Citigroup Implement ‘No Jab, No Job’ Policy

Background

US financial services firm, Citigroup, is to begin enforcing a ‘no jab, no job’ policy from 14 January 2022.

In October 2021, Citigroup said that it would require all US employees to be vaccinated against Covid-19 as a condition of their employment.  Employees of Citigroup who have not been vaccinated will be placed on unpaid leave and fired at the end of the month unless they are granted an exemption.

When Citigroup announced this policy, it said it would assess exemptions on religious or medical grounds or any other accommodation by state or local law on a case-by-case basis.

It is estimated that 90% of Citigroup employees have currently complied with the policy, with this figure rising rapidly.

Comment

Below, we consider the legal implications and advice we would give to an employer in England and Wales considering introducing a ‘no jab, no job’ policy.

Is this legal?

Employees with two or more years’ service will have legal protection from being unfairly dismissed. If Citigroup wants to dismiss employees with these rights, they will need to show that they have a fair reason for doing so and follow a fair process.

This may be possible depending on the circumstances, and the explanations that they offer, provided that they consult with employees before taking this step. New recruits or those with less than two years’ service do not have protection for unfair dismissal.

Citigroup may also see legal challenges from employees that think that this policy is discriminatory. This can include employees who have been advised not to or cannot have the vaccine because of a health condition, as well as those who do not want the vaccine for religious or ethical reasons, or reasons connected with pregnancy.

Are we likely to see other big employers follow suit?

This has been a hot topic for employers since the vaccine rollout began but, so far, not many employers have decided to implement a blanket ‘no jab, no job’ policy.

However, there is a growing tide of support for such measures and employers can rely on the precedent set in the care and health care sectors, where the Government has mandated vaccinations.

Other employers, such as IKEA, have changed their sick pay policies so unvaccinated staff only receive minimal pay when they are required to self-isolate.

What are the considerations for employers thinking about doing this?

I would urge employers to weigh up this kind of approach against taking a gentler and more supportive stance in the first instance and by providing employees with reliable information about vaccinations and the opportunity for paid time off for vaccination appointments.

If an employer thinks there are good reasons why they should insist on staff being vaccinated, such as the nature of their business and their customers, they should think about whether this is necessary for all roles in all locations and listen to employees who have objections on health, ethical or religious grounds and do their best to accommodate these.

What other legal issues does this raise?

As well as potential unfair dismissal, as mentioned above, there could be concerns that these policies are discriminatory on the grounds of disability, religion or ethical belief or maternity and pregnancy, which could result in a legal claim being brought against the employer.