Skip to comments.Yes, your boss can fire you if you don’t get a COVID vaccine
Posted on 07/30/2021 8:10:20 AM PDT by bgill
Attorney Rogge Dunn, longtime labor attorney with the Rogge Dunn Group of Dallas, said it is perfectly legal for an employer to require employees to get a vaccine.
“There are two exceptions," he said. "One is a sincerely held religious belief and two is if someone has a disability such that they would have an adverse reaction to a vaccine."
Dunn said employers can fire someone for not getting the COVID shot if those exceptions aren’t met.
He points to the case of more than 100 workers at Houston Methodist who sued over the hospital’s COVID vaccine mandate.
“They lost,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at kvue.com ...
Wonder if your medical expenses would be covered under workman's comp?
“ Wonder if your medical expenses would be covered under workman’s comp? ”
Of greater concern would be the medical expenses of the person who tries to force that poison on me.
I wonder if you are eligible for unemployment for getting fired over an objection to being poisoned.
“There are two exceptions,” he said. “One is a sincerely held religious belief and two is if someone has a disability such that they would have an adverse reaction to a vaccine.”
How does one define “sincerely held”, “religious belief”, “disability” and “adverse reaction”? They could be defined in such a way to apply to everyone, or to no one.
Just let it happen. Find a local job that doesn’t require the jab. If the current news cycle is any indicator, there are going to be much higher breakthroughs among the vaccinated upcoming, and you’ll be better off away from them since “masking up” is like trying to wave off a fart in an elevator.
Question: Can they require you to get an experimental vaccine - which they all currently are.
i.e. Can they force you, as a condition of your employment, to use your body to beta test an experimental drug? That is the heart of this.
Of course, once the FDA approves one of these vaccines, the whole playing field changes. That is when we start pushing true “mark of the beast” territory.
So since when is a lawyer a purveyor and creator of law?
Given the “vaccines” are illegal (fake EUA),
and only hurt people (increasing morbidity and mortality),
and make the injected emit viruses (some mutated)
and their parts possibly forever,
and there is absolutely no informed consent,
is the boss liable? Even the Press was executed
at Nuremberg; why is not the boss and company at risk, too?
I sincerely believe God gave me an immune system.
I saw a news report about a Supreme Court case on smallpox vaccinations. This case was decided in 1905. The court ruled that the city of Cambridge, MA, was within their powers, to require people to get a smallpox vaccination.
Things are very different with this virus and the state of modern medicine, but, the point is, legally speaking, this old case is a key legal precedent on the issue of whether we can be compelled to get a vaccination.
Stop throwing away those Jehovah's Witnesses brochures and keep them handy to give to your boss, make sure to memorize a few of the catch phrases and ask if he or she would like to be converted.
But he cannot fire you for being an illegal alien.
Defining “Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs” That Might Excuse Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination?
Mark S. Spring
Whether or not a religious belief is sincerely held by an applicant or employee is rarely at issue in most religious discrimination lawsuits. With both the EEOC and DFEH guidance requiring employers to accommodate an employee who has a sincerely held religious belief that prevents an employee from receiving any of the COVID-19 vaccinations, the issue of what is a “sincerely held religious belief” has become more important in employment law. This is particularly true for those employers that decide to mandate the COVID-19 vaccination as a condition of employment or condition of receiving certain employment benefits.
Challenging the Sincerity of a Religious Belief
Whether a belief is “sincerely held” is generally an issue of individual credibility. While evidence proving that an employee acted inconsistently with his alleged sincerely held religious belief is relevant to determine whether the belief is sincere, this evidence is difficult to obtain in most cases, and often can be overcome, as sincerely held religious beliefs are not static and often change over time. See, e.g., EEOC v. Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 108 F.3d 1569, 1575 (7th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (finding that a Jewish employee proved her request for leave to observe Yom Kippur was based on a sincerely held religious belief, even though she had never in her prior eight-year tenure sought leave from work for a religious observance, and conceded that she generally was not a very religious person, but evidence showed that the recent birth of her son and the death of her father strengthened her religious beliefs); EEOC v. IBP, Inc., 824 F. Supp. 147, 151 (C.D. Ill. 1993) (holding that Seventh-day Adventist employee’s previous absence of faith and subsequent loss of faith did not prove that his religious beliefs were insincere at the time that he refused to work on the Sabbath). The law is clear that a sincere religious believer doesn’t forfeit his religious rights merely because he is not scrupulous in his observance or had never openly demonstrated those beliefs in the past.
Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Do Not Need to Be Express Tenets of a Religion in Order to Require Accommodation
In religious discrimination cases, employers often believe that the burden is on the employee to prove that the sincerely held religious practice (for example not getting vaccinated) is an express requirement of the employee’s religion, and absent proof of such requirement, no accommodation is necessary. However, the definition of sincerely held religious belief is not necessarily tied to express religious requirements.
They won't. Differing vax rates among ethnic groups will cause that to be a racist imposition and it will be declared unconstitutional.
From EUAs to BLA Approvals
Mandating COVID-19 vaccines under an EUA is legally and ethically problematic. The act authorizing the FDA to issue EUAs requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to specify whether individuals may refuse the vaccine and the consequences for refusal. Vaccine mandates are unjustified because an EUA requires less safety and efficacy data than full Biologics License Application (BLA) approval. Individuals would also likely distrust vaccine mandates under emergency use, viewing it as ongoing medical research.
Buck v Bell decided it was legal to sterilize the feebleminded for the good of society. That stopped in 1978.
Also what happened to ‘My body My choice”?
Why are they completely ignoring natural immunity?
Something’s not adding up.
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.