Columns

Fight Back: Here's How People Are Legally Resisting Dystopian Diktats to Get a Covid Shot or Be Fired

AP Photo/Antonio Calanni

In the past week, Democrat governors and other Democrat Party elected officials throughout the country have launched a coordinated effort to threaten Americans’ economic security by issuing hasty “do what we say or your job gets it” Covid diktats.

Democrats claimed these mandates were in the name of science to combat the virulent Delta variant — the latest of probably several versions — of Covid.

This, at a time when it looks as if there is precious little that can be done about the virus, save perhaps shots and precautions like one would take for a nasty version of the yearly flu.

Former CDC Director Robert Redfield says he believes the virus came from the Wuhan Institute of Virology Lab and that the virus and its variants are here to stay.

Related: Mystery Solved? Researchers Discover Biomarker That Predicts Who Will Suffer Severe Illness From COVID-19

The way it’s looking, the pandemic will likely become endemic like the flu and the coronavirus-based common cold. But the truth is, we don’t really know what role this virus will take in American life from here on out. The only thing we do know is that Democrat Party elected officials believe the best way to deal with it is by authoritarian diktats. Their reflexive reaction is to bury freedom in the name of safety.

Millions of jobs and Americans’ livelihoods hang in the balance against these threats.

Oregon Governor Kate Brown issued orders for all health care workers to get Covid shots or face being fired, and Washington Governor Jay Inslee ordered all employees and government contractors to get a Covid shot or they would be fired. In California, Virginia, and New York City, the far-left governors announced plans to hector unvaccinated employees with constant testing or getting fired. In Texas, Democrats have gone to court to argue for less freedom and against Governor Greg Abbott’s anti-lockdown and mask edicts.

Like Texas, several states have passed laws prohibiting employers from firing employees for not getting a Covid shot.

President Biden announced his edict requiring vaccines for several federal agencies and the U.S. military.

The edicts have short deadlines to make it harder to get to the courthouse door before the mass firings begin. That’s by design.

Related: Is This Why the CDC Posted Inflated Florida COVID Numbers?

Vaccine mandates act as a convenient means to separate people for what appear to be political, not scientific, reasons—and as an effort to separate Americans from economic power to fight back.

The rubber is meeting the road, folks.

We have crossed the rubicon.

This is it.

Ben Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Millions of Americans now fully understand what Franklin meant.

The effort to segregate unvaccinated from vaccinated people by public edict is a dangerous place that we haven’t crossed in this country since segregation, World War II internment, and eugenics, according to civil rights attorney Robert Barnes.

He’s fighting back against what he calls “the trilogy of infamy.”

Democrats are back to preaching segregation. They’re back to cheering masks. They’re back to pushing segregation.

I thought the 1870s Ku Klux Klan was dead, but they’re back today in the liberal Democratic Party.

These are atrocities.

Somebody has to stand up, and by golly, some of us will.

What’s to be done?

Barnes said on his program “Viva and Barnes Law for the People” on Locals.com and Rumble that there’s an array of actual and planned lawsuits by people who have been threatened with job loss, mask mandates, and less freedom.

Challenges to the FDA

The question to be answered is: “Did the FDA follow its own rules, follow it’s own procedures before taking any particular action, whether that’s the issuance of notices like their fact sheets, whether that’s approval of a vaccine as emergency use, or whether that’s full FDA approval and all of those components?”

Barnes says citizens may file what is known as citizens petitions to identify any concerns they have or support existing petitions, such as the ones brought by Robert Kennedy, Jr. and others.

Religious exemptions

So you’re not a particularly religious person? Doesn’t matter. You don’t need a pastor’s sign-off, church attendance records, or anything else to assert your right to exercise your freedom of conscience.

And here’s some ammo.

Barnes shared a listener’s hypothetical letter to an employer, which read in part: “Covid vaccines [are] derived from protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.”

Experimental Vaccines Cannot be Compelled

All of the coronavirus shots were approved under emergency use authorizations to stem the pandemic quickly.

The shots are experimental.

Under the 1947 Nuremberg Code adopted by the United States and other countries following the Nazi experiments on Jews and others, it is against international law to force anyone to take medical treatment against their informed consent—Tuskegee Institute syphillis experiments included.

The Americans With Disabilities Act 

The ADA is enforced by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and oversees state, but not federal, employees. It “recognizes that [an employer’s] perception of a disability” or their “health status” is what counts, not whether or not you actually have a physical disability. The question is, is not being vaccinated perceived as a disability of some sort?

Barnes believes you should ask your employer, whether they be government or private industry, what the purpose of requiring the shot is.

According to Barnes, the EEOC says that since the ADA oversees health status, so he wonders what role unvaccinated people have in this scenario.

“Does it have nothing to do with health status? Does it have nothing to do with your physical limitations? … Do they believe that being unvaccinated is a disability or the perception of one?” he asks.

Obviously, the answer would appear to be yes, which means this may be a perceived disability in the view of the ADA.

“I will be the first lawyer to bring these claims,” said Barnes. Other attorneys “have not understood the policy and  purpose of this law.”

Watch this space.

What If You’ve Already Had Covid? 

If these employers believe in immunity, which would appear to be the case judging by their rantings over getting “jabbed,” as they insist on calling it, then what do they have against the natural and arguably better immunity accorded to people who have already had it?

That’s what George Mason Antonin Scalia Law School professor Todd Zywicki wondered when he was ordered to get a vaccine or else suffer professional consequences.

Moreover, the professor, who took antibody tests to verify his immunity, was advised by his doctor that taking a vaccine after having Covid put him at “heightened risk for adverse side effects.”

So where does his university get off thinking they’re smarter than him and his doctor?

Professor Zywicki decided to find out and filed a lawsuit to stop the school’s punitive mandates against unvaccinated people. The mandates include forced mask wearings, frequent testing, and, as stated in his lawsuit, the “policy strips unvaccinated employees of their eligibility for future merit-based pay increases because they cannot upload proof of vaccination.” The specter of being fired is also hanging over his neck like a guillotine.

“For me, it’s literally all of the risk and none of the benefits of getting vaccinated at this point,” he said.

He’s asked for declaratory and injunctive relief from the US District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Watch this case.

Civil Rights Violations

Last but certainly not least are the inevitable civil rights cases. Barnes believes that in New York City, for example, Mayor Bill de Blasio has basically segregated white people from black people by his vaccination edicts at restaurants, bars, gyms and other places. Why? Because a particularly large percentage of black people, for whatever reason, haven’t gotten the Covid shot. It’s de facto Jim Crow because his rules disproportionately affect black people.

Barnes believes there are First, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendment violations in these edicts.

The question is, will you lose your job before these issues can be decided in court?

Related: Coming Soon: A ‘No Buy List’ for Conservatives and Other ‘Hate Groups’

That’s what the Democrats are banking on.

Key airline companies just capitulated to employee lawsuits. Who else will fight?

I’d appreciate hearing stories about your fight. Please email me at [email protected]

Stay strong.

And here’s a letter circulating the legal circles that you can give your boss. It may not work, but then again, it may force them to stop and think.

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine.

Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947;

second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest;

and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates.

The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted?

Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting.

Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.”

Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic.

Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision-making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine.

This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3)

This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/).

As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision” for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines.

As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee.

If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation.

The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate.

This requires the employee’s medical status causes a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet.

Just look at all the prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages, and fines.

Third, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,
Employee of the Year
XXX