I have a hypothetical scenario that does not involve myself. Just seeking info on a topic that's pretty specific and difficult to find succinct information on.
Let's say Bill works at homes services company and that company has decided to require vaccinations or masks if not vaccinated (second class employees). Bill is not vaccinated and bill will not become vaccinated. Bill also does not want to wear a mask because that's bill's choice being that there is no scientific proof that masks are effective against viruses and bill likes breathing air. Bill also works in a state (FL) that has banned vaccine passports though it is unclear how it affects employer/employee operations in terms of being asked to show proof since bill told his employer that he was, in fact, vaccinated. Bill thinks it is unlawful to require proof by an employer although bill could be wrong. It turns out, Bill is the only one of 50 or so employees who has been asked to show proof. Bill was not furnished with a detailed company announcement informing everyone that proof was necessary. However, bill was sent home until bill could provide his vaccine passport.
Bill wants to know a couple things and bill also understands he is not at a law office. Bill is curious if the FL EO 21-81 protects bill from his fascistic employer since it goes into detail about business/patron relations but aside from a general statement saying passports should not be required, bill cannot determine accurately how it affects his situation. There's a good chance it doesn't but would like input from others. Also, bill would like to know if this kind of company policy can be applied selectively (requiring proof aka a passport) and not be considered a form of discrimination or an unequal opportunity of employment.
Things to remember: bill does not wear masks. Period. The vaccination policy becomes a condition of employment if masks are refused, but cannot be considered "mandatory" given that the masking option exists. Bill is "vaccinated" as far as his employer is aware and bill can absolutely furnish his passport, but bill wants to fight back.
Any bit of info is welcome!
This is a tricky one. In the previous instance where Bill has an actual medical condition, Bill and other employees must be treated consistently. For example, an employer would want to require all employees to show proof, or no employees to show proof.
However, in this scenario there is no medical condition and they are just singling Bill out for for an unexplained reason. Ideally, employers should generally handle situations consistently and treat employees the same way. The reason for this is to avoid discrimination. But discrimination is only valid on the basis of age, gender, religion, race, national origin, disability, veteran status, etc. under federal law. In this specific scenario, it doesn't seem like any of those apply. In other words, in order for Bill to have a gender discrimination case, Bill would have to show that only all the males were required to provide proof. Therefore, Bill has been discriminated against. In the scenario where Bill just wants to not wear a mask, I can't find a way to legitimately apply discrimination laws.
Given that, I hesitate to provide advice other than the suggest you contact an attorney for guidance. It's clear the employer SHOULDN'T be singling out Bill, and I WANT to scream that it's discrimination because it certainly smells of it; but when I try to apply that to an event or reason that would stick for litigation in an at will state, I struggle to connect Bill's situation to grounds or standing to sue. Privacy comes to mind, for example, as it's an invasion of Bill's privacy to single out him alone to provide proof. But it does not violate any law in an at-will state. It's incredibly shitty, but not necessary illegal.
It definitely isn't ethical, but they may have found a loophole that's technically legal. I'm not sure. But it's terrible and I assure you I would NEVER treat employees that I support in my company this way. I'm afraid you've reached my level of legal expertise on the previous question, and I would not want to be responsible for misleading you. You need to talk to an attorney at this point.
That was good enough for bill. He thought it would be a stretch too but bill is not afraid to suggest to his fuhrer that they are creeping dangerously close to discrimination. Bill does have what they want ;) but he ain't giving it up until he's backed into a corner.
You rock, thanks!
You're most welcome! Good luck - hope everything works our for Bill. :)