Posted on 06/13/2021 2:56:08 AM PDT by Libloather
A federal judge tossed out a lawsuit from more than 100 hospital employees who sued Houston Methodist over its policy requiring all staff to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The workers alleged in their lawsuit that the hospital was "forcing its employees to be human 'guinea pigs' as a condition for continued employment." They also accused the hospital of violating the Nuremberg Code of 1947, likening the vaccine mandate to Nazi medical experimentation on concentration camp prisoners.
US District Judge Lynn Hughes was not sympathetic to either argument, writing in his order of dismissal Saturday evening that none of the employees were forced or coerced to take the vaccine. He also noted that the hospital cannot violate the Nuremberg Code because it is a private employer, not a government.
"Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible," Hughes wrote. "Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death."
He added that the workers were free to accept or reject a vaccine and that they would "simply need to work elsewhere" if they chose the latter.
"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 his remuneration," Hughes wrote. "That is all part of the bargain."
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
“Childish wording for a lawsuit and bad analogy really.”
Not at all, particularly when it comes to forcing the EXPERIMENTAL Messenger RNA jab on children as a requirement to go to school. Children CANNOT give informed consent to agree to a mandatory experimental injection.
For your convenience, the germane parts of the Nuremberg Code are posted above.
“He also noted that the hospital cannot violate the Nuremberg Code because it is a private employer, not a government.“
It’s not private if it accepts government cash. It’s not private if they are forcing shots and the government assists in the coercion.
I do. And it saddens me.
Revolution imposes hardships on a whole lot of people.
But woe unto them if they use the wrong pronoun. Then you can sue the hell out of 'em.
Yes, you are in a minority here.
Although I understand where you are coming from.
The judge did a great job in this case of distinguishing between government-imposed measures and those imposed by a private employer. That nuance is absolutely critical, and the elimination of that distinction between public and private interests in the application of “civil rights” laws has been one of the most destructive things to happen in this country in recent decades.
Let me ask you a simple question: Does this judge sound like one who would uphold a verdict against a Christian business owner who refuses to bake a cake for a homosexual “wedding?”
You are looking at this situation only from the side of employer rights. In many instances I probably would agree with you. However, when that employer requires you to do something that has a real potential for life changing effects, then I fall on the side of the employee every time.
That is unless those life changing situations were well known when you took the job in the first place. I.E. climbing trees with no safety measures to reduce serious injuries, or climbing 100+ foot towers with safety measures in place and you are afraid of heights.
To me, it makes no difference if the government or an employer is requiring someone to take an experimental drug with known issues for you to be gainfully employed at the job you were previously employed at.
I lost my job yesterday because I refuse to get vaccinated. I can’t get flu shots because of allergies (almost died after my one and only) and I had a horrible reaction to my second shingles shot. Still having problems four years after that one.
I work in higher ed. Schools are not allowing anyone without vaccination on their campuses.
Well yeah, it saddens us all, because it means that the American experiment has been lost. Especially when you realize that our chances would be daunting, but perhaps not impossible. Certainly more daunting that our revolutionary war back in the 1700s though.
Out of the employer-employee relationship? Are you kidding me. Fauci, state governments, FAA, DOT, etc. have mandated Covid restrictions and pushed vaccinations to the point that private employers have to knuckle under. How much Fed and state money do you think Houston Methodist receives?
I know. I am a member of a military family that traces its lineage back to then.
‘Pod.
Forced by whom? The government? That would be an outrage -- and my view on that is perfectly consistent with what I've already posted.
I actually faced a situation last year where I was forced to accept a variation of this "vaccine mandate" from a CLIENT. It wasn't a vaccine mandate, but a COVID testing requirement. I absolutely refused to accept the terms of this requirement even though it involved something far less invasive and dangerous than a vaccine.
The good news is that I recognized this as nothing more than a stupid, ineffective measure that the client was imposing at the behest of its lawyers to cover their asses and protect the company from a lawsuit.
The better news is that the client recognized how stupid and ineffective their COVID rules were. Not only did they see it my way, but they agreed to my proposal to eliminate the need for any COVID testing by completing the project on MY premises and under MY terms -- which also protected THEM from any stupid lawsuits.
To me, it makes no difference if the government or an employer is requiring someone to take an experimental drug with known issues for you to be gainfully employed at the job you were previously employed at.
I don't think this contradicts what the judge has said in this case. What it DOES mean is that the vaccine mandate is a matter of contract law regarding the employer-employee relationship, or maybe even state labor law or health codes -- but not a constitutional matter.
Personally, I think most employers are absolutely crazy to impose a vaccine mandate of ANY kind on their employees -- even if it involves fully approved, "safe" vaccines. Why would I, as an employer, ever want to take on potential liability for myself by getting involved in mandating that sort of thing? A health care facility is one of the rare exceptions to this, though -- because the employer is involved in treating illness and injuries as a matter of course, and must always be mindful of legal exposure from their patients in addition to their staff.
Where do you think the judge who issued this ruling would stand on all this?
I'll bet he'd be the first one to rule AGAINST this sh!t.
In America, the Kodex and the related Declaration of Helsinki form the basis for the Code of Federal Regulations Title 45 Part 46,[15][16] which are the regulations issued by the United States Department of Health and Human Services for the ethical treatment of human subjects, and are used in Institutional Review Boards (IRBs).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code#Importance
Instead of the old Nuremberg Code, the Kodex of which is not law in any country, they should have referred to actual US code. It wouldn't be the ridiculous comparison to the Jews in Nazi Germany then.
Itseems that the “vaccine” is the subject of the issue, and the Covid was the predicate, and purposely spread around the globe. Pharma, Fauci, Gates, et al., created the serum first, then introduced the Covid as a reason to force the serum. (Cha-CHING!) They just backed into the situation; it’s totally opposite of what we’ve been made to believe. At least, that’s what the whole thing is beginning to look like.
In the US, companies are allowed to act as tyrants, to a point. The workers’ lawyers should’ve found that point, in precedence.
Failing that, states need to write more specific laws protecting people from employee tyranny like this.
Also, many of their colleagues in Houston used medical or religious grounds successfully.
Nuremberg won’t work anyway when/if the FDA approves this.
Apparently not. He ruled against the workers.
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.