Los Angeles ended its COVID-19 vaccination requirement for city employees through legislation adopted in June 2024. The underlying event is real; “three years too late” is an opinion about its timing. It should not be confused with a court finding that the requirement was unlawful from the outset.
The dates and scope
The City Administrative Officer’s record says the original employee-vaccination ordinance took effect on 21 August 2021. Implementation arrangements and testing provisions were subsequently amended. The policy applied to current and future city employees, a category that included police officers and firefighters. It was not a single rule governing every resident, private employer or institution across Los Angeles County.
The City Council passed Ordinance 188279 on 11 June 2024. It was approved on 18 June and published on 24 June, when the ordinance itself became effective. Its text provided a 2 June 2024 expiration date for the specified vaccination-policy provisions. These dates describe different steps in the legislative process and should not be collapsed into one undated announcement.
Returning to employment was not automatic
The ordinance also created a route under which employees who had resigned or been terminated under the vaccination provisions could be eligible for rehire. It referred to established city procedures, applicable background checks, prior work history and disciplinary records. It expressly preserved the city’s discretion in hiring decisions. That is more limited than a promise that every former employee would immediately regain a job or receive back pay.
The May 2024 administrative report placed the change in context: local and federal emergency declarations had ended, policies and vaccination definitions had diverged, and other public employers had already changed their requirements. These were the city’s recorded reasons for reviewing the policy; they do not answer every disagreement about its earlier duration or effect.
The original post drew on Zachary Faria’s 12 June 2024 Washington Examiner opinion article. Its criticism deserves to be attributed as commentary. Questions about proportionality, exemptions, staffing and the costs borne by employees remain legitimate subjects of public debate. Assessing them requires evidence about the relevant period and workforce, rather than treating repeal as proof of every claim made for or against vaccination.
Source credit: the original text and image referred to Zachary Faria’s Washington Examiner opinion piece. This rewrite uses the city’s ordinance and administrative report to distinguish verified changes from opinion.
References
- City of Los Angeles: Ordinance 188279
- City Administrative Officer: expiration report, 30 May 2024
- Zachary Faria, Washington Examiner: original opinion article
