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. 

2026 Legislative Session Scoop - Week 9 Recap

By Louisiana REALTORS® • May 8, 2026
Week 9 brought several major Louisiana REALTORS® priorities into posture as the Legislature moved deeper into the final stretch of the session. Two of our top priority bills, HB 468 and HB 1027 both by Representative Troy Hebert , cleared the Legislative Bureau and advanced to the Senate floor calendar for third reading and final passage. HB 468, our residential wholesaling regulation bill, remains one of the most important consumer protection measures of the session. The bill brings transparency, accountability, and clear rules of the road to residential real estate wholesaling in Louisiana. HB 468 previously passed the House by a vote of 96–0 and is now positioned for final Senate consideration. HB 1027, which clarifies that licensed real estate appraisers are not liable for a seller’s failure to comply with carbon monoxide detector requirements, also advanced to the Senate floor calendar after previously passing the House by a vote of 90–0. Both bills remain in strong posture, and Louisiana REALTORS® will continue working for final passage as they move through the Senate. Another major development this week was the House passage of HB 1166 by Representative Kim Carver , which passed unanimously on May 5, 103–0. HB 1166 creates a practical disclosure framework for vacant residential property transactions and is designed to help buyers, sellers and real estate professionals avoid late-stage surprises involving access, utilities, drainage, flood risk, prior use and other material property conditions. This bill has been a key part of Louisiana REALTORS®’ consumer protection and transactional clarity agenda. HB 1166 was received in the Senate on May 7 and now moves into the Senate side of the process, where Louisiana REALTORS® will continue working closely with the author and stakeholders as the bill advances. Tort reform and civil justice issues also moved forward this week. HB 437 by Representative Michael Melerine , which addresses the award of expert witness fees in civil litigation, passed the House by a vote of 75–18 and was received in the Senate on May 7. HB 1089 by Representative Dennis Bamburg Jr. , which creates structured CARE Accounts for certain categories of tort damages, passed the House by a vote of 67–29 and was also received in the Senate. Louisiana REALTORS® continue to support meaningful tort reform as part of the broader effort to improve Louisiana’s legal environment, reduce litigation-driven costs, and help stabilize the property insurance market. A more predictable civil justice system directly supports property owners, consumers, businesses and the long-term health of Louisiana’s real estate market. Property insurance remains one of the most important issues facing homeowners and property owners across the state. HB 1187 by Representative Paul Sawyer , dealing with Citizens Property Insurance emergency assessments, has been received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Insurance Committee after previously passing the House by a vote of 87–9. Several additional insurance-related measures remain active, including bills addressing fortified roof endorsements, stated-value homeowner policies, insurance notice requirements, nonrenewal restrictions, and pre-suit claim review. HB 408 , which addresses insurance nonrenewal prohibitions, and HB 1210 , which addresses mandatory pre-suit claim review, remain pending in the House Insurance Committee. Louisiana REALTORS® will continue to closely monitor these measures because insurance affordability, availability and market stability remain central to housing affordability and private property ownership in Louisiana. Several Senate bills also continued moving through the House processes this week. SB 241 by Senator Valarie Hodges , which requires insurance adjusters and appraisers to include their license numbers in written communications, cleared the Legislative Bureau on May 6 and returned to the House floor calendar. This measure remains relevant to transparency, accountability, and consumer confidence in the insurance claims process. SB 180 by Senator Franklin Foil , which allows surviving spouses of deceased disabled veterans to transfer their expanded property tax exemption, was scheduled for House floor debate this week and remains a positive homeowner protection and property tax fairness measure. Louisiana REALTORS® also continues to monitor legislation dealing with blight, redevelopment and rent stabilization. HB 284 by Representative John Wyble , which would authorize certain parishes and municipalities to expropriate blighted property by declaration of taking, remained on the House calendar this week as a notice-given, subject-to-call bill. The bill previously failed on the House floor by a narrow vote of 48–47 and remains under active reconsideration. Blight policy is important, but redevelopment tools must be balanced with private property rights, due process, and protections for property owners. HB 472 by Representative Alonzo Knox , which would authorize municipalities to implement rent stabilization programs, remains involuntarily deferred in committee. Louisiana REALTORS® continues to oppose rent control and rent stabilization proposals in any form because these policies reduce housing supply, discourage investment, and ultimately worsen affordability challenges over time. As we move into Week 10, Louisiana REALTORS® will remain focused on securing final Senate passage of HB 468 and HB 1027, advancing HB 1166 through the Senate, and continuing to engage on the tort reform and insurance measures that directly affect property owners, housing affordability and the real estate profession. With REALTOR® Day at the Capitol taking place during this critical stretch of the session, member engagement will be especially important as legislators continue to make decisions on real estate, insurance, liability, redevelopment and private property rights issues. Please view the weekly bill tracking report provided by our lobbying team over at Harris, DeVille and Associates.

2026 Legislative Session Scoop - Week 8 Recap

By Louisiana REALTORS® • May 1, 2026
Week 8 was one of the most consequential weeks of the session so far for Louisiana REALTORS® and the real estate industry. Two of the association’s flagship bills moved to the brink of final Senate action, rent stabilization was stopped again in committee, major insurance legislation continued to advance, and several bills affecting property rights, tort reform and transaction practice saw meaningful movement. The biggest developments of the week came on HB 468 and HB 1027 , both by Rep. Troy Hebert . HB 468 , the residential wholesaling bill, cleared the Senate Commerce Committee on April 28, had its amendments adopted on April 29, and was referred to the Legislative Bureau putting it one step away from the Senate floor. HB 1027 , the appraiser liability bill, followed the same path after its overwhelming House passage earlier this month and is also now pending Legislative Bureau review before final Senate consideration. Louisiana REALTORS® strongly supports both measures, which are designed to strengthen consumer protection, improve market clarity and reinforce confidence in the real estate transaction process. On the rent-control front, HB 472 by Rep. Alonzo Knox was brought back before the House Municipal, Local and Parochial Affairs Committee this week. Louisiana REALTORS® testified in opposition, and the committee voted 8-5 to defer the bill involuntarily. That is a meaningful win for property owners, housing providers, and the long-term health of Louisiana’s housing market. Louisiana REALTORS® remains firmly opposed to rent stabilization proposals, which may sound politically attractive, but have consistently been tied to reduced housing supply, deterioration in rental stock and long-term affordability problems in markets where they are adopted. Insurance remained one of the session’s most active and important policy areas. HB 1187, Rep. Paul Sawyer , dealing with Louisiana Citizens for emergency assessments, passed the full House 87-9 on April 29, and now heads to the Senate. Because Citizens' assessments can ultimately affect policyholders across the state, this bill has clear relevance for affordability and homeownership costs. HB 408, Rep. Edmond Jordan was heard in House Insurance Committee this week and remains pending. This bill would prohibit insurers from non-renewing residential policies when homeowners have taken documented steps to reduce risk, an issue with direct implications for insurability and failed closings in vulnerable markets. In addition, SB 241 by Sen. Valarie Hodges , which requires insurance adjusters and appraisers to include their license numbers in written communications, cleared House Insurance unanimously and is now headed to the House floor. Taken together, these measures reflect the legislature’s continued focus on insurance stability, transparency and accountability, all of which remain central to real estate activity in Louisiana. Week 8 also brought movement on broader tort reform and property-rights-related legislation. HB 437 , addressing expert witness fees, and HB 1089 , creating structured CARE Accounts for tort damages, both cleared House Civil Law and are now set for House floor debate next week. Meanwhile, SB 180 by Sen. Franklin Foil , allowing surviving spouses of disabled veterans to transfer a property tax exemption, is nearing final House passage after advancing to third reading. While not all of these bills directly regulate licensees, they reflect the broader civil liability and property tax environment that affects the cost and accessibility of owning property in Louisiana. Another key bill for the industry, HB 1166 by Rep. Kim Carver , remains very much alive and is now positioned for House floor debate on Tuesday, May 5 . The bill would require disclosures for vacant residential property, and it would close an existing gap in Louisiana law that currently exempts many vacant homes from standard seller disclosure rules. After being called and returned to the calendar earlier in the week, the bill is now finally set for debate. Louisiana REALTORS® also intends to use the bill as a vehicle for a structural amendment to the Louisiana Real Estate Commission that would move toward a more geographically balanced appointment process, with one member appointed from each congressional district and the remaining members appointed at large. That change would better ensure regional representation across Louisiana’s diverse real estate markets and help modernize the commission’s structure. Taken together, week 8 was a strong and consequential week for Louisiana REALTORS®. The association’s two flagship bills are now within reach of Senate floor passage, rent stabilization was turned back in committee, important insurance legislation continued moving, and HB 1166 remains positioned as both a major disclosure bill and a possible vehicle for meaningful LREC reform. Louisiana REALTORS® remains fully engaged at every stage of the process to protect private property rights, support practical regulation and advance policies that strengthen Louisiana’s real estate market. Lastly, this week, Louisiana REALTORS® wants to extend sincere thanks to Rep. Delisha Boyd — a real estate broker herself — for her tireless work shepherding HB 292 through the legislative process. The security deposit fairness bill, which allows landlords and tenants to mutually agree in writing to extend the timeline for returning a security deposit when damage is found, has passed to third reading and final passage in the Senate and is nearly on its way to the Governor's desk. This has been a meaningful win for both property owners and renters across Louisiana. Please view the weekly bill tracking report provided by our lobbying team over at Harris, DeVille and Associates.
Compliant advertising under the Fair Housing Act

Navigating Fair Housing Advertising Standards: A Guide for Real Estate Professionals

By Louisiana REALTORS® • April 24, 2026
Avoid costly fair housing violations with expert tips on compliant real estate advertising, from listing language to social media targeting strategies.
Show More