Court grants Preliminary Injunction preventing Florida from enforcing Section 381.00316 against plaintiffs NCL, et. al.

[puppycanducruise]

Thanks for the info.

[DCGuy64]

53 minutes ago, Seanair said:

Excellent news. We are also on the Sunday sailing of the Gem.  Looking forward to a safe cruise! Thank you for keeping us up to date on these court details!

Very excited for you! We are 6 cruises later so if yours is a success, it bodes well for the future. Happy cruising! 😃

[Daniel A]

I am pleased to see this injunction and I wish CLIA had brought the case so it would cover all member cruise lines.  Maybe that will happen.

 

I still believe in the base concept of the law in that people should not be required to prove they are vaccinated to conduct necessary ordinary activities of daily living.  Going on a cruise or going to an amusement park is not a necessary activity and should have been treated differently from the start.  Hopefully, Florida will enter into a settlement agreement that will limit the activities which can require proof of vaccination.

[DCGuy64]

1 hour ago, D C said:

Let's hope the other cruise lines all follow suit.  I'm sure the legal departments are prepping for CEO meetings right now. 

 

And that judge certainly wasn't at all favorable to the state in the comments I saw.  Good. 

 

 

Agreed. I always try to see things from both points of view, so I agree with the state on some of the vaccine "passport" issues, but I don't think it should apply to cruises that leave Florida waters within basically minutes. That part never made sense to me.

[Karaboudjan]

35 minutes ago, Daniel A said:

I am pleased to see this injunction and I wish CLIA had brought the case so it would cover all member cruise lines.  Maybe that will happen.

 

I still believe in the base concept of the law in that people should not be required to prove they are vaccinated to conduct necessary ordinary activities of daily living.  Going on a cruise or going to an amusement park is not a necessary activity and should have been treated differently from the start.  Hopefully, Florida will enter into a settlement agreement that will limit the activities which can require proof of vaccination.

One of the most interesting things that I got out of the hearing was that the Florida legislature discussed and acknowledged that that the law would be problematic for cruise lines.

[JamieLogical]

1 minute ago, Karaboudjan said:

One of the most interesting things that I got out of the hearing was that the Florida legislature discussed and acknowledged that that the law would be problematic for cruise lines.

 

They could so easily have created a carve-out for cruise lines. I don't understand why they did not.

[DCGuy64]

22 minutes ago, Karaboudjan said:

One of the most interesting things that I got out of the hearing was that the Florida legislature discussed and acknowledged that that the law would be problematic for cruise lines.

Well, that's interesting. It might (emphasis on *might*) make it more difficult for FL to appeal, if they've already acknowledged it. Better to allow the cruise lines to do their thing and back off.

[chengkp75]

21 minutes ago, JamieLogical said:

 

They could so easily have created a carve-out for cruise lines. I don't understand why they did not.

While the one "carve out", for health care profession, can be justified on a public health basis, what grounds would be used to justify unequal treatment for another industry.  The basis of the law was "medical privacy", so why would the cruise industry be entitled to different treatment than other Florida businesses?

[chengkp75]

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Well, that's interesting. It might (emphasis on *might*) make it more difficult for FL to appeal, if they've already acknowledged it. Better to allow the cruise lines to do their thing and back off.

One of the arguments NCL brought forth was the constitutionality of the law, under freedom of speech, so if the final ruling is against Florida, it won't only affect the cruise lines, but all Florida businesses.

[JamieLogical]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the one "carve out", for health care profession, can be justified on a public health basis, what grounds would be used to justify unequal treatment for another industry.  The basis of the law was "medical privacy", so why would the cruise industry be entitled to different treatment than other Florida businesses?

 

I think they could have done it on the grounds that cruising is a form of travel? They could have made a general travel carve-out or even international travel. Since any transmission would not be limited to only Florida.

Edited August 9, 2021 by JamieLogical

[jrapps]

2 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Well, that's interesting. It might (emphasis on *might*) make it more difficult for FL to appeal, if they've already acknowledged it. Better to allow the cruise lines to do their thing and back off.

It will be very interesting to see if FL appeals this. On one hand, letting this stand and possibly even amending the law to carve out Cruise Lines would result in the lawsuit going away, leaving the vaccine ban in place for all other industries. However if FL pushed this (for no other reason than it's political agenda) then we will likely see the entire law thrown out once this goes to trial (just my opinion, I am not a lawyer, I did NOT sleep in a holiday inn express last night)

 

It might be in FLs interest to just let this one go.

 

Does anyone think FL will just let it go...nah, neither do I. LOL

 

 

[jrapps]

3 minutes ago, chengkp75 said:

While the one "carve out", for health care profession, can be justified on a public health basis, what grounds would be used to justify unequal treatment for another industry.  The basis of the law was "medical privacy", so why would the cruise industry be entitled to different treatment than other Florida businesses?

If FL were to do a carve out, they would tie it to international travel/commerce clause, and basically give up attempting to force FL law on interstate/international commerce and travel.

 

If they fight this and appeal, the 1st amendment argument will result in the entire law being thrown out.

[DCGuy64]

11 minutes ago, jrapps said:

just my opinion, I am not a lawyer, I did NOT sleep in a holiday inn express last night)

LOL. My wife IS a lawyer, but I don't think she's up on this kind of law because she practices other kinds. But she IS a passenger on an upcoming NCL cruise so I might ask her opinion about this case if she's interested. My only interest in seeing FL appeal is that it might jeopardize our cruise, which is admittedly selfish on my part.

[bkrickles1]

NCL's current policy of 100% vaccinated cruises expires October 31, if I understand it correctly.

What does everyone think they'll do after Oct. 31?

I can't imagine they'll want to continue to exclude families with children under age 12.

It's such a large portion of their clientele and revenue.

I'm booked on Joy for 1/15/2022 and this doesn't affect me but my sister in law just booked to join us and she has an 8 &7 year old. She knows it might not happen, but we're hopeful this spike in cases will be much more under control by the end of October or November and protocols will start to reflect that.

Such difficult times.....

[DCGuy64]

I read again yesterday the full text of the Florida statute:

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EO-21-81.pdf

And the last section always intrigues me, i.e. Section 5. (the page above won't allow me to copy and paste)

Businesses CAN institute screening protocols regarding COVID-19. Many of the arguments against the law appear to believe otherwise.

 

[jrapps]

Just now, bkrickles1 said:

NCL's current policy of 100% vaccinated cruises expires October 31, if I understand it correctly.

What does everyone think they'll do after Oct. 31?

I can't imagine they'll want to continue to exclude families with children under age 12.

It's such a large portion of their clientele and revenue.

I'm booked on Joy for 1/15/2022 and this doesn't affect me but my sister in law just booked to join us and she has an 8 &7 year old. She knows it might not happen, but we're hopeful this spike in cases will be much more under control by the end of October or November and protocols will start to reflect that.

Such difficult times.....

I expect they will evolve their policy from 100% to 100% of ELIGIBLE people. They may wait until vaccines are available to 5-11 year old's which may come in November (not that far off from their current Oct31st date)

[DCGuy64]

2 minutes ago, bkrickles1 said:

What does everyone think they'll do after Oct. 31?

No clue.

[Karaboudjan]

11 minutes ago, jrapps said:

I expect they will evolve their policy from 100% to 100% of ELIGIBLE people. They may wait until vaccines are available to 5-11 year old's which may come in November (not that far off from their current Oct31st date)

I can definitely see them doing something like that, especially if things continue to go well for the lines that are allowing some children now.

[Daniel A]

29 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

I read again yesterday the full text of the Florida statute:

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EO-21-81.pdf

And the last section always intrigues me, i.e. Section 5. (the page above won't allow me to copy and paste)

Businesses CAN institute screening protocols regarding COVID-19. Many of the arguments against the law appear to believe otherwise.

Correct, the law does not prohibit proof of negative tests or taking temperatures by businesses.  I have entered restaurants in Florida that required my temperature to be taken in order for me to enter.  No problem there. 

 

One of the main points of the law is that businesses cannot require documentation of vaccine or prior Covid recovery.  There are some very real problems surrounding the concept of what constitutes acceptable documentation.  For many people, the only "proof" of vaccination is the flimsy CDC card.  In the theater district in New York City, proof of vaccination is now being required.  People are being allowed entry to theaters after displaying the CDC card at the door, but the theaters are not requiring any photo identification that the CDC card was actually issued to the person presenting the 'proof.'  Not everybody has access to digital vaccine passports so how long will it take for the CDC card to become so dog eared or torn if people are going to be required to take it out and present it to enter every grocery store, drug store, restaurant or municipal bus?

 

I wonder how long it will take for someone to sue NCL for being denied entry because NCL wouldn't accept a notarized sworn statement that they have been fully vaccinated?

Edited August 9, 2021 by Daniel A

[jrapps]

1 minute ago, coffeebean said:

So......in the state of Florida, only NCL can REQUIRE proof of vaccination, not any other cruise line?

Seems to be topic of debate, but many believe if another line wanted to, all they would have to do is petition the court to be added to the injunction. If another line wanted to sail this way, this ruling would pave the way for them to do so, just perhaps with some legal hoops to jump thru first.

[chengkp75]

1 hour ago, JamieLogical said:

 

I think they could have done it on the grounds that cruising is a form of travel? They could have made a general travel carve-out or even international travel. Since any transmission would not be limited to only Florida.

The law was not about public health, and transmission, but about "medical privacy", so the travel industry is no different from WalMart.

[Karaboudjan]

1 minute ago, chengkp75 said:

The law was not about public health, and transmission, but about "medical privacy", so the travel industry is no different from WalMart.

As I recall the state had some trouble clearly/consistently articulating exactly what the law was about.  

[chengkp75]

50 minutes ago, DCGuy64 said:

Businesses CAN institute screening protocols regarding COVID-19. Many of the arguments against the law appear to believe otherwise.

This has been my stance against this law from the beginning.  Unless the "unvaccinated" are declared a "protected class" in Florida (which they have the right to do), then any business can refuse service to someone who doesn't meet that business's standards, whatever they may be.

 

36 minutes ago, jrapps said:

It also did not prevent business from requiring vaccines, just from requiring documentation.

It also did not prevent businesses from requiring other documentation, like a negative covid test.  A test result is just as much a "medical privacy" issue as a vaccination card.

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, chengkp75 said:

While the one "carve out", for health care profession, can be justified on a public health basis, what grounds would be used to justify unequal treatment for another industry.  The basis of the law was "medical privacy", so why would the cruise industry be entitled to different treatment than other Florida businesses?

Other Florida businesses do not have a "captured audience", if you will. As a crew member, I would imagine you already know that. Anyone who walks into a land based business can just as easily walk out if they feel their health and safety is not assured. Out in the middle of the ocean on a cruise ship does not offer this option unless one stays in their cabin for the entire time.

 

Cruise ships should be exempt from that Florida law and everything feasible should be done to assure passengers and crew are safe. The Florida law does just the opposite.

Edited August 9, 2021 by coffeebean

[coffeebean]

1 hour ago, DCGuy64 said:

I read again yesterday the full text of the Florida statute:

https://www.flgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/EO-21-81.pdf

And the last section always intrigues me, i.e. Section 5. (the page above won't allow me to copy and paste)

Businesses CAN institute screening protocols regarding COVID-19. Many of the arguments against the law appear to believe otherwise.

 

So..........wouldn't proof of vaccination be considered a "screening protocol"? I see no reason why not. Maybe that is the reason cruise lines have already been asking passengers for proof of vaccination, just not requiring it. No?