Posted on 12/26/2021 4:25:58 PM PST by cutty
United's mandate "reflects an apathy, if not antipathy, for many of its employees' concerns and a dearth of toleration for those expressing diversity of thought," District Court Judge Mark Pittman wrote in his decision.
United Airlines employees who have been granted exemptions to the company's COVID-19 vaccine mandate are allegedly being placed on indefinite unpaid leave, unable to seek employment elsewhere within the industry, access their 401(k) retirement savings, or file for unemployment.
United Airlines Capt. Sherry Walker, who has been placed on indefinite unpaid leave, told Just the News that United employees seeking reasonable accommodation regarding the company's vaccine mandate for religious or medical reasons are being placed on indefinite unpaid leave and cannot leave their job for another airline because of the noncompete clause in their contracts.
Walker is cofounder of Airline Employees 4 Health Freedom (AE4HF), which represents 4,000 airline employees, about half of whom are with United.
If United employees seek outside employment in a different industry, they must ask the airline if they can apply elsewhere, said Walker. Even if they're allowed to apply for another job and are hired, United can ask previous employees to return within the first 14 days.
United employees are not allowed to file for unemployment while on unpaid leave, as the company said that doing so would be considered a fraudulent claim, according to Walker.
United employees are unable to access their 401(k) while on unpaid leave, Walker said, explaining that people will lose their homes and go bankrupt while still having money in the bank because they can't access it. They also can't refinance their mortgages because they're on unpaid leave, so they aren't receiving any income.
United's original COVID vaccine policy included an anti-retaliation clause that said, "United prohibits retaliation, which includes threatening or taking adverse action against an individual, for, among other things, requesting an accommodation under this policy."
Walker, however, argues that placing unvaccinated employees on indefinite unpaid leave is retaliatory.
Walker also referenced United acknowledging that there's small likelihood that anyone on an airplane could catch COVID. In October 2020, the airline partnered with the Defense Department in a study that found there is only a 0.003% chance that particles from a passenger sitting next to another passenger on a plane wearing a mask will enter the person's breathing space, making COVID exposure "virtually non-existent," ABC News reported.
In September, United employees sought a preliminary injunction against the vaccine mandate in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. They were denied, but the judge in the case found the employees' arguments "compelling and convincing at this stage." This was cited in Judge James Ho's dissent in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which in a 2-1 vote also decided against the United employees.
Ho noted the district court's conclusion that United's mandate "reflects an apathy, if not antipathy, for many of its employees' concerns and a dearth of toleration for those expressing diversity of thought."
"United's CEO, Scott Kirby, told employees in a company town hall meeting that 'very few' religious exemptions to the vaccine mandate would be granted," Ho wrote, "and that anyone who even attempted to request one would be 'putting [their] job on the line.'"
Citing the district court, Ho wrote, "United has demonstrated a 'calloused approach to' and 'apparent disdain for' people of faith."
Ho also noted a recent finding by the 5th Circuit Court in its ruling against the Biden OSHA vaccine mandate "that irreparable injury results when employees are forced to choose between their beliefs and their benefits."
The next step in the legal process is the merits panel of the 5th Circuit Court, which will consider Ho's dissent, Walker said. So far, the circuit court has had only a procedural hearing on the lawsuit, but the next panel will be focusing on the merits of the case.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) blasted United CEO Scott Kirby during a hearing with airline CEOs last week, singling him out for a company policy that drastically differs from those of competitors American, Southwest, and Delta. Cruz said AE4HF told him they represent over 2,000 United employees placed on unpaid leave after seeking exemptions, 331 of whom are pilots.
Cruz related the story of a United pilot of two decades who received a religious exemption from the mandate "and was subsequently placed on leave with no pay and no benefits, including no medical insurance."
"Now," Cruz continued, the pilot's wife, "who relies on her husband's insurance, has had to postpone a necessary surgery with no idea when she'll be able to reschedule because she has no idea when her husband will be able to fly again."
Kirby told Cruz that United is enforcing the vaccine mandate "for safety." He added, "We believe it saved lives."
Cruz asked Kirby if his competitors were unsafe. "I think that the world is safer," he replied. "For us — I made the decision for United — I'll let my competitors speak for themselves — I made the decision for United that getting everyone vaccinated would save lives and would create a safer environment for all the other workers."
While the issue of COVID-19 vaccines has been hotly contested, federal and state health officials say vaccines and boosters can keep most patients from getting the most serious cases of COVID-19 leading to hospitalization and death. However, they also acknowledge the vaccine protections wane over time and allow for breakthrough infections in many Americans.
Federal officials also note the COVID-19 vaccines have generated a larger than usual number of adverse reaction reports, including suspected deaths and some heart inflammation, and that concerns have grown about the Johnson & Johnson vaccine and its tie to blood clotting. Federal officials say that serious vaccine reactions are still fairly rare and in most cases their protections outweigh the risks.
“You don’t have to sabotage anything, just slow down the process”.
BINGO! That’s the way to do it.
No threat. Just an observation. Maintenance is a tricky business.
Extortion, actually, but I know what you mean.
The Soviet workers had it down to a science.
They just did about a quarter of the assigned tasks, checked off the checklists as everything done, and then came back the next day to rinse and repeat.
It wasn’t quite sabotage, it was more like negligence....
No one is talking about your scenario. It’s called slowing things down. The UAW. understands.
I remember that. Thanks.
Slave labor in German war plants did all sorts of things that hurt the German war effort. They were good at it, too.
Of course they are enforced after you leave but only under certain circumstances. Once payment stops you have been laid off and that is when non-competes stop. USSC ruled that the company then no longer finds value in your services and non-competes fall apart. Non-competes usually accompany severance packages that stipulate continued non-compete agreements, but when you are laid off they company has no grounds to enforce the agreement. BTDT, got the t-shirt.
I don’t feel like being your legal researcher tonight. Go find it yourself. This isn’t a thread for legal research. Nerd.
“Maintenance is a tricky business.”
I’m an A&P. :)
Nevada voided non-compete agreements for hourly employees on October 1, 2021. They no longer apply. Not sure if other states have done the same.
??
It doesn’t work that way. You were the one who made the claim, so you have the obligation to show that the claim is accurate.
You simply can’t produce something that doesn’t exist.
It does work that way. You’re just an immature little girl with boundary issues and poor impulse control who is having a meltdown because someone didn’t have information at their fingertips on your demand. Grow up, Sunshine.
No. You made the claim. A person who makes the claim has the obligation to show that the claim is correct.
I’m not melting down at all.
I’m calling you out for playing internet lawyer and lying about what the law is.
Actually, the fact that they did this because a corrupt, demented old geezer told them to might be even more absurd.
Steak is rare, chuckleheads.
...because if they can force the Jim Jones Jab on union members as a condition of their employment, they can force ANYTHING.
So that no one here is led astray by clowns playing internet lawyer.
With minor exceptions, non-compete clauses are almost exclusively matter of State law. The Supreme Court has rarely had the opportunity to decide any case involving employment non-compete provisions.
Here is a pretty good summary of non-compete after a layoff and the lay of the land as to what the law actually is:
The sabotage I heard of was more nuanced. They would remove the pins in a plug and move them around. And airplanes have hundreds of plugs (sparkies call them cannon plugs). A real bitch to find.
Looks like United is trying to retain their employment without paying them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.