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 ...
Does Workers’ Comp Cover an Employee’s Reaction to a COVID-19 Vaccine?
Key phrase in the article is FDA Approved Vaccine. Not EUA approved vaccines.
Worse, health insurance companies don't pay for medical care if you have complications because the vaccine is experimental.
Muslims will get a pass.
Dear Boss,
Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)
Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the CDC and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.
At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the vaccine as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing.
This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees? First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 )
This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ).
As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical).
An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.
The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines. Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)
With Regards,
Employee of the Year
___________________
Not here in CA, as you would have been terminated for cause
“more than 100 workers at Houston Methodist”
Are they eligible for unemployment compensation?
Practically speaking, then, an employer can assume your religious belief is not sincere, unless and until you can convince a court otherwise. There likely will be no negative consequences to the employer for firing you. So most likely, they will, regardless of the letter, intent and interpretation of the law.
some preferred races will get a waiver.
Because the injections are not about covid. They are about the ingredients being injected into everyone’s body so they can control people forever.
Natural immunity is great, but see, you have to have the poison in you or else.
That is not true. My insurance (Blue Shield) emailed all covered insured, and specified specifically that any complications from COVID or the vaccine are covered. I know other large providers have done the same.
From Wikipedia:
Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the authority of states to enforce compulsory vaccination laws. The Court’s decision articulated the view that individual liberty is not absolute and is subject to the police power of the state.
Massachusetts was one of only 11 states that had compulsory vaccination laws. Massachusetts law empowered the board of health of individual cities and towns to enforce mandatory, free vaccinations for adults over the age of 21 if the municipality determined it was necessary for the public health or safety of the community. Adults who refused were subject to a $5 monetary fine. In 1902, faced with an outbreak of smallpox, the Board of Health of the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts adopted a regulation ordering the vaccination or revaccination of all its inhabitants.
Cambridge pastor Henning Jacobson had lived through an era of mandatory vaccinations back in his original home of Sweden. Although the efforts to eradicate smallpox were successful in Sweden, Jacobson’s childhood vaccination had gone badly, leaving him with a “lifelong horror of the practice”. Jacobson refused vaccination saying that “he and his son had had bad reactions to earlier vaccinations” as children and that Jacobson himself “had been caused great and extreme suffering for a long period by a disease produced by vaccination”. Jacobson believed that his family may have some sort of hereditary condition that made the smallpox vaccine particularly dangerous. Because of his refusal to get vaccinated, Jacobson was prosecuted and fined $5 (about $150 in 2020 dollars).
The Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Jacobson in Zucht v. King (1922), which held that a school system could refuse admission to a student who failed to receive a required vaccination. Jacobson has been invoked in numerous other Supreme Court cases as an example of a baseline exercise of the police power, with cases relying on it including Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927) (sterilization of those with intellectual disabilities), Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944) (limitations on parents having children distribute pamphlets in the street), and Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646 (1995) (allowing random drug testing of students).
During the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, the federal United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit relied on Jacobson when upholding a Texas regulation halting abortions by including it in its ban on non-essential medical services and surgeries, consistent with Justice Blackmun’s citing of the case in Roe v. Wade. (See Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on abortion in the United States.) Jacobson also has been a precedent case in justifying government facemask orders and stay-at-home orders throughout the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
I am amazed that people are not interested that all of the vaccines utilized
Or actually contain products of abortion
Receiving the vaccine is participating in abortion.
If that is not a religious concern then there are no sincere religious concerns related to getting this vaccine.
Those doctors are resubmitting their case through state courts, now.
Yup.
This is not about your immunity.
This isn't even about the virus.
They just really, really, really want everyone to get the jab
The good news is, you can also fire your boss.
This is Not a Vaccine.
The jab of mRNA (synthesized strand of genetic material) is a package in a nano lipid or fat envelope delivered to a cell. It’s a medical device designed to stimulate a cell into becoming a pathogen creator by creating the known to be harmful S-1 spike protein.
Vaccine is a defined term in law and under CDC and FDA standards. A vaccine has to stimulate an immunity in the person receiving it. And it must also disrupt transmission. That’s not what this is. Even the drug manufacturers admit the jab or its mRNA does not stop transmission.
The jab is a treatment, but if it’s discussed as a treatment it would not get the sympathetic ear of public health officials because people would ask what other treatments there are. And alternative treatments would hamper FDA’s ability to issue emergency approval of the jabs as a vaccine.
Defining the narrative with the term vaccine is a sucker punch to open and free discourse. “Vaccine” throws the discussion into one of pro/con vaccine. The jab is a mechanical device (a bio-weapon) in the form of a very small packet of technology inserted into the human system to activate the cell to become a pathogenetic spike protein manufacturing site.
No basis exists to stipulate this is a vaccine. Simply put, this is a chemical pathogen device meant to unleash chemical pathogen production within a cell. It’s a medical device, not a drug. The jab is not a living or biological system, but rather a physical technology that just happens to come in the size of a molecular package.
Stated Objective
As to why the vaccine hype, the most important quote of this SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is a quote made in 2015 by Peter Daszak, head of Eco-Health Alliance and long-time collaborator with Dr. Fauci and NIAID on gain of function research.
In 2015, Duszak said,
“We need to increase public understanding of the need for medical countermeasures such as a pan-coronavirus vaccine. A key driver is the media, and the economics will follow the hype. We need to use that hype to our advantage, to get to the real issues. Investors will respond if they see profit at the end of the process.”
See Forum on Medical and Public Health Preparedness for Catastrophic Events; Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation; Forum on Microbial Threats; Board on Health Sciences Policy; Board on Global Health; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Rapid Medical Countermeasure Response to Infectious Diseases: Enabling Sustainable Capabilities Through Ongoing Public- and Private-Sector Partnerships: Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2016 Feb 12. 6, Developing MCMs for Coronaviruses.
It’s not hard to figure that SARS-CoV-2 was not a public health crisis. This was an opportunistic marketing campaign to address a stated objective. And it’s the easiest thing to describe because they are the ones that said it. And the Occam’s Razor reality is they've said they needed to get the public to accept a pan-coronavirus vaccine countermeasure. And they needed the media to create the hype and investors would follow where they see profit.
When I see a person wearing a ski mask, waving a gun, and standing with a bag of money in front of a bank; I will make the assumption that that person might be a bank robber.
Similarly, if I have somebody who says we need to use the media to hype a medical countermeasure which is in fact the injection of a synthetic, recombinant chimeric protein developed off of a computer simulation, I’m actually going to listen to the motivation for why that might be being done; I will listen to the person doing the manipulation who says investors will follow where they see profit.
You do not have anything else you need to rely on to explain the events of the last 20 months than the actual statement of the actual perpetrators.
Maryland 2007
“if parents continue to be recalcitrant, they face up to 10 days in jail and a $50 a day fine.”
https://abcnews.go.com/GMA/WaterCooler/story?id=3880578&page=1
My daughter's company made it clear that they could refuse the vaccine. They just can't keep their jobs.
So what? There seem to be jobs begging out the yinyang.
So far just about everybody has had an adverse reaction to the jab.
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.