Shot refusing employees that sued are winning their motions.

Based on privacy, religious, and medical reasons.

The MSM is not covering the fact that most employees are suing and settling with their past employers. That does not mean all succeed and our hearts go out to the brave clients and counsel who made an effort but could not find justice. Many of the latter will go on appeal and will help us all by reversing bad district court decisions. Here are a few litigation wins:

1. Dr. Christopher Rake class action: Order on Demurrer and Motion to Strike. A citation from the case: There is a basis for an expectation of privacy. (Pettus v. Cole (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 459 [“we are aware of no law or policy which suggests that a person forfeits his or her right of medical self-determination by entering into an employment relationship”]; Loder v. City of Glendale (1997) 14 Cal.4th 846, 895.

2. Varkonyi Case California: Varkonyi alleges that ULA’s refusal to grant a religious exemption constitutes discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ULA now moves for summary judgment on Varkonyi’s two remaining claims, primarily contending that providing religious exemptions would impose undue hardship. Dkt. No. 54. Because a reasonable jury could conclude that the cost of granting the exemptions does not constitute undue hardship, the Court denies the motion. The Groff case changed the battlefield and was a key basis for the decision.

3. Wahl v. ABC-General Hospital.pdf (documentcloud.org): Here, the modern-day inquisition into the Plaintiff’s religious beliefs failed. Therefore, the Court denies summary adjudication of the issue whether Plaintiffs had genuine religious beliefs. ABC accommodated the Plaintiffs until the injections became available in Fall 2021. This cut against the corporate argument that it faced a hardship accommodating the employees. The measures Plaintiffs wished to follow had been effective from July 2020 through the fall of 2021, without having to stop production due to a COVID-19 outbreak. Based upon this record, the Court’s “hands are tied,” as they say. There are enough disputed facts that the jury, not the judge, must decide whether Plaintiffs could have been accommodated without an undue hardship to Defendant.

4. And in Oregon: Thompson v. Assante - The Court emphasized that religious beliefs need not be painfully detailed — which is what these bigoted employers request. A court should generally accept the assertion of a sincerely held religious belief…. The district court found the plaintiff's general assertion that his Catholic faith motivated his objection to the vaccine was satisfactory at the pleading stage to allege a religious conflict with an employment duty. The plaintiff did not need to explain in detail how the vaccine conflicted with his Catholic faith.