FTA: The reason? In most states, if a person is fired with cause for violating company policy - such as mandatory vaccinations - they are not entitled to unemployment benefits and payments.
"Even something as simple as a dress code that says you have to wear a tie, and that's the company's policy, and you say, 'I don't believe in wearing a tie, so I'm not going to do it.' That's insubordination," says John T. Harrington, Principal at The Employment Law Group. "It's misconduct, and it would likely disqualify you from receiving unemployment benefits."
Harrington said there are only two exemptions to a vaccination requirement - medical or religious. In both cases, however, exemptions are determined on a case-by-case basis with employers. Just because one employee is granted a religious exemption, it doesn't mean that will extend to anyone else.
This information is HIGHLY dependent upon the state in which one lives, and the different unemployment guidelines in that state. Keep in mind also that if a guideline or policy of an employer was not in place at the time the employee was hired, that figures greatly into whether unemployment benefits are received or not. It would be one thing if a policy was in effect when the person was hired, and they broke it. But the vast majority of people now dealing with this employer mandate were already on the payroll before this policy was created within any company.
Grandfathering, which is what you describe, doesn't always apply to new policies. However, It would be an interesting and possibly successful approach to use in fighting for unemployment benefits.
Maybe not always - that's true, but the article doesn't seem to mention it at all, and in some places it may be relevant, so, just wanted to throw that out there.