Between availability of Pfizer doses for kids aged 5-12, the GOP coming for Big Bird, Aaron Rodgers revealing himself to be a lying liar/homeopathic anti-vaxxer, and OSHA’s vaccine mandate getting temporarily blocked from taking effect, news about the COVID-19 vaccine has reached a fevered pitch. And it makes sense — vaccination is the best bet for a society eager to be done with a prolonged pandemic but despite that fact, the vaccine hesitant or outright opponents of vaccines persist.
And that battleline between the health and safety of society and a misguided sense of “personal freedom” has come to Biglaw. Yes, of course lawyers *should* be well-versed in the constitutionality of vaccine mandates, but that doesn’t mean some don’t see a hill to die on.
Enter this… interesting farewell email from now former WilmerHale attorney Matthew Celestin. In it he writes:
Over the years, I have imagined many different scenarios under which I might leave the firm, but I must admit that being let go over a mandatory vaccination policy was never on my radar. But, here we are and so be it — live and let live (well, I guess, technically not).
[UPDATE: According to a tipster:
I didn’t want to be the one to out the guy, but I thought I’d add that the link he provided for Vaccination Policy is to an Alex Jones narrated anti-science “documentary”
I’m not linking to “COVIDLAND: The Lockdown” because it is gross disinformation but trust it only makes my already low opinion of Celestin’s reasoning take a nose dive.]
Above the Law reached out to WilmerHale and they confirmed they do have a vaccine requirement for employees.
Of course, Celestin is free to decide that continued employment at the 29th highest grossing law firm in the country is no longer in the cards for him for any reason at all — even one as silly as a vaccine mandate. But broadcasting the reason behind his departure to the entire firm puts future employers — and clients — on notice. And they might just take a hard look at his suspect reasoning on vaccines and decide that’s a poor indication on his legal reasoning.