Posted on 07/02/2024 10:03:39 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A federal jury has awarded $687,000 to a research scientist who was fired from BlueCross BlueShield in Tennessee for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Tanja Benton, who had worked 16 years at the firm when she was fired, was awarded $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensation, and $500,000 in punitive damages, according to a document made public by the federal court in eastern Tennessee on June 30.
Company officials told Ms. Benton in August of 2021 that she would need to be “fully vaccinated” to keep her position, according to her lawsuit. Ms. Benton refused, saying aborted fetal cell lines were involved in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines and she could not “in good conscience consume the vaccine, which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”
BlueCross BlueShield said her position involved “regular external public-facing interactions” so she couldn’t keep it. Ms. Benton said her position became fully remote in 2020 but BlueCross BlueShield said it would have involved some in-person interaction with clients.
Ms. Benton was told to pursue other positions within the company and applied for two. But she was fired on Nov. 4, 2021, and told five days later that, “Unfortunately, all positions require the vax now,” according to an email entered in the case.
Her lawsuit charged that BlueCross BlueShield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says an employer may not “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s religion. Employers can disregard religious exemption requests if they can prove accommodating them would create undue hardship.
BlueCross BlueShield “cannot prove that allowing Plaintiff to continue her employment as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist without being vaccinated for COVID-19 constitutes an undue hardship,” the suit stated. The company “also cannot show that it made any good-faith efforts to accommodate plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”
BlueCross BlueShield was also accused of violating the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination by employers at the state level.
“We’re disappointed by the decision,” Dalya Qualls White, chief communications officer for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”
A lawyer representing Ms. Benton did not respond to a request for comment.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, presented with the case, cleared Ms. Benton to sue her former employer.
Company lawyers had argued the firm would be unduly burdened by providing Ms. Benton an indefinite exception despite her role as a “public-facing employee.” The lawyers said she could not have continued working remotely indefinitely.
The company also asserted that Ms. Benton did not hold a sincerely held religious belief and “denies that the COVID-19 vaccine was derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which is verifiably false,” according to the company’s filing.
Johnson & Johnson used cells derived from an aborted fetus in the design, production, and testing of its COVID-19 vaccine. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also utilized the cells in early testing. The companies have said the final products do not contain aborted fetal cells.
Well, that's a ringing endorsement, if I ever heard one!
Regards,
Theres lotta fired ULA employees in Decatur, Alabama that would like to get in on that.
ping to you!
Don’t see why a “sincerely held religious belief” was needed for an exemption.
The “vaccine” was a farce at mere face value.
Excellent news!
Yep - the va666ine
excellent.
But they were used in the testing. That was my main reason for not getting it.
The murdered will receive nothing.
RIP DG
RIP DF
Agree.
We have a guy in our church who was FDNY — he a lovely family. He was close to retiring when he was ousted for refusing the vax. I wish all these people would be able to be compensated for being victims of the hoax.
Still wondering why some companies who were covered by the federal mandate were allowed to get out of requiring employees to get vaxxed.
There were refuseniks who weren’t fired.
How did that happen, hmmmm...?
My main reasons for not getting it were because: (1) they said I had to, (2) it hadn’t been properly tested, and (3) the fetal cell issue.
Sadly, we have no idea how prevalent the use of fetal cells is. A while back I learned that Avon cosmetics do this, in testing and/or daily production (don’t recall exactly). I threw away what I had.
(h/t exit82) ....
Godspeed ...
Brian Ward
@GodsRiddles
Courts all over are ruling against the COVID-19 Mandates - here’s the latest roundup you might have missed:
(1) The Eighth Circuit ruled that lower courts cannot act as God when determining a person’s religious beliefs. They must accept their beliefs as true. (Ringhoffer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance) Mayo Clinic will now face trial.
(2) The Ninth Circuit held that lower courts could not allow secular groups to be treated more favorably than religious groups. The court should have recognized that allowing firefighters from a different city under an exemption to fill in for firefighters the defendants fired for not taking the vaccine for religious reasons was a violation of those firefighters’ religious rights. (Bacon v. Woodward)
(3) The Tenth Circuit held that it is unconstitutional for a government to grant religious accommodations for some but not others because the government must accept as true each person’s religious beliefs, and the discretionary application of exemptions was applied unconstitutionally. (Does 1-11 v. Bd. of Regents)
(4) The Sixth Circuit BLASTED the lower court that called a person’s religious beliefs personal and not religious. The court held nothing back when taking the lower court to the woodshed. (Lucky v. Landmark Med. Of Michigan)
(5) The Ninth Circuit held that if the Plaintiffs allegations are true that the drugs do not prevent the spread of the Coronavirus, then the drug is not a vaccine, only medical treatment, which implicates a fundamental right under the 14th Amendment to refuse unwanted medical treatment. The court remanded back to the lower court for further development. (Health Freedom v. LAUSD)
(6) The Federal Court denied the U.S. Government dismissing a case brought by military members, stating that if the drugs were under EUA, then that fact implicates a cause of action by military members and ordered an evidentiary hearing.
(7) There is a class action lawsuit going forward against the University of California Board of Regents over violations of a person’s medical liberty rights.
(8) There is a billion-dollar class action granted a green light by the federal court against United Airlines relating to the COVID-19 mandates.
(9) Healthcare workers fired from their unlawful mandates are suing Governors Newsom (CA), Brown (OR), and Inslee (WA). These are § 1983 constitutional violation causes of action.
(10) There are lawsuits against the Texas HHS Commissioner Cecile Erwin Young, CO Board of Health and its Director, Oregon’s Health Director, and California’s Health Director. These are § 1983 constitutional violation causes of action.
(11) There are lawsuits against Houston Methodist (TX); Shriners Hospitals for Children in OR, WA, TX; UC Health in Colorado; South Denver Cardiologists Associates, Kaiser Impernente in CA, WA, OR; and from what I’m told there will be more lawsuits filed within the next 90-days against other hospitals. These lawsuits are over the hospital violating its government contracts and plaintiffs’ 14th Amendment rights since they were acting under color of law.
(12) I’m told there are incoming lawsuits to be filed against CT, Biden, TX, CA, AZ, and PA over current mandates involving PREP Act or EUA products. These are declaratory judgment actions only seeking injunctions from the mandates.
(13) I’m preparing a video exposing the lawfare raging within the federal judiciary against Americans’ rights to refuse investigational medical treatment. I think the Supreme Court would be aghast by the actions of its district and appellate judges.
2:40 PM · Jul 2, 2024
Of course you are, Dalya/BCBS.
“We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”
Best decision? To maim or kill? To do harm? If that's your ‘best decision’, how on Earth can your company be trusted for ANY decision??
Jury awards are merely advisory to the judge. In Colorado, the practice is that all jury awards are reduced by the judge.
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.