Court: grievance challenges firing, not Rutgers’ influenza vaccine policy

A New Jersey appeals court has ruled that a former Rutgers employee fired for refusing to comply with the university’s seasonal influenza vaccine policy can pursue her challenge through binding arbitration under her union contract.

In a decision issued June 24, the Appellate Division upheld a ruling by the Public Employment Relations Commission that denied Rutgers’ request to block arbitration of the employee’s grievance. The judges found the case concerns the discipline imposed on the employee, not Rutgers’ authority to require vaccinations.

The case involves Rosemary Herrschaft, a secretary at Rutgers’ John H. Cronin Dental Center, who was terminated in March 2024 after she failed to comply with the university’s influenza vaccination policy. Herrschaft sought a religious exemption, identifying herself as a baptized Catholic and arguing she had a moral right to decline the vaccine. Rutgers denied her request and later fired her.

Her union, Teamsters Local 97, filed a grievance challenging the termination and sought binding arbitration under its collective bargaining agreement with Rutgers. The university argued that arbitration would improperly interfere with its managerial authority to enforce its vaccination policy.

The appeals court rejected that argument, noting the union is not challenging the vaccination policy itself but only whether Rutgers had just cause to fire Herrschaft. Because the collective bargaining agreement allows employees to challenge major discipline, including dismissal, the court said arbitration may proceed.

The panel also rejected Rutgers’ reliance on a previous court decision involving COVID-19 vaccine mandates, finding that case addressed a public employer’s authority to implement a vaccination policy during a public health emergency, not whether an employee could challenge discipline imposed under such a policy.