This is an issue that will have to be argued in the courts. There are several lawsuits on this exact issue that have just started working their way through the system.

If you research this online, you will get people claiming they KNOW the answer is yes employers can do this or no they can't. Reality is this is what the courts call a "case of first impression," meaning it is an area of law that has never been decided by the courts, because it has never been attempted by businesses or government.

If you want to fight this, or even make the company pay for their stupidity, then you might look for a local attorney (assuming you don't think you can do this yourself) who is like-minded with you. Maybe they will work for free (pro bono) or reduced rates to make a name for themselves.

You might start by contacting attorneys in other states that are already working on these cases and ask them for referrals or recommendations on finding someone in your state.

Here are some cases that are already underway on this issue:

https://www.shrm.org/resourcesandtools/legal-and-compliance/employment-law/pages/hospital-employees-sue-over-covid-19-vaccine-mandate.aspx

https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/first-lawsuit-challenging-mandatory-7190156/

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/can-you-be-fired-for-refusing-to-get-a-covid-19-vaccine-america-is-about-to-find-out-11620237075

https://abcnews.go.com/US/employers-grapple-tough-question-demand-workers-covid-19/story?id=76282417

There is currently a window of opportunity. There is no such thing as a Covid "vaccine" because they are not LEGALLY defined as vaccines, but rather as "experimental drugs." The employer is demanding from you -- as a condition of employment -- to be a human guinea pig in an experimental drug trial for a drug that has ALREADY PROVEN HIGHLY DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH.

IMO, this goes well beyond "safety in the workplace," and is a form of coersion and fraud. There is NO WAY they can prove that these experimental drugs will help anyone in any way. The manufacturers themselves don't claim they do anything other than reduce symptoms, and even those claims have not been released for other researchers to verify.

It is fraud.

It is coersion.

It is a requirement to engage in a dangerous activity as a condition of employment, and the dangerous activity has NOTHING to do with the job itself.

If you were a cop and did not want to get shot at, that would be one thing. But if an employer required you to play russian roulette as a condition of employment, that danger would have nothing to do with the job itself, so it would not be a legally binding contract or legally valid requirement.

In your case, you have the added bonus that they unilaterally changed the terms of your employment contract after you were already working and had a good record. You have an even stronger case than someone who has not yet been hired.

"Excuse me, Mr. Jones. I know you have been a good employee for the past 7 years, but as of today, our new employee handbook includes a requirement to play a game of russian roulette once each year or your employment will be terminated. Here is a gun." No bueno.

This thing MUST be stopped. Since it is based on fraud, there will be some court somewhere that will attempt to stop it. This issue will ultimately have to be decided by the SCOTUS.

Fight. If nothing else, you might get a fat paycheck out of it, via the courtesy of the soy boy employer who damaged you.

Good luck.

This ^