NOTES BETWEEN PRINTED EDITIONS
FEDERAL COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF HOSPITAL WORKER FIRED FOR REFUSING TO TAKE COVID EXPERIMENTAL VACCINE
- Remands Case Back to Massachusetts High Court
- Refusing to Get the COVID ‘Vaccine’ Got Her Fired, Despite Religious Exemption Filing
- Massachusetts Attorney Richard C. Chambers Jr and team score huge win for religious freedom
Message to the hundreds of COVID heroes – first responders, police, fire, and medical workers fired for not taking the forced ‘vaccine”: The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts was Wrong.
In a case presented on behalf of Amanda Bazinet, a hospital worker fired for refusing to take a mandatory experimental COVID mnra treatment (AKA, the jab), Massachusetts Attorney Richard Chambers scored big for his client.
In their unanimous ruling issued on AUGUST 13, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit rejected the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts summary dismissal of the health worker’s case, claiming she did not properly prove her religious beliefs in objecting to taking the experimental treatment.
In his appeal, Atty. Chambers and Atty Joseph Spinale noted how back in 2021, their client “Amanda J. Bazinet worked as an executive office manager at Beth Israel Deconess Hospital in Milton, Massachusetts. In response to COVID-19, the Hospital adopted a mandatory vaccine policy. Bazinet asserted a religious objection to taking the vaccine and sought an accommodation. The Hospital rejected Bazinet’s accommodation request, which led to the termination of her employment.”
Bazinet went on to assert her civil right but was rebuffed by the courts, with the District Court dismissing her case, siding with the hospital.
On Monday, August 13, 2024, the Appeals Court replied: “We vacate the district court’s order. The complaint sufficiently alleged that taking the vaccine would
violate Bazinet’s religious beliefs. Moreover, determining whether an undue hardship would result from the Hospital excusing Bazinet from the vaccine requirement cannot be accomplished at this preliminary stage of the litigation.
The Appeals Court further detailed in their unanimous 21-page decision that Bazinet had fully complied with all requests from the hospital:
“The Mandatory Vaccine Policy provided for certain exemptions, including for medical and religious reasons. The Policy provided that an employee who sought a religious exemption would not be placed on leave or have their employment terminated while the exemption request remained pending. Bazinet timely submitted the Hospital’s ” Request for Religious Accommodation – Mandatory Vaccine Policy” in which she sought exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine requirement. Bazinet indicated on the form that she (1) maintained sincerely held
religious beliefs, practices, or observances that prevented her from receiving the vaccine; (2) understood that, if the Hospital approved her exemption request, she would follow the Hospital’s masking and other infection control requirements; and ( 3) also understood that, if the Hospital did not grant her exemption request, it would engage her in an interactive process seeking to identify a reasonable accommodation that would not cause an undue hardship.
Bazinet attached to her accommodation request form a letter describing her religious objection to taking the COVID-19 vaccine. She began the letter by indicating that she is a “Christian who believes in Jesus Christ and His hol y word, the Bible.” She then alleged that the makers of the “COVID-19 vaccines
currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using
fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses.” Based
on that allegation, Bazinet concluded that “[p] artaking in a
vaccine made from aborted fetuses [would make her] complicit in an
action that not only offends, but . is an aberration to [her]
Christian faith.
” In support of her conclusion, Bazinet identified a series of “quotes from the Lord” which prevented her from taking the vaccine based on her belief that the vaccine was developed using aborted fetuses.
Despite the statement on the accommodation form that the
Hospital would engage in an interactive process to attempt to
identify a reasonable accommodation, the Hospital denied Bazinet’ s
request for an accommodation without engaging in any further
process….”
“The Appeals Court recognized that this denial was improper” Attorney Chambers said. He noted that in the Circuit Court and the Hospital’s decisions, they discarded any statements and documents about religious belief, despite what the law and their own document says. Basically, both groups accused his client of not being religious enough.
Atty. Chambers noted “remanding this back to the court is a big win for those heroes, the hospital workers, the first responders – police and fire and ambulance workers – to everyone who were those heroes during COVID, and then were fired because they stood up for their beliefs.”
Chambers related that there were many reasons why certain individuals did not partake in the experimental treatment (aka vaccine), and as for the religious exempts offered by letter and law, apparently certain organizations made judgements against heroes, firing them because they were apparently – in their minds – not religious enough.
To quote noted theologian Thomas Aquinas: For those with faith, no evidence is necessary; for those without it, no evidence will suffice, So it appeared with BETH ISRAEL LAHEY HEALTH, INC., and BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS HOSPITAL-MILTON, INC.
