Posted on 06/13/2021 8:30:42 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal judge threw out a lawsuit filed by employees of a Houston hospital system over its requirement that all of its staff receive the experimental COVID-19 shot.
The Houston Methodist Hospital system suspended 178 employees without pay last week over their refusal to get the shot.
Of them, 117 sued seeking to overturn the requirement and over their suspension and threatened termination.
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.
Jared Woodfill, a Houston lawyer representing Bridges and the other clients, promised an appeal.
“All of my clients continue to be committed to fighting this unjust policy,” Woodfill said in a statement. “What is shocking is that many of my clients were on the front line treating COVID-positive patients at Texas Methodist Hospital during the height of the pandemic. As a result, many of them contracted COVID-19. As a thank you for their service and sacrifice, Methodist Hospital awards them a pink slip and sentences them to bankruptcy.”
Employees had a June 7 deadline to complete their immunization.
In a Tuesday memo, the hospital system’s CEO, Marc Boom, said that 24,947 employees had complied with the jab requirement and that 27 of the 178 others had received the first of a two-dose shot and wouldn’t be fired if they got their second. The rest are subject to termination.
He also wrote that 285 other employees received medical or religious exemptions, and 332 were deferred because they were pregnant or for some other reason.
Indeed.
Slippery slope, and all.
I wonder how far the employers whims are to be entertained at this point. If the employer demands its employees smoke weed or have vasectomies or have their tubes tied to remain employed under the current line of thinking it’s permissible. I know you can always quit. That’s easier said than done in many cases. With a mortgage and bills many can’t quit. We have a soft version of indentured servitude in play with big business as the new masters in this modern day peculiar institution in America.
Wrong. Dead wrong. This is going to the Supreme Court ASAP
YOU CANNOT FORCE VACCINES OR SHOTS ON CITIZENS.
THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
“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.
Those all look like relatively low-level - maybe even "whimsical" - demands. "I've just decreed that the workday shall now begin at 7:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m." One week later: "The workday now begins at 11:00 a.m.!" One week later: "Begins at 5:30 a.m.!"
Keywords are "or other directive." No mention of "reasonable."
"You want to keep your job as a flight attendant, you gotta get an abortion!" VERY REASONABLE! (Can't have women in their 8th month being stewardesses, after all!)
Regards,
“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.
Those all look like relatively low-level - maybe even "whimsical" - demands. "I've just decreed that the workday shall now begin at 7:00 a.m. instead of 9:00 a.m." One week later: "The workday now begins at 11:00 a.m.!" One week later: "Begins at 5:30 a.m.!"
Keywords are "or other directive." No mention of "reasonable."
"You want to keep your job as a flight attendant, you gotta get an abortion!" VERY REASONABLE! (Can't have women in their 8th month being stewardesses, after all!)
Regards,
RE: THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED.
Can you tell us when and by what higher court?
FDA approved vaccines are required and have long been required for schools, employment, military etc. (Maybe not the millions and millions of illegal aliens, foreign nationals, unlawful enemy combatants, et al).
The Chicom virus (apparently a bioweapon) vaccine hasn’t been approved yet, it was rushed through production and was authorized under emergency use provisions. This is the difference.
Under federal law, no one can be forced to take an experimental medicine or vaccine or coerced into clinical trials. Those volunteering have to fully understand and provide “informed consent.” I’m not arguing some people shouldn’t want to think about it, I’m not “anti vaxxer” or anything like that, I’m just pointing out what the law is.
It is rapidly turning into one of the worst debacles of all time. And the economic damage alone is incalcuble.
People accepting “free donuts” are probably not “fully informed” people.
I believe this also violates the Nuremberg Code... Forced experimentation on unwilling Human subjects. That’s what this amounts to.
Employees are being forced into one great, big clinical trial, only if they have a severe adverse reaction, they have no legal recourse available to them. Not only is that employee potentially permanently removed from the work force, but the hospital loses an employee.
She’s a former bartender who’s about the age that women tend to hit the wall (menopause).
Not gonna help a friend whose employer forced him to get the jab.
He was sick as a dog for weeks, got moving around again and “suddenly” had a “heart attack”.
He _was_ a healthy guy.
Now he’s in the hospital having tons of “tests” run to see why.
Yeah, right.
-PJ
If my employer required to do something I didn’t want to do, I’d quit.
“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,”
I agree with the Judge. The line to whine about it is down the street.
a flu that is 99 percent survivable and only effects the elderly and people with pre conditions, the insanity continues
I remember everybody getting those. My doctor held me out of those. No big scar on my shoulder.
FYI: Registered Nurse here. It is common practice at hospitals to require vaccinations of employees. Annual influenza combined with being up to date on MMR and DPT. It’s part of the job.
I know a lot of refuseniks working in healthcare.
None have been fired.
None.
They’ll never be able to replace them.
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.