In the case of Lipp v. Univ. of Cincinnati, 2023-Ohio-1224, an appellate court held that vaccination exempt students did not have standing to sue a university over the university’s COVID-19 policies because the students were not harmed by the policies.
In this case, the students argued that (1) the university exceeded its authority under R.C. 3709.212; (2) the university required medical treatment, contrary to Article 1, Section 1 of the Ohio Constitution, and; (3) coerced students into receiving vaccinations contrary to R.C. 2905.12. In response, the university argued that the students did not have any standing to sue because the students failed to show that the students suffered any injury or the significant possibility of future harm as the students were either granted a vaccination exemption or voluntarily chose to be vaccinated. The appellate court agreed with the university.
In support of its decision in favor of the university, the appellate court explained that the students who filed the complaint had either voluntarily gotten a vaccination or had received an exemption from the university, which meant that the university policies did not apply to them. The appellate court further explained that the university did not coerce students into getting the vaccine because there was an opportunity to be exempt from the policy and there was no discipline or sanction for those who did not follow the suggested quarantine.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.