Vax Mandate Lawsuits
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
TPD
the poor dad
I guess you should have talked nicer about your union boss, maybe a better Christmas gift for him the last couple of years....
TPD
the poor dad
LOL I agree. Unions suck. They were some of the first to cave on the mandate. Just poking the bear, or rather poking gurps
black dog
Free America
Your Bennie's and pay would suck if it wasn't for Union jobs.... Bargaining keeps things on a better keel.
Biden Admin Suspends Enforcement Of CMS Mandate Following Court Order
The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Thursday that it was suspending the enforcement of Democrat President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate after a federal court blocked it from being implemented pending review.
In a memo, CMS stated:
The Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) announced on Thursday that it was suspending the enforcement of Democrat President Joe Biden’s vaccine mandate after a federal court blocked it from being implemented pending review.
In a memo, CMS stated:
Biden legal defeats rapidly piling up across the nation on broad array of policy fronts
On Tuesday, federal judges blocked the administration from enforcing two mandates requiring millions of Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
In one case, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction halting the start of Biden's national vaccine mandate for health care workers. The injunction temporarily blocks the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing the order.
"There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million health care workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," Doughty wrote. "It is not clear that even an act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional."
On Tuesday, federal judges blocked the administration from enforcing two mandates requiring millions of Americans to get the COVID-19 vaccine.
In one case, Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana issued a preliminary injunction halting the start of Biden's national vaccine mandate for health care workers. The injunction temporarily blocks the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) from enforcing the order.
"There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million health care workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," Doughty wrote. "It is not clear that even an act of Congress mandating a vaccine would be constitutional."
District Courts strike down Biden Vaccine Mandates
According to court documents filed on Friday, the 6th circuit denied the motion to move the case to the circuit in Washington D.C. In addition the court released a timeline for each side to file their arguments with the final filing date of December 10th. The federal vaccine mandate was set to go into effect January 4th.
This latest ruling comes directly after a pair of District courts blocked the Biden administration from enforcing two different vaccine mandates that would require millions of American workers to get vaccinated.
The first from a court in Louisiana where a judge blocked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from their vaccine mandate on healthcare workers. This ruling applies to all but 10 states nationwide, those states already blocked the mandate.
According to court documents filed on Friday, the 6th circuit denied the motion to move the case to the circuit in Washington D.C. In addition the court released a timeline for each side to file their arguments with the final filing date of December 10th. The federal vaccine mandate was set to go into effect January 4th.
This latest ruling comes directly after a pair of District courts blocked the Biden administration from enforcing two different vaccine mandates that would require millions of American workers to get vaccinated.
The first from a court in Louisiana where a judge blocked the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services from their vaccine mandate on healthcare workers. This ruling applies to all but 10 states nationwide, those states already blocked the mandate.
Courts to Biden: No Mandates for You!
Lower-level judges, for the most part, seem unimpressed with the idea that forced vaccines solve any “emergency” need. Attorneys General in multiple states are citing data demonstrating the devastating impact such mandates will have in the areas where those federal contractors and health care workers currently are working. They are also arguing the exacerbation of already poorly staffed fields will be an even greater public health risk.
[clip]
This week Biden also argued that the Sixth Circuit had erred in the court’s instruction to his administration to comply with its injunction of Biden’s mandate. They made this argument to the Sixth after signaling to the agency that handled enforcement to ignore the court’s injunction. Biden’s basic position is “I’m the *president and you have to do what I say!” The court didn’t take kindly to it and when Biden came groveling hat in hand this week asking the court for permission to keep doing as it pleased, the court said “no!” To their credit, OSHA had already complied with the Sixth’s instructions.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebec...-worst-proabo-n2599962?utm_campaign=inarticle
Eventually, and we are hoping sooner than later, the Sixth will decide on the questions before it, “Can a *president order private citizens to ingest a vaccine, take a pill, or by some other means absorb a substance against their will? Are they allowed to utilize divisions of the executive branch to enforce such orders? Are private companies required to comply with such orders or be punished?”
Lower-level judges, for the most part, seem unimpressed with the idea that forced vaccines solve any “emergency” need. Attorneys General in multiple states are citing data demonstrating the devastating impact such mandates will have in the areas where those federal contractors and health care workers currently are working. They are also arguing the exacerbation of already poorly staffed fields will be an even greater public health risk.
[clip]
This week Biden also argued that the Sixth Circuit had erred in the court’s instruction to his administration to comply with its injunction of Biden’s mandate. They made this argument to the Sixth after signaling to the agency that handled enforcement to ignore the court’s injunction. Biden’s basic position is “I’m the *president and you have to do what I say!” The court didn’t take kindly to it and when Biden came groveling hat in hand this week asking the court for permission to keep doing as it pleased, the court said “no!” To their credit, OSHA had already complied with the Sixth’s instructions.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/rebec...-worst-proabo-n2599962?utm_campaign=inarticle
Eventually, and we are hoping sooner than later, the Sixth will decide on the questions before it, “Can a *president order private citizens to ingest a vaccine, take a pill, or by some other means absorb a substance against their will? Are they allowed to utilize divisions of the executive branch to enforce such orders? Are private companies required to comply with such orders or be punished?”
Last edited:
Vaccine Mandates Appeal: United Case
Highlighted, per usual. Also, noteworthy is the better shift to the job-or-jab choice as the irremediable injury without injunctive relief.
DAVID SAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF EMERGENCY
“[E]ven in a pandemic,” religious liberty “cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). United Airlines disagrees. After instituting a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, United’s CEO Scott Kirby publicly threatened employees “to be very careful about” requesting an accommodation. Hamilton Aff. ¶¶ 4, 15 (App.332-34). 1 As the district court noted, his “skepticism and apparent disdain for any religiously-motivated exemption requests” were illustrated by his warning that “very few” accommodations would be granted and that employees who even requested an accommodation were “putting [their] job on the line[.]” Nov. 8 Order at 15 (App.266). United made good on Kirby’s promise. For those requests it could not deny for technical and improper reasons, United issued a blanket unreasonable accommodation of unpaid leave until the end of the pandemic—effectively termination.
In ruling on Appellants’ motion for preliminary injunction, the district court recognized that “Plaintiffs’ arguments appear compelling and convincing” and that United’s fabricated reasons for not providing reasonable accommodations evidenced pretext. Id. at 13, 15 (App.264, 266). Yet the district court ruled that Appellants’ injuries did not constitute irreparable harm of the sort that would warrant a preliminary injunction—despite United’s continuing to exert leverage over its employees to compel them to forsake their beliefs on pain of losing their livelihoods. The district court’s error with respect to irreparable harm is plain: Decisions from this Court and the Supreme Court make clear that being put to such a choice constitutes irreparable harm, and they allow for a preliminary injunction—and an injunction pending appeal—to prevent such irreparable harm.
Indeed, forcing employees to choose between their faith and health on the one hand and their livelihoods on the other presents an impossible choice foreclosed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). And for employees who acquiesce to United’s coercion and receive the COVID-19 vaccine against their beliefs or health, that decision is irreversible, and no remedy can compensate for it later.
But that is United’s goal—force employees to violate their faith and health to boost the company’s bottom line. There is no other explanation for United’s continuing to enforce a policy that—as the district court recognized—is pretextual, calloused, and disturbing. For United, advertising a 100% vaccinated workforce is evidently more important than its employees’ religious beliefs or health.
While the district court declined to acknowledge this harm as irreparable, it invited this Court’s guidance. Nov. 19 Order at 3-4 (App.295-96). Moreover, this Court recently addressed the same irreparable harm accompanying a vaccine mandate that puts employees to the same choice between “their job(s) and their jab(s).” BST Holdings, LLC v. OSHA, 17 F.4d 604, 2021 WL 5279381, *8 (5th Cir. 2021). BST teaches that harm to individuals resulting from an employer’s refusal to grant a reasonable religious exemption to a vaccine mandate infringes on principles that are “not reducible to dollars and cents,” and thus implicates more than just money damages. Id. at *20. Whether under the First Amendment or Title VII— which was designed to protect the same freedoms in the private workplace— impinging the freedom of religion in this way causes irreparable harm. Id. at *8. That harm is the same whether it results from an employer’s violation of the Constitution or a statute.
But that is not all. Appellants demonstrated numerous other irreparable harms: the inability to pay for necessary medical treatments, imminent homelessness, and permanently lost job opportunities for which money damages are no remedy. The district court’s only response to these harms was backpay and retroactive seniority. Nov. 8 Order at 6-13 (App.257-64). But that is no answer. While Appellants do not doubt that a court can award backpay, money damages cannot reverse the permanent health consequences of lost medical treatment, remedy extended homelessness, or reimburse an employee for unquantifiable lost job opportunities. Most importantly, backpay can never remedy the harm caused by forcing an employee to an unlawful choice between their faith or health and their livelihood. Ultimately, it is no answer to tell someone living paycheck to paycheck, and faced with putting food on the table during the holidays, that they should hold out on violating their conscience or their health because United may be forced to pay them money later. Religious and medical rights—whether under the Constitution or statutes such as Title VII—were never meant to be reserved for the rich.
Highlighted, per usual. Also, noteworthy is the better shift to the job-or-jab choice as the irremediable injury without injunctive relief.
DAVID SAMBRANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF EMERGENCY
“[E]ven in a pandemic,” religious liberty “cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Cath. Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 141 S. Ct. 63, 68 (2020). United Airlines disagrees. After instituting a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, United’s CEO Scott Kirby publicly threatened employees “to be very careful about” requesting an accommodation. Hamilton Aff. ¶¶ 4, 15 (App.332-34). 1 As the district court noted, his “skepticism and apparent disdain for any religiously-motivated exemption requests” were illustrated by his warning that “very few” accommodations would be granted and that employees who even requested an accommodation were “putting [their] job on the line[.]” Nov. 8 Order at 15 (App.266). United made good on Kirby’s promise. For those requests it could not deny for technical and improper reasons, United issued a blanket unreasonable accommodation of unpaid leave until the end of the pandemic—effectively termination.
In ruling on Appellants’ motion for preliminary injunction, the district court recognized that “Plaintiffs’ arguments appear compelling and convincing” and that United’s fabricated reasons for not providing reasonable accommodations evidenced pretext. Id. at 13, 15 (App.264, 266). Yet the district court ruled that Appellants’ injuries did not constitute irreparable harm of the sort that would warrant a preliminary injunction—despite United’s continuing to exert leverage over its employees to compel them to forsake their beliefs on pain of losing their livelihoods. The district court’s error with respect to irreparable harm is plain: Decisions from this Court and the Supreme Court make clear that being put to such a choice constitutes irreparable harm, and they allow for a preliminary injunction—and an injunction pending appeal—to prevent such irreparable harm.
Indeed, forcing employees to choose between their faith and health on the one hand and their livelihoods on the other presents an impossible choice foreclosed by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). And for employees who acquiesce to United’s coercion and receive the COVID-19 vaccine against their beliefs or health, that decision is irreversible, and no remedy can compensate for it later.
But that is United’s goal—force employees to violate their faith and health to boost the company’s bottom line. There is no other explanation for United’s continuing to enforce a policy that—as the district court recognized—is pretextual, calloused, and disturbing. For United, advertising a 100% vaccinated workforce is evidently more important than its employees’ religious beliefs or health.
While the district court declined to acknowledge this harm as irreparable, it invited this Court’s guidance. Nov. 19 Order at 3-4 (App.295-96). Moreover, this Court recently addressed the same irreparable harm accompanying a vaccine mandate that puts employees to the same choice between “their job(s) and their jab(s).” BST Holdings, LLC v. OSHA, 17 F.4d 604, 2021 WL 5279381, *8 (5th Cir. 2021). BST teaches that harm to individuals resulting from an employer’s refusal to grant a reasonable religious exemption to a vaccine mandate infringes on principles that are “not reducible to dollars and cents,” and thus implicates more than just money damages. Id. at *20. Whether under the First Amendment or Title VII— which was designed to protect the same freedoms in the private workplace— impinging the freedom of religion in this way causes irreparable harm. Id. at *8. That harm is the same whether it results from an employer’s violation of the Constitution or a statute.
But that is not all. Appellants demonstrated numerous other irreparable harms: the inability to pay for necessary medical treatments, imminent homelessness, and permanently lost job opportunities for which money damages are no remedy. The district court’s only response to these harms was backpay and retroactive seniority. Nov. 8 Order at 6-13 (App.257-64). But that is no answer. While Appellants do not doubt that a court can award backpay, money damages cannot reverse the permanent health consequences of lost medical treatment, remedy extended homelessness, or reimburse an employee for unquantifiable lost job opportunities. Most importantly, backpay can never remedy the harm caused by forcing an employee to an unlawful choice between their faith or health and their livelihood. Ultimately, it is no answer to tell someone living paycheck to paycheck, and faced with putting food on the table during the holidays, that they should hold out on violating their conscience or their health because United may be forced to pay them money later. Religious and medical rights—whether under the Constitution or statutes such as Title VII—were never meant to be reserved for the rich.
kom526
They call me ... Sarcasmo
We were sent an email from the global corporate office that said they fully expect the OSHA mandates to be upheld and therefore they "strongly encourage" all employees to get the jab. The grace period for not complying ends in January 4, 2022 and then the weekly testing and mandatory masking begins. One line from the email states that any ETS ruling regarding vaccines "supersedes any state law" in a state that forbids mandatory jabs.
My employer jumped right up and instituted a vax mandate for ' safety and security ' of fellow employees
Yet Vaxxed are spreading as much Covid as unvaxxed these days
COVID vaccine mandates undermined by research sponsored by vaccine makers, feds
Two studies published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) showed statistically insignificant differences between participants who received vaccinations or placebos in Pfizer and Moderna trials.
Five placebo versus two vaccinated participants died from COVID-19 or related pneumonia across the two randomized controlled trials of more than 74,000 people six to seven months later. The figures are available in each study's supplementary appendix.
All deaths reported during the vaccine trials, regardless of listed cause, were similarly close between vaccine (31) and placebo (30) groups in the two appendices.
[clip]
"Simply put, the very best scientific evidence currently available to mankind does not support the widely held contention" that these vaccines lower the risk of death in the studied time period.
In a preprint study awaiting peer review, the CDC's own COVID-19 Response Team and the Justice Department's Bureau of Prisons found no distinction by vaccination status when considering infectiousness.
Though they studied a federal prison with a Delta variant outbreak this summer, the researchers did not limit their conclusions to "congregate settings" such as correctional facilities.
"As this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons," the study concludes.
Two studies published last month in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) showed statistically insignificant differences between participants who received vaccinations or placebos in Pfizer and Moderna trials.
Five placebo versus two vaccinated participants died from COVID-19 or related pneumonia across the two randomized controlled trials of more than 74,000 people six to seven months later. The figures are available in each study's supplementary appendix.
All deaths reported during the vaccine trials, regardless of listed cause, were similarly close between vaccine (31) and placebo (30) groups in the two appendices.
[clip]
"Simply put, the very best scientific evidence currently available to mankind does not support the widely held contention" that these vaccines lower the risk of death in the studied time period.
In a preprint study awaiting peer review, the CDC's own COVID-19 Response Team and the Justice Department's Bureau of Prisons found no distinction by vaccination status when considering infectiousness.
Though they studied a federal prison with a Delta variant outbreak this summer, the researchers did not limit their conclusions to "congregate settings" such as correctional facilities.
"As this field continues to develop, clinicians and public health practitioners should consider vaccinated persons who become infected with SARS-CoV-2 to be no less infectious than unvaccinated persons," the study concludes.
Indiana House Members Resurrect Long-Delayed Bill To Protect Hoosiers From Forced Medication
A long-awaited bill to protect Hoosiers from mandated vaccines died right before Thanksgiving, then was quietly resurrected last week by Indiana House members who don’t want their constituents subjected to forced medical treatments.
When Gov. Eric Holcomb finally agreed in November to end a public state of emergency he had renewed 20 times already, he went to Indiana legislators with requests he said needed to be addressed first. What came out was a bill that not only included what he wanted— extended federal subsidies and easier vaccine access for kids—but also a bill that would protect Hoosiers from employer and school Covid vaccine mandates.
A long-awaited bill to protect Hoosiers from mandated vaccines died right before Thanksgiving, then was quietly resurrected last week by Indiana House members who don’t want their constituents subjected to forced medical treatments.
When Gov. Eric Holcomb finally agreed in November to end a public state of emergency he had renewed 20 times already, he went to Indiana legislators with requests he said needed to be addressed first. What came out was a bill that not only included what he wanted— extended federal subsidies and easier vaccine access for kids—but also a bill that would protect Hoosiers from employer and school Covid vaccine mandates.
All Of Biden’s Civilian Vaccine Mandates Must Come To A Grinding Halt, Federal Courts Rule
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Georgia blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine requirements for federal contractors, which were supposed to officially go into effect on Jan. 4, 2o22. Just last week, U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove temporarily slapped down the same mandate for federal contractors located in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED,” Tatenhove wrote in his opinion.
Days prior to judicial action on the federal contractor mandate, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana temporarily blocked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from enforcing their vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp in Missouri had already temporarily suspended the Biden administration’s vaccine requirements for health care institutions in Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming that receive federal money. The ruling effectively prohibited hospitals and other healthcare entities in those states from getting rid of essential workers who have yet to get the COVID-19 jab.
On Tuesday, a federal judge in Georgia blocked the Biden administration’s vaccine requirements for federal contractors, which were supposed to officially go into effect on Jan. 4, 2o22. Just last week, U.S. District Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove temporarily slapped down the same mandate for federal contractors located in Kentucky, Ohio, and Tennessee.
“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no. So, for the reasons that follow, the pending request for a preliminary injunction will be GRANTED,” Tatenhove wrote in his opinion.
Days prior to judicial action on the federal contractor mandate, U.S. District Judge Terry Doughty in Louisiana temporarily blocked the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services from enforcing their vaccine mandate for healthcare workers. U.S. District Judge Matthew Schelp in Missouri had already temporarily suspended the Biden administration’s vaccine requirements for health care institutions in Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming that receive federal money. The ruling effectively prohibited hospitals and other healthcare entities in those states from getting rid of essential workers who have yet to get the COVID-19 jab.