PHOENIX — A Mesa Republican lawmaker is expanding her legal fight against local vaccine mandates.
Sen. Kelly Townsend wants Attorney General Mark Brnovich to rule that a Pima County requirement for some of its workers to be inoculated against COVID-19 violates state law. That’s because the county does not provide an automatic exemption for employees who claim getting vaccinated runs afoul of their “sincerely held religious beliefs.’’
Townsend has a nearly identical complaint pending against the city of Tucson.
Brnovich has yet to rule on that one. And city officials are arguing there’s nothing legally wrong with their policy.
The county has not yet filed a formal response.
But Jan Lesher, the acting county administrator, said there’s a good reason the Board of Supervisors concluded that certain employees who work closely with the public should be vaccinated. And she said the county, to the extent possible, is trying to honor requests for religious exemptions and also find other assignments for those employees.
“There’s no merit to the complaint,’’ she said. “And I expect the attorney general will quickly inform Sen. Townsend of that.’’
Lesher acknowledged, though, that some employees who refuse to get vaccinated could wind up without a job if there just aren’t enough other places to put them. No one has lost a job yet, Lesher said.
Townsend said she questions not just whether the county can fire unvaccinated workers for whom a different job cannot be found, but also whether it can force these employees to take a different job where they are not interacting with vulnerable populations.
She said there’s an even more pressing issue. If the Sheriff’s Department has to shed corrections officers who won’t get vaccinated, that could force the county to release some inmates or, if nothing else, result in less-secure jail facilities, Townsend said.
“What’s worse?’’ she asked. “Escaped prisoners and violent acts? Or COVID?”
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos said 58% of his corrections officers currently remain unvaccinated, but he supports the county policy.
“I would never have made such a decision if I thought it endangered the public,’’ Nanos said, referring to his support of mandatory vaccinations.
“In fact, it is just the opposite of that,’’ he said. “The reason we are making the decision is we believe that this saves lives.’’
The sheriff said he rejects arguments by some unvaccinated officers that he is “playing with their livelihoods.’’
“That’s not the case,’’ Nanos said. “What I’m trying to do is save lives. And that’s more important than anyone’s livelihood.’’
Townsend cites a new state law approved this year that took effect Sept. 29.
It says that any employer who is told by a worker they have a sincerely held religious belief against the COVID vaccine “shall provide a reasonable accommodation.’’ The only exception is if doing that would pose an “undue hardship’’ on the employer and involve more than a minimal financial cost.
The policy approved by the Board of Supervisors last month requires vaccination of all employees who work with “vulnerable populations.’’ Lesher said that includes people working in the jails, including those in the behavioral health unit trying to restore inmates to competency to stand trial, and public defenders.
Others covered by the policy include those who work with senior citizens or with people who have compromised immune systems. The test is whether the employee will be within six feet of a vulnerable person for 15 or more cumulative minutes within a 24-hour period.
Lesher said that, as of now, of the 7,000 county workers, 386 who work with vulnerable populations still are not vaccinated, about three-fourths of whom work in the jail.
She said of those there is a “small group’’ seeking a religious exemption. And she said the county is trying to be understanding in who gets accommodated and can be placed in other positions.
“A lot of people may have found God yesterday,’’ Lesher said. “It’s not my place, I guess I would say in some ways, to decide. If they attest to me that it is a sincerely held religious belief, it is difficult to challenge that belief or their right to hold that belief.’’
In fact, Lesher said, the “vast majority’’ of those who make the claim probably qualify. And she said the county is not forcing them to answer other questions like whether they have taken vaccines against other diseases.
But that’s not the end of it. “While they don’t have to get a vaccine, we are still going to try to make sure that they’re not working with vulnerable populations,’’ Lesher said.
There are restrictions.
Anyone who gets one of these accommodations will not be allowed in in-person meetings and will have to participate virtually. There’s also a requirement to wear a mask at all times when in a county building or workspace, and a prohibition against eating or drinking in shared work areas.
There is also a requirement for weekly testing for COVID-19 which, for those who claim a religious exemption, will be paid out of their own pockets.
It’s not just existing workers who are affected. The supervisors also voted to mandate vaccines for all new employees.
Townsend, who has questioned not just the need for but the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, said the mandate is flawed.
Even if vaccinated, she said, “They’re still going to be contagious, they can still catch it,’’ she said.
Brnovich has through the first week of January to respond to Townsend’s complaint.
