Covid refusal Forced Out

[Penn]

This recent case may impact those who wish to be compensated for refusing the Vax,
There were quite a few with 10+YIS that were handed their DD214.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...vid-19-vaccine

[JJ_BPK]

Originally Posted by Penn

This recent case may impact those who wish to be compensated for refusing the Vax,
There were quite a few with 10+YIS that were handed their DD214.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...vid-19-vaccine

No 2L, but I get the feeling it is a limited-scope rendering.

"As such, the decision to summarily deny the classroom teachers amongst the Panel Petitioners based on an undue hardship, without any further evidence of individualized analysis, is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. As such, each classroom teacher amongst the Panel Petitioners is entitled to a religious exemption from the Vaccine Mandate."

The court also rejected plaintiff motion for class certification, stating that the proposed class was "overbroad."

I do hope there is a class-action activity open for all fired employees.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by JJ_BPK

I do hope there is a class-action activity open for all fired employees.

Put in the list of wrongs that should be amended. Along with that goes the determinaion by the 5th Circuit that the White House, Surg General, CDC and FBI et al employed big tech to censor information regarding it.

I mention, not because anything is ever likely to be done about it in terms of lubricating the Big Morbark™, but because the court decision is recent and relevant.

A federal appeals court partially affirmed a lower court’s finding on Friday that Biden administration officials violated the First Amendment by coercing social media companies to censor speech.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court’s judgement that the White House, Surgeon General, CDC and FBI violated the First Amendment while finding that “the district court erred in finding that the NIAID Officials, CISA Officials, and State Department Officials likely violated Plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights.” Yet it found the injunction, issued by District of Louisiana Judge Terry A. Doughty in July, was “vague and broader than necessary.”

“Ultimately, we find the district court did not err in determining that several officials—namely the White House, the Surgeon General, the CDC, and the FBI—likely coerced or significantly encouraged social-media, platforms to moderate content, rendering those decisions state actions,” the court wrote. “In doing so, the officials likely violated the First Amendment.”