Posted on 08/01/2023 2:59:52 PM PDT by CFW
A judge has reversed a decision from the University of Virginia Health System to fire a woman after she chose not to take the COVID vaccine and applied for a religious exemption.
Virginia District Judge Claude V. Worrell ruled last week that the UVA Health System had wrongfully terminated Kaycee McCoy, a cytotechnologist there for more than ten years, according to court documents.
“Because UVA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner, this court reverses their decision to fire Plaintiff for failing to be vaccinated from Covid-19. They are hereby enjoined from preventing her employment on the basis of vaccination as long as she continues to qualify for a religious accommodation properly applied,” the judge ruled, a decision first reported by the Epoch Times.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailywire.com ...
Yes, a win for the employee fired, but would YOU want to work for them after they fired you?
Glad to see a bit of good news.
“Yes, a win for the employee fired, but would YOU want to work for them after they fired you?”
Nope. However, I would take the back pay. Then, I’d go on a vacation and send the person who fired me a postcard with a note that said, “Glad you are there and I am here! Kisses, Kisses!”
Religious accommodation is nice for those who have a genuine conviction. What about atheists who have a conviction?
Nuremberg code? Couldn’t that be enough to cover everyone?
I think that was the original thought, etc.
If Nuremberg standard is no longer valid ... maybe they will give Dr. Mengele and others a post-humous exoneration and back pay?
100%. I’d make their lives a living hell and tell them they can’t fire me again. Every. Single. Day.
America was never a confessional state, so you might be surprised at how broadly protected your beliefs are (whatever they may be).
“...tell them they can’t fire me again.”
Actually they can. If she fails to follow up on the definition of the religious exception, they can terminate her for not being exempt. That’s been a major player in the acceptance of these exemption in that they have to remain within the exemption...toe the line in simple words.
You’ll notice they didn’t define the terms of the definition. When the military folks were trying to use this exemption to get out of the vaccine, the reason was the use of animal DNA in the shots. Animal DNA had not been used in vaccines since 1985 so the reasoning behind the exemption never existed. We don’t know on this one on the reason for the request. But at the least, it will probably reach the SCOTUS and maybe given a definition as to the perimeters of the request.
wy69
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.