It is interesting to note that all of these anti-vaccination suits filed in the U.S. on the behalf have been filed by the same anti-vaxxer group using the same template claiming violations of the Nuremberg Code and other nonsense. Note that legal experts have already demonstrated that the grounds of the lawsuit regarding the Nuremberg Code is complete nonsense. We will see how these "template lawsuits" work out. 117 employees sue Houston Methodist hospital for requiring COVID-19 vaccine So far, 99% of the hospital's 26,000 employees have been vaccinated. https://abcnews.go.com/US/117-emplo...st-hospital-requiring-covid/story?id=77977011 Over 100 employees have joined a lawsuit against Houston Methodist hospital in Texas for requiring all employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The network, which oversees eight hospitals and has more than 26,000 employees, gave workers a deadline of June 7 to get the vaccine. If not, staffers risk suspension and termination, according to the lawsuit. As a result, 117 employees have joined a lawsuit filed Friday in Montgomery County that alleges the hospital is "illegally requiring its employees to be injected with an experimental vaccine as a condition of employment." The lawsuit cited that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued its first emergency use authorization for COVID-19 in December 2020, but the vaccines are awaiting full FDA approval and licensing, which will likely take months for the agency to review additional data. The complaint cited that forcing employees to get the vaccine violates Nuremberg Code, a medical ethics code which bans forced medical experiments and mandates voluntary consent. Hospital CEO Dr. Marc Boom sent out a letter in April to staffers announcing that employees have to be vaccinated by June 7. "Please see the HR policy that outlines the consequences of not being compliant by June 7, which include suspension and eventually termination," the letter, which was included in the lawsuit, stated. Attorney Jared Woodfill, who filed the lawsuit, told ABC News that Houston Methodist is forcing employees to get the shot to boost the hospital's profits. "To promote its business and increase profits at the expense of other health care providers and their employees' health, Defendants advertise to the public that they 'require all employees and employed physicians to get a COVID-19 vaccine.' More clearly, Defendants' employees are being forced to serve as human 'guinea pigs' to increase Defendants' profits," Woodfill said. "It is a severe and blatant violation of the Nuremberg Code and the public policy of the state of Texas," he added on the vaccine requirement. The lawsuit says forcing the plaintiffs to take the vaccine violates public policy in Texas and requests a temporary injunction to prevent the hospital from terminating employees for refusing to get a vaccine shot. When asked about alternative options for employees who did not want to get the COVID vaccine, Houston Methodist told ABC News that it offered "religious and medical exemptions, as well as deferrals for pregnant women." The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, a federal government agency that protects workers from discrimination, issued a new guidance Friday that said employers can legally require COVID-19 vaccines to re-enter a physical workplace as long as they follow requirements to find alternative arrangements for employees unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons or religious beliefs. Some of those accommodations may be allowing an unvaccinated employee to wear a face mask and social distance while at work, to work a modified shift, get periodic tests for COVID-19, be given the opportunity to telework or accept a reassignment, according to the guidance. EEOC reminded employees in the document that they are legally protected from harassment such as anti-Asian bias or if they feel they are not being allowed to work because they are high risk from COVID-19. Houston Methodist CEO Boom released a statement in response to the lawsuit Friday, saying 99% of the network's employees have been vaccinated. "It is unfortunate that the few remaining employees who refuse to get vaccinated and put our patients first are responding in this way," he said in the statement sent to ABC News. "It is legal for health care institutions to mandate vaccines, as we have done with the flu vaccine since 2009. The COVID-19 vaccines have proven through rigorous trials to be very safe and very effective and are not experimental."
What did it take this time to prove you to be a lying moron. 48 hours later the law suits hit the news.... what a moron you are. And so is everyone who gives you likes...they are supporting a proven inveterate fear mongering, lying fool.
CITATION -- where is your lawsuit in the news about the byproduct of vaccines. A lawsuit making all sorts of speculative claims about the Nuremberg Code is not a lawsuit against a employer about byproducts of vaccines. Either way -- it matter little. All of these lawsuits will be eventually laughed out of court. Keep in mind that most healthcare, education, government, and consulting jobs in the U.S. already have vaccine requirements.
your are an idiot... where did I claim the law suits would have merit or be successful? They will be put on by some injury lawyers to pressure for settlements. They may lose. But... you are a moron for saying they would never happen.
There's going to be more of these types of stories this year but the Covid Deniers argue it wouldn't happen. Just like I've been saying there will be more mass shooting events as we slowly come out of this Pandemic... The new normal. Life's A Bitch wrbtrader
More info about the anti-vax group spearheading the suing of employers... Resistance to vaccine mandates is building. A powerful network is helping. A New York firm has filed suit or sent letters to employers in several states as part of an effort spearheaded by one of the largest anti-vaccination groups in the country. https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/05/26/vaccine-mandate-litigation-siri-glimstad-ican/ The Americans lodging complaints against coronavirus vaccine mandates are a diverse lot — a sheriff’s deputy in North Carolina, nursing home employees in Wisconsin and students at the largest university in New Jersey. But their resistance is woven together by a common thread: the involvement of a law firm closely tied to the anti-vaccine movement. Attorneys from Siri & Glimstad — a New York firm that has done millions of dollars of legal work for one of the nation’s foremost anti-vaccination groups — are co-counsel in a case against the Durham County Sheriff’s Office. They’ve sent warningletters to officials in Rock County, Wis., as well as to the president of Rutgers Universityand other schools. The legal salvos show that a groundswell against compulsory immunization is being coordinated, at least in part, from a law office on Park Avenue in midtown Manhattan. And they offer a window into a wide-ranging and well-resourced effort to contest vaccine requirements in workplaces and other settings critical to the country’s reopening — adispute with sweeping implications for public health, state authorityand individual rights. “The message is, ‘Maybe you should reconsider because you don’t want to end up in court,’ ” said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. “I think that works.” The Informed Consent Action Network, a Texas-based nonprofit group founded by former daytime television producer Del Bigtree that campaigns against requiring vaccines, in part by citing unsubstantiated or debunked claims about their dangers, has advertised Siri & Glimstad’s services and sought plaintiffs for challenges to mandates. “If you or anyone you know is being required by an employer or school to receive a covid-19 vaccine, ICAN is offering to support legal action on your behalf to challenge the requirement,” reads an advertisement on a blog run by Children’s Health Defense, a group founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that spreads what Kennedy’s family members say is anti-vaccine misinformation. Even before the pandemic, legal services were core to these advocacy efforts. The nearly $1.3 million paid by ICAN to Siri & Glimstad in 2019 — the most recent year for which a tax filing is publicly available — was the nonprofit’s single largest reported expenditure. At stake in this latest contest is whether hospitals, law enforcement agencies and otherscan require employees to take a vaccine that was made available in an expedited process permitted during a public health emergency — and, likewise, whether schools may require the shots for students, faculty and staff members in the same way many require familiar vaccines for measles and chickenpox. There is little case law on the matter, with only one vaccine, for anthrax exposure, previously cleared in a similarway. Employers are expected to cite theexpansive evidencesupporting the safety and efficacy of the coronavirus vaccines, as well as the extraordinary health risks created by the current emergency, said Kerry A. Scanlon, a former Department of Justice official who oversees labor and employment litigation at Chicago-based law firm McDermott Will & Emery. Scanlon believes employers are in a strong position to defend compulsory vaccination, but he said many might shy away from it simply to avoid costly litigation. ICAN is already claiming victory, thanks to the work of a legal team led by Siri & Glimstad’s managing partner, Aaron Siri. “Employers and schools that previously required the covid-19 vaccine have dropped those requirements,” the group declares in its ad on the Children’s Health Defense blog.“This includes an employer that did so on the heels of ICAN’s legal team challenging its mandate in court.” Neither Siri nor his co-counsel in the North Carolina case, Elizabeth A. Brehm, responded to emailed questions. Bigtree did not respond to telephone messages. Kennedy said his organization is “working with firms all over the country” to challenge vaccine mandates and estimated that he receives “many hundreds” of inquiries each week about potential litigation. Meet the New York couple donating millions to the anti-vax movement In legal filings and letters to employers and universities, attorneys from Siri & Glimstad focus on the expedited process known as an emergency use authorization used to clear the shots during a public health emergency. Mandatinga vaccine cleared that way, they argue in a complaint filed against the Durham County Sheriff’s Department, is “illegal and unenforceable.” Their arguments go further. Pointing to the principle ofinformed consent, a tenet of medical ethics addressing human experimentation enshrined in the Nuremberg Code after World War II,their letter to the president of Rutgers University contends a mandate under these circumstances violates not just federal law, but also “international laws, civil and individual rights, and public policy.” Failure to rescind a requirement in Rock County, Wis., the firm informed officials there, “will result in legal action being filed against you.” “Govern yourself accordingly,” the Feb. 2 letter advised. Unsettled law No reference to these communications with Rock County appears in a Feb. 23 opinion column written by Siri for Stat, the health-focused news website. The headline asserted, “Federal law prohibits employers and others from requiring vaccination with a Covid-19 vaccine distributed under an EUA.” The piece picked up significant traffic, according to the social media analysis tool CrowdTangle, gaining more than 100,000 interactions on Facebook, meaning likes, comments and shares. It drew attention across a wide range of anti-vaccine groups, as well as in forums devoted to conspiracy theories, including ones about 5G and the death toll from covid-19, CrowdTangle showed. Framed as a legal overview offered for the benefit of employers, schools and other organizations “grappling with whether to require Covid-19 vaccination,” the piece warned of “costly and time-consuming litigation.” Left unsaid was the fact that Siri and a law partner were representing a Wisconsin nursing home employee objecting to one such requirement. The piece also did not note significant disagreement over what the law allows. The fact sheet issued by the Food and Drug Administration for coronavirus vaccinerecipients and caregivers says it is “your choice to receive or not receive” the shots. The language echoes a provision of federal law governing the emergency authorization of medicines that stipulates people must be informed “of the option to accept or refuse” the product, but also “of the consequences, if any, of refusing.” Michelle M. Mello, a professor of law and medicine at Stanford University, said it’s not clear whether the statute was meant to address making the shots compulsory for work or school. An employer can’t hold you down to get the shots against your will, said experts in health and employment law, but some believe a permissible consequence of refusal to vaccinate could, in some circumstances,be losing your job. In December, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission said employers requiring the vaccine would comply with federal disability law and anti-discrimination statutes so long as they make exceptions for an individual’sdisabilityor religious beliefs. Still, most employers have avoided mandates. There are notable exceptions, including many universities, several hospitals and Delta Air Lines, which said this month that new employees must be vaccinated. Employers will have more confidence about requiring vaccination, some experts said, once the products gain the FDA’s full approval, which U.S. pharmaceutical firm Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, are seeking for their coronavirus vaccine. A decision from regulators could come as soon as the fall, and other coronavirus vaccine makers are expected to apply for full approval soon. Likewise, Kennedy said full approval will make the legal opposition to mandates more difficult. “You’d need to go to the Supreme Court and get a reversal of ‘Jacobson,’ ” he said, referring to the1905 Supreme Court decisionthat found states could force residents to be inoculated against smallpox or pay a fine. Others said the hurdle created by the emergency use authorization, or EUA, is morerhetorical than legal. “The FDA required as much for this EUA as it requires for full approval,” said Dan Troy, a former chief counsel to the agency. But the issue has never been tested, Mello said. “Even legal scholars disagree about how to read these regulations,” she said. “There’s a great deal of uncertainty.” A legal warning One of Siri & Glimstad’s earliest challenges was brought against a county-owned skilled-nursing facility that has served the southern Wisconsin community for more than 160 years. The 128-bed Rock Haven nursing home had 15 cases of the coronavirus and two deaths, said Rock County Administrator Josh Smith, prompting leaders to require staff vaccinations. A memorandum issued shortly before Christmas noted that failure to comply would “result in the employee being laid off,” not eligible to return until vaccinated. Of nearly 200 workers, 16 are on layoff status, Smith said. Representing a Rock Haven employee, Brehm, one of the firm’s New York attorneys, wroteto county officials that they were “deliberately taking away each employee’s statutorily guaranteed right to decide for him or herself whether to accept or refuse administration of the covid-19 vaccines.” The Feb. 2 letter arrived on the same day as another from a Wisconsin law firm. “It is our firm belief that … Rock County’s perhaps well-intentionedbutheavy-handed policy concerning mandatory vaccination of county employees violates … constitutional rights,” wrote Michael J. Anderson of MJA Law, located near Madison. The following week, Brehmwrote again on behalf of the same client, while noting 15 additional employees represented separately by Anderson. “We hereby demand that Rock Haven withdraw its covid-19 vaccine mandate forthwith since requiring an unlicensed and unapproved product violates federal law and, likely, numerous state laws,” she wrote, this time with Siri also signing the letter. Anderson, the local attorney, said he spoke four to six weeks ago with representatives from Siri & Glimstad about the possibility of working together. A collaboration, he said, would allow the New York attorneys to practice law in Wisconsin on a temporary basis without being formally admitted to the state bar. “This New York firm — I believe they were interested in cases like this around the country,” he said in an interview. “Going forward, if there is litigation, they may or may not be involved. I don’t know.” In the meantime, however, Anderson went ahead with a claim against the county earlier this month, demanding $50,000 in lost wages and other benefits for 11 employees of the nursing home. About a week later, the county showed signs of backing down. Its health services committee voted 4-to-1 on May 12to recommend that officials revoke the requirement at the nursing home and reinstate employees who refused the shots. The full county board will consider the recommendation on Thursday. A formal collaboration is underway in North Carolina, where Siri & Glimstad attorneys are co-counsel in a case brought last month in federal court against the Durham County Sheriff’s Department. The local attorney participating in the case, Jeff Dobson, declined to comment. The plaintiff in the case, Christopher Neve, directed questions to Siri & Glimstad. After Neve refused to disclose his vaccination status in March, the sheriff confiscated his badge, gun and bulletproof vest and placed him on administrative leave, according to the complaint. He was fired later that month, the complaint alleges. Durham County Sheriff Clarence F. Birkhead declined to be interviewed but said in a statement, “Requiring the vaccine not only protects employees from covid-19, but also provides for the protection of anyone who lives in, works in, or visits Durham County.” The arguments set forth in the North Carolina complaint mirror those outlined in letters from Siri, both sent on April 22, to the presidents of Rutgers and Princeton University. “ICAN has received numerous inquiries from its members regarding this mandate, including students attending your university, and has asked that we send you the following notice,” reads the letter to Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway. It urged him to reconsider the requirement that students be vaccinated before arriving on campus this fall. A university spokeswoman, Dory Devlin, said the policy stands. “Like the hundreds of public and private universities who have followed our lead, we are entirely confident in our legal and ethical position with respect to mandating vaccines in the fight against the global pandemic,” she said in an email to The Washington Post. Princeton, too, was unmoved by the letter. “We conducted a careful review and are confident in our legal position,” said Ayana Gibbs, a university spokeswoman. Putting ‘your imprint on an early area of law’ This month, ICAN updated its notice seeking plaintiffs for possible litigation, saying it is “no longer accepting cases for legal action.” Some legal experts suggested the group may be pulling back because it has accomplished what it set out to do.Its attorneys have made their mark on the early legal contest over vaccine mandates, through commentary as well as legal communications and filings, said Reiss, the University of California professor. She noted that other lawsuits filed against coronavirus vaccine mandates “follow very closely Siri’s piece in Stat.” Attorney-client privilege makes the extent of the role played by ICAN’s legal team difficult to determine, said James G. Hodge Jr., director of the Center for Public Health Law and Policy at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law. “They’re peddling specific legal arguments designed to attract anti-vaxxers and others who might be willing to listen,” Hodge said. ICAN’s legal team remains active on other vaccine-related fronts. Earlier this month, Siri & Glimstad filed a complaint on ICAN’s behalf asking a federal court to order Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra to remove the finding that “vaccines do not cause autism” from all communication with the public. A suit last year against Facebook and YouTube said these platforms had terminated or greatly restricted ICAN’s activities — and offered a window into the group’s communications strategy. At stake was the group’s “ability to reach billions of potential viewers,” said the complaint, filed by Siri and Brehm, along with a California attorney, in federal court in California. Asking the court to dismiss the complaint, Facebook and YouTube said they had acted against ICAN because it was “spreadingharmful misinformationabout covid-19 that could exacerbate the ongoing public health crisis.” Stripped of other platforms to press its case against vaccines, experts said, the group is turning increasingly to the courts. “It’s a chance to put your imprint on an early area of law that hasn’t been litigated before,” Reiss said. “And to do it in a context that fits your beliefs.”
This is exactly correct... And it was obvious to anyone with a non biased brain. “The message is, ‘Maybe you should reconsider because you don’t want to end up in court,’ ” said Dorit Rubinstein Reiss, a professor at the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. “I think that works.”
Vaccinated people 'should be offered greater freedoms', Boris Johnson told Former PM Tony Blair said it was 'time to distinguish' between the fully vaccinated and those who haven't had the jab https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/vaccinated-people-should-offered-greater-24259772
"A total of 52 percent of Americans say they support requiring proof of vaccine status to return to places of employment". Americans split on workplace vaccine mandates: poll https://thehill.com/policy/healthca...cans-split-on-workplace-vaccine-mandates-poll Americans are narrowly divided on whether companies should be allowed to require employees to prove their vaccination status before returning to work in person, according to a new poll. A total of 52 percent of Americans say they support requiring proof of vaccine status to return to places of employment, according to the Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index poll published this week. Along political lines, 76 percent of Democrats support showing vaccine status to return to the workplace compared to less than a third, 29 percent, of Republicans saying the same thing. A majority of Americans in the poll supports requiring vaccination and proof of vaccination to travel or attend a large event, the poll found. Nearly half, 47 percent, said they support places of business like bars and restaurants requiring proof of vaccination to dine indoors. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) last month lifted guidance requiring face coverings while indoors and in public for fully vaccinated people. Unvaccinated Americans and those who have not been fully vaccinated are still recommended to wear a face covering while in public. The CDC said this week about 171.3 million people in America have received at least one coronavirus vaccine shot, including about 139.7 million people who have been fully vaccinated, The New York Times reported. President Biden has stated he wishes to see 70 percent of all U.S. adults vaccinated by the July 4 holiday. A separate poll published Monday found more than three in four Americans who have yet to receive a coronavirus vaccine say it is unlikely they ever will. The new Axios-Ipsos Coronavirus Index poll had similar findings, reporting one in five, about 19 percent, say they are not at all likely to get the vaccine. The poll was conducted June 4 to June 7, 2021 among 1,027 people. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.