Houston Hospital Employees Fired for Refusing to Get Vaccine Demand Their Jobs Back Following Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s Executive Order barring any entity in the state from imposing vaccine mandates.

Around 150 former Houston Methodist employees who were terminated or resigned over the firm’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate are demanding their jobs back.

Attorney Jared Woodfill, who’s representing dozens of health care workers in several lawsuits against Houston Methodist, said those employees should get their jobs back following Texas Gov. Greg Abbott’s recent executive order barring any entity in the state from imposing vaccine mandates.

“Gov. Abbott says very clearly, ‘Whereas countless Texans fear losing their livelihoods because they object to receiving a COVID-19 vaccination for reasons of personal conscience,'” Woodfill wrote in a letter to the hospital system this week. “That applies to every plaintiff that I represent and every plaintiff that Methodist hospital thought it was appropriate to fire.”

Based on the order, employees who were terminated from their Houston Methodist jobs should “immediately be reinstated to their former positions,” Woodfill wrote in the Oct. 12 letter.

After Abbott’s order earlier this week, Houston Methodist CEO Marc Boom said he was “deeply disappointed in the governor’s order that tries to prohibit such mandates,” according to local media.

“We are proud of our employees and physicians, who are 100 percent compliant with our vaccine policy,” Boom said.

Boom, who hasn’t yet addressed Woodfill’s letter and request, asserted that the hospital’s policy—which was implemented earlier in 2021—was put into place before Abbott’s order was issued.

“We are grateful we mandated the vaccine early, so the order will not have an immediate impact on us,” he said. “We are reviewing the order now and its possible implications.”

The CEO said he hopes that other major Texas hospital systems, including Taylor College of Medicine and Memorial Hermann, will implement their COVID-19 vaccine mandates after Abbott’s order.

The EUA vaccines require a patient informed consent form to be signed. United States case law says that any consent given under duress is not consent under the law.

Forcing someone to get a vaccine or lose their jobs, their pay, and their family security, is the utmost coercive duress possible on someone.

Nobody can give a legally binding consent under these conditions, and for that reason these mandates to take the EUA vaccines should be challenged in court.

Here is the relevant section of US Code 21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies:

(e) Conditions of authorization
- (1) Unapproved product
  - (A) Required conditions
    - With respect to the emergency use of an unapproved product, the Secretary, to the extent practicable given the applicable circumstances described in subsection (b)(1), shall, for a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued, establish such conditions on an authorization under this section as the Secretary finds necessary or appropriate to protect the public health, including the following:
      - (i)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that health care professionals administering the product are informed—
        (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
        (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of the emergency use of the product, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
        (III) of the alternatives to the product that are available, and of their benefits and risks.
      - (ii)Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed—
        (I) that the Secretary has authorized the emergency use of the product;
        (II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and
        (III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.
      - (iii) Appropriate conditions for the monitoring and reporting of adverse events associated with the emergency use of the product.
      - (iv)cFor manufacturers of the product, appropriate conditions concerning recordkeeping and reporting, including records access by the Secretary, with respect to the emergency use of the product.

Note that this section is for Emergency Use Authorization and includes informed consent and the option to refuse.

I underlined the part about "consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product" because I believe this pertains to the medical "consequences" of not taking the drug. It does NOT give permission to businesses to place "consequences" on employees who don't take the drug. The former gives the recipient the choice, the latter is coercive consent under duress.

-PJ

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.