Trying to convince the court those jabs don’t meet the definition of a vaccine would be a tough sell especially with the CDC and the majority of the medical community saying they are vaccines. There is also precedence to consider specific to this jab which comes from the Houston hospital case:
In a scathing ruling Saturday, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes of Houston deemed lead plaintiff Jennifer Bridges'
contention that the vaccines are "experimental and dangerous" to be false and otherwise irrelevant. He also found that her likening the vaccination requirement to the Nazis’ forced medical experimentation on concentration camp captives during the Holocaust to be "reprehensible."
Hughes also ruled that making vaccinations a condition of employment was not coercion, as Bridges contended.
"Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else. If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for remuneration. That is all part of the bargain," Hughes concluded.
Hughes is a Reagan appointee FWIW
There would also be the consideration that many other vaccines require booster shots:
Classic booster doses are the:
Have you ever wondered why some vaccines need booster doses and some don't?
vaxopedia.org