COVID-19
Employee wins lawsuit filed by gov’t agency after losing job for refusing COVID shot
From LifeSiteNews
The federal government successfully sued on her behalf, citing a Title VII violation.
A former assistant manager who was fired after applying for a religious accommodation to refuse the COVID shot has been awarded a six-figure payout after a federal government agency filed a lawsuit on the employee’s behalf.
Federal Judge M. Casey Rodgers on Thursday ordered the Pensacola, Florida store Hank’s Fine Furniture (HFI) to pay a former manager, identified in the lawsuit as “K.M.O.,” $110,000 for refusing to accommodate her request for exemption from the COVID shot due to her “sincerely held Christian beliefs.”
“HFI is permanently enjoined from discriminating against any employee on the basis of religion in violation of Title VII,” Rodgers wrote, the Pensacola News Journal reported Monday. He further declared that HFI “will reasonably accommodate employee and prospective employee religious beliefs during all hiring, discipline and promotion activities,” and “any activity affecting any other terms and conditions of employment.”
Significantly, the store also “cannot require proof that an employee’s or applicant’s religious objection to an employer requirement be an official tenet or endorsed teaching of said religious belief,” according to Pensacola News Journal.
Hank’s Furniture must also adopt a written policy, disseminated to all employees, declaring that HFI “will not require any employee to violate sincerely held religious beliefs, including those pertaining to vaccinations, as a condition of his/her employment.”
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued on behalf of K.M.O. (EEOC v. Hank’s Furniture, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-24533-MCR-HTC) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida after it was unable to reach a pre-litigation settlement “through its administrative conciliation process.”
According to Pensacola News Journal, about two weeks after HFI implemented a policy mandating that its employees receive a COVID shot, K.M.O. told the company she would not get the shot due to her “sincerely held religious beliefs,” and then requested a religious exemption.
According to the lawsuit, HFI ignored her request and asked if she would comply with their COVID shot policy, and K.M.O. then told HFI she planned to submit a written religious accommodation request, asking “whether HFI had a particular form she should use.”
HFI reportedly did not respond to her request. When K.M.O. complained that HFI’s unwillingness to grant her a religious exemption was “unjust,” her new supervisor reportedly told her that “HFI did not care why she would not take” the COVID shot and that HFI “would never grant an accommodation.”
On August 20, 2021, HFI announced that any employee who did not take the COVID shot would be fired on October 31, 2021. On August 26, K.M.O. submitted a written religious exemption request, citing Title VII as well as her “sincerely held Christian beliefs.”
When K.M.O. emailed HMI on September 6, 2021, asking for the status of her religious exemption request, HFI informed her that her religious exemption request was “severely lacking,” and then denied it.
K.M.O. then “asked for help to submit an acceptable religious exemption request,” but HFI refused to discuss any accommodation, according to the lawsuit. Then on October 31, she was fired by HFI because she did not comply with their COVID “vaccination” policy.
Birmingham District Director Bradley Anderson remarked regarding the case for an EEOC press release, “Employees should not have to renounce their religious beliefs in order to remain employed. Let this case serve as a reminder that employers should afford accommodation for religious beliefs unless doing so would cause an undue hardship.”
COVID-19
Canadian judge rejects complaint against maskless workplaces as frivolous
From LifeSiteNews
Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling ‘unsafe’ following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable
A federal judge ruled that complaints that maskless workplaces pose a danger to employees’ health are frivolous, ending the final chapter of COVID regulations.
According to information published on January 15 by Blacklock’s Reporter, Federal Court Justice Benoit Duchesne ruled that Elections Canada manager Nicolas Juzda’s complaint of feeling unsafe following the end of mask mandates in federal workplaces was unreasonable.
“The applicant’s concern about an unsafe workplace was based on his assessment that a significant number of people would return to the workplace under the return-to-work model, that any of these people may have contracted Covid-19 and that the non-mandatory recommendations and precautions relating to Covid-19 fell short of what he believes would be a safe work environment,” wrote the court.
Masks were mandated in federal workplaces from April 20, 2020, to February 14, 2023, under the direction of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. At the same time, millions of Canadians were forced to mask in public settings such as grocery stores or hospitals.
After the mandate had lifted, Juzda, a “fully vaccinated” individual without any particular health issues, complained that he felt unsafe in the Gatineau headquarters.
“I must excuse my right to refuse work that constitutes a danger,” he wrote, referencing the Canada Labor Code that allows federally regulated staff to refuse work “that constitutes a danger to the employee.”
Juzda claimed that masking “reduces the risk of contracting Covid-19 but is of limited effectiveness if not combined with other measures, particularly during prolonged exposure to unmasked infected individuals such as being nearby in an indoor office for an entire day.”
“Covid-19 is a disease that in addition to often being extremely unpleasant during the acute period poses significant risks including death,” he continued.
“Handwashing and workplace cleaning are of minimal use in limiting the spread of Covid-19,” Juzda claimed.
His complaint was quickly dismissed as “frivolous” by executives, a move which Duchesne agreed with, calling Juzda’s concerns unwarranted.
Indeed, LifeSiteNews has reported extensively on overwhelming evidence showing that masks are ineffective in preventing transmission of COVID and that they come with harmful effects.
Back in 2021, 47 studies confirmed the ineffectiveness of masks for COVID, while 32 more confirmed their negative health effects.
According to another 2021 report, more than 170 studies have found that masks have been ineffective at stopping COVID and instead have been harmful, especially to children.
In fact, in 2020, before masks were widely mandated, Canada’s chief public health officer Dr. Theresa Tam admitted that masks were not effective in preventing COVID.
“There is no need to use a mask for well people,” she said in the first few weeks of the pandemic. “It hasn’t been proven really to protect you from getting the virus.”
COVID-19
Canadian parents wary of COVID, flu shots for children
From LifeSiteNews
Government research has found that Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with COVID or flu shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects
Canadian parents are remaining wary of COVID and flu shots for children despite ongoing publicity campaigns.
According to in-house research by the Public Health Agency obtained by Blacklock’s Reporter, many Canadian parents do not plan to inject their children with the experimental COVID shots, pointing to the ineffectiveness of the shots and potential side effects.
“Continued monitoring of parental knowledge and views around Covid-19 and influenza are important to adapt public communication and education accordingly,” the report said.
“Monitoring parental attitudes is essential to predict expected vaccine take-up and guide education and awareness efforts to promote vaccination,” it continued.
In Canada, COVID shots are both approved and encouraged for all children over six months of age, despite the fact that the latest Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots for children under 12 were only granted emergency use authorization in the U.S.
The research asked parents if they planned to give their children updated COVID shots, to which only 17 percent said they “definitely will”; 26 percent said they “probably won’t”; and 28 percent said they “definitely won’t.”
Those who planned to refuse the reoccurring shots revealed they were “concerned there was not enough research on the vaccine,” questioned the effectiveness of the shots, mistrusted the government information surrounding COVID shots, or their doctor had never mentioned it.
Similarly, 19.5 percent reported being “somewhat hesitant” to give their child the COVID shot, while 21 percent said they were “very hesitant.”
Likewise, parents were hesitant to give their children annual flu shots, over concerns of it being unnecessary and potential side effects.
According to 2021 data, only 17.49 percent of children ages five to 11 in Canada have received at least one dose of the COVID injection. Additionally, of elementary school-age kids who have had both doses of the COVID shots, only 0.6 percent are counted as “fully vaccinated.”
Parents’ hesitancy to jab their young children comes after research has proven that the COVID shots are not only unnecessary but pose serious health risks, especially to children.
Since the start of the COVID crisis, official data shows that the virus has been listed as the cause of death for less than 20 kids in Canada under age 15. This is out of six million children in the age group.
The COVID jabs approved in Canada have also been associated with severe side effects, such as blood clots, rashes, miscarriages, and even heart attacks in young, healthy men.
The mRNA shots have also been linked to a multitude of negative and often severe side effects in children.
A report from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) showed at least 21,000 side effects, with 24 deaths of American children ages 12 to 17 after COVID shots.
-
Uncategorized2 days ago
Taxpayers Federation calling on BC Government to scrap failed Carbon Tax
-
Alberta1 day ago
Why U.S. tariffs on Canadian energy would cause damage on both sides of the border
-
Business1 day ago
Donald Trump appoints Mel Gibson, Sylvester Stallone as special ambassadors to Hollywood
-
Business2 days ago
Conservatives demand Brookfield Asset Management reveal Mark Carney’s compensation
-
Artificial Intelligence1 day ago
Death of an Open A.I. Whistleblower
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 days ago
No, Really. Carney Is An Outsider. And Libs Are Done
-
Business2 days ago
Google Rejects Eurocrats’ Push For More Censorship
-
Business1 day ago
Trump’s oil tariffs could spell deficits for Alberta government