As many of you already know, IU-the public college, some private colleges, IU Health system, Comunity Health Network in Indianapolis, and several skilled nursing companies have already mandated the covid vaccine under experimental emergency use authorization in spite of 35 Indiana State Senators mentioning legal problems under current emergency use in a letter to IU-college.
“We would also like to draw your attention to one federal statute and one state statute that highlight the legal problems with your vaccine mandate. In our view, the federal statute found at 21 USCS360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) prohibits anyone or any entity from mandating a vaccine that has only received emergency approval (such as the COVID-19 vaccines). In addition, during the 2021 legislative session, the General Assembly passed HEA 1405 prohibiting local units from requiring vaccine passports. The intent and spirit of both of these codes are clear, and we believe our opinion is further solidified by the recently released legal opinion by Indiana’s Attorney General in support of our position.”
Unfortunately, a Federal judge just dismissed a lawsuit brought against a Houston hospital for mandating the covid vaccine under emergency use, which is not exactly shocking due to the corrupt nature of our court system. If that ruling stands, the covid vaccine can be required under experimental emergency use.
For the IU-college people-specifically staff. We know of an attorney willing to take a case against IU-the college for continuing to allegedly violate HEA 1405 which bans state and local units from requiring a vaccine passport which is defined as written, electronic, and printed form of your covid vaccine status. IU continues to require all students and staff to electronically provide their covid vaccine status or be fired/expelled. Once you electronically provide your covid vaccine status, you can apply for an exemption which if approved will require twice a week covid testing and masking. However, the retainer for an attorney is 5 figures along with a high hourly rate. We would most likely win, because IU is continuing to require a form of vaccine passport, but we were told that we cannot be awarded attorney fees back. So if anyone has $20000-$30000 to spend to get IU to simply follow the law, that’s an option. However, the law does not stop them from verbally asking employees and students to state their covid vaccine status. Additionally, we all thought that the Federal statute would prevent mandates of emergency use vaccines, but a Federal judge ignored that statute and dismissed the case. What seems like a slam dunk with them breaking the law could turn out to be loss based on a judges “opinion” or ties with pharma. We cannot depend on corrupt judges to save us.
For the IU Health and all other employees: It has been reported that several employees with IU Health have already been denied religious exemptions for the covid vaccine. There are also reports of workers, such as cooks, in skilled nursing home being denied religious exemptions and put on unpaid leave until they get the covid vaccine or get fired. Here are the EEOC guidelines updated from May 28.
“If the assessment shows that an unvaccinated employee with a disability poses a direct threat to self or others, employers must consider whether providing a reasonable accommodation, absent undue hardship, would reduce or eliminate that threat. Employers may rely on CDC recommendations when deciding whether there is an effective accommodation available that would not pose an undue hardship. As for potential reasonable accommodations, EEOC offers the following non-exclusive examples:
[R]equiring the employee to wear a mask, work a staggered shift, making changes in the work environment (such as improving ventilation systems or limiting contact with other employees and non-employees), permitting telework if feasible, or reassigning the employee to a vacant position in a different workspace.”
“Under Title VII, employers must provide employees, who sincerely hold a religious belief, practice, or observance that prevents them from getting a COVID-19 vaccine, with a reasonable accommodation, unless the accommodation poses an undue hardship. A religious accommodation request from an employee who wishes to wait until an alternative version or specific brand of COVID-19 vaccine becomes available should be processed according to the same standards applicable to other requests for accommodation set forth above. Employers must engage in an interactive process to find a reasonable accommodation and should thoroughly consider all possibilities, including telework and reassignment. Employers may rely on CDC recommendations when deciding whether there is a reasonable accommodation available.”
Attorneys don’t seem to be taking employment cases until after you are denied an exemption or are fired. Even then, do you have thousands of dollars to spend on an attorney to defend your rights?
For the Purdue people: It has been reported that some (if not all) Purdue University employees received an email stating that once the covid vaccine is FDA approved, it will be required and staff who claim a religious exemption will be put to a religious challenge by being forced to have a religious leader sign off on their exemptions for approval to be considered. Notre Dame University is already doing that unconstitional religious challenge, and they have been denying religious exemptions signed by your religious leader verifying that your beliefs are sincere, because the actual doctrine of the particular religion does not forbid vaccination. Here’s a reminder, Purdue also has to follow the law 1405 that prevents them from requiring a covid vaccine status in written, electronic, or printed form.
This is what the EEOC has to say regarding religious beliefs:
“The definition of religion under Title VII is broad and the EEOC suggests that employers “should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance. However, if an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer is aware of facts that provide an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.”