancellation notices, HB 1162 on contractor verification in insurance claims, and SB 241 on adjuster and appraiser license-number disclosure, also remain active. These bills continue to matter because insurance affordability, mitigation, claims handling and policy stability remain central to property ownership and transaction viability across Louisiana. On disclosure and regulatory matters, HB 1166 by Rep. Kim Carver , requiring disclosures for vacant residential property and carrying out the adopted LREC reform amendment, was reported favorably by the Senate Commerce Committee and is now pending with the Legislative Bureau for review in the Senate. That keeps the bill in a strong position for Senate floor movement and makes it one of the key bills to watch in Week 11. SB 180 , allowing a surviving spouse of a deceased disabled veteran to transfer an expanded property tax exemption under certain circumstances, has completed legislative action and is now in final processing. Week 10 and the run into Week 11 also reflected an important defensive win for Louisiana REALTORS®. Our team successfully worked to block and tackle HB 617 and HB 750 to ensure real estate and nonprofit activity were not swept into overly broad consumer protection frameworks. On HB 617 , Louisiana REALTORS® opposed the bill as drafted and worked to posture it so that real estate professionals would not be caught up in a fee-disclosure framework that does not fit the realities of real estate transactions. On HB 750 , we worked to ensure the bill would not be interpreted to reach real estate or nonprofit operations in a way that could create unintended compliance burdens for leases, property management arrangements, association activity, or recurring charges authorized under those structures. That effort helped keep broad subscription-style language from bleeding into housing and nonprofit operations where it plainly does not belong. Civil justice and broader property rights measures also remain active entering Week 11. HB 437 , dealing with expert witness fees, and HB 1089 , creating CARE Accounts for certain damages arising from delictual actions, remain pending in Senate Judiciary A and remain high-priority tort reform measures to watch. HB 472, the rent stabilization bill, remains involuntarily deferred and stays on the watch list for any attempted revival through another vehicle or amendment. Additional redevelopment and tax-related measures, such as HB 214 and HB 217, also remain relevant to the broader conversation on blight, reinvestment and neighborhood stabilization. A few additional housing and valuation bills are also worth noting HB 292 on security deposits, HB 297 on early lease termination in stalking and cyberstalking situations, and HB 300 on appraisal thresholds for bank-owned property have all advanced and remain part of the broader housing policy landscape. The practical takeaway is straightforward: Week 11 will likely move fast, and late-session maneuvering can matter as much as headline floor votes. Louisiana REALTORS® should be prepared for House concurrence on HB 468 , further Senate movement on HB 1166 and HB 1187 , continued action on insurance and tort reform, and the possibility of late amendments or procedural pivots on bills affecting real estate transactions, private property rights, housing affordability, nonprofits, property managers and the broader real estate industry. The package is in strong shape, but this is the point in the session when the finish line comes into view and traffic gets thick. Please view the weekly bill tracking report provided by our lobbying team over at Harris, DeVille and Associates. 
Show More