Posted on 10/08/2021 11:40:41 AM PDT by Paul46360
The problem is that once Comirnaty is made available in the United States, the Emergency Use Authorization for Moderna and J&J must end. Biden is protecting those companies by not pressuring Pfizer to produce Comirnaty for American use immediately.
Saying "yes" to Comirnaty is a squeeze play on Biden's mandate.
-PJ
Religious exemptions, or real medical conditions which the bite-me administration is refusing to recognize as valid.
Trial lawyers will eat this up.
And our side is winning.
One law firm made Cornell University back down from mandated jabs; and a Federal Appeals Court upheld a decision of a Federal Judge that students at Western Michigan University can’t be forced to get jabs if they object on religious grounds.
Right, that’s why you go to workman’s comp. The OSHA reporting is a separate issue. Just because OSHA says an employer doesn’t have to report a particular type of injury doesn’t preclude employees from filing a claim for that injury.
The whole thing is a tyranny. Lincoln was given slack for the suspension of habeas corpus due to the civil war.
What if the civil war didn’t actually exist? I wouldn’t be surpised if the courts today just ruled it “political”, meaning, as long as an emergency is declared using the correct process, it doesn’t matter if the emergency actually exists. If you don’t like it, your recourse is to vote.
Convenient answer when votes don’t actually count.
LMAO.
I love that story!
Grab a sensible, healthful libation, watch it then LET’S MAKE IT GO VIRAL!!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/dxqQGbI0XQdL/
Okay 145!
:D
It’s a fake story. I wish it was true.
And in many states they will be breaking the law if they do this. Apparently reading comprehension isn’t your forte. I sure hope you aren’t a lawyer.
It's certainly evident that you're not. Or involved in hiring or firing either.
Doodledawg likes to play pretend lawyer, but she definitely doesn’t know the law on this or any other subject.
There is a mountain of case law on pretextual firings. You cannot get out of an employment discrimination claim or firing someone for an unlawful reason by using at will employment (or any other reason) as a pretext for the illegal act.
Example: Jane has exemplary employment evaluations. She’s a top producer at the company. The boss asks her to sleep with him and she files a complaint with HR. The next week she’s fired for “poor job performance.”
It’s going to be pretty easy to show a retaliatory firing and unlawful discrimination in that instance despite the pretext used to accomplish the firing.
The same would apply to someone who is an exemplary employee but they are suddenly fired for some made up reason soon after they file a request for a religious or medical accommodation.
Doodledawg is a vaccine nazi and worships mandates. Ask her about “Assault weapon” bans as well.
Post 28.
I see. Now I understand
Companies do not pay unemployment. They pay unemployment insurance. About 3.5% out of everyone’s paycheck.
What companies denied unemployment compensation?
I’d say any private company that added “must get the shots” to their company policy, and used that as justification for firing refusers.
Fed departments and defense companies would have used the hidenbiden EOs as justification for adding to the department/company policy, and used that as justification for firing refusers.
I believe the attitude of those departments and companies is that “we have better lawyers and deeper pockets than the employees, so we’ll mandate and they can’t win”.
Haha, jokes on you. I’ve been an in-house corporate attorney for 25 years and deal with these issues daily.
Yeah, that’s what I figured. I’ve been house counsel for four different corporations for the past 25 years. She has no clue what she’s talking about.
If an employer fires you for voting outside of work hours, you could sue them because you have a right to vote.
In the same manner of speaking, the statute on emergency use products indicates that individuals have a right to refuse the product.
The only fully approved product is Cominarty, which is not currently available in the US. Even though the current phizer shot is physically the same as Cominarty, the different label makes it legally different so it can be refused under the statute.
The vax Exec Order indicates it must be implemented in accordance with applicable law.
So wouldn't you still have a good case to sue if you tell the employer you will wait for cominarty, in spite of the deadline?
For ref:
Exec Ord (see sec 4b)
Relevant EU Statute (see Paragraph (e) (1) (A) (2) (III)) https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3
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.