A federal judge in Texas has blocked United Airlines from imposing its vaccine mandate on employees seeking medical or religious exemptions while it considers arguments from both sides.
Judge Issues Temporary Restraining Order, Blocking Implementation Of United Airlines’ Vaccine Mandate For Employees Seeking Religious or Medical Exemptions
The Temporary Restraining Order, issued by U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman, prohibits United Airlines from placing employees who have sought exemptions on unpaid leave while the case is pending. United was the first U.S. airline to impose a vaccine mandate on employees and warned that employees in customer-facing roles who were granted an exemption would be placed on unpaid leave if seeking a medical exemption.
However, six employees sued United in Texas in what they hope will become a nationwide class-action lawsuit, urging a judge to block the implementation of the mandate.
A hearing was held on October 8th. United urged Judge Pittman to dismiss the case, but in a ruling last night, Pittman put United’s plans on hold:
“The Court now concludes it is necessary to issue this Temporary Restraining Order to avoid risking irreparable injury and to maintain the status quo in this case pending the Court’s hearing and resolution of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction.”
Note, this is not a ruling on the merits of the case (whether United can place employees who seek medical and/or religious exemptions on unpaid leave). Rather, this order forces United to continue to pay workers while this case is pending.
To date, about 2,000 United employees have sought exemptions, roughly 3% of United’s U.S. workforce of 67,000 employees. 99.3% of non-exempt employees have now been vaccinated.
United Airlines responded to ruling with a brief statement:
“Vaccine requirements work and nearly all of United’s U.S. employees have chosen to get a shot. For a number of our employees who were approved for an accommodation, we’re working to put options in place that reduce the risk to their health and safety, including new testing regimens, temporary job reassignments and masking protocols.”
Meanwhile, Mark Paoletta, one of the attorneys representing United employees, stated:
“United Airlines’ refusal to provide reasonable accommodations to its vaccine mandate violates the federal civil rights protections of our clients, the hard working men and women at United. We look forward to our clients’ rights be permanently protected.”
Judge Pittman will now consider merit arguments from both the employee plaintiffs and from defendant United.
CONCLUSION
A Texas judge has put the implementation of United’s vaccine mandate on hold while it considers the merits of the case. This is not a final ruling, but an expected intermediate ruling (based upon the choice of venue) that maintain the status quo while the case is playing out.
The case is Sambrano v. United Airlines, No. 4:21-cv-1074 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
I’d be curious to see what kind of “reasonable accommodation” can actually be made. You can’t place unvaxxed employees in a hermetically sealed container so as to avoid the potential spread, nor can you place all unvaxxed employees in one contamination-prone-but-remote work area, especially if their roles are varied and/or manual in nature. This will require some creative thinking on UA’s part.
Or… you know… just keep doing things the way they have been doing until now?
That’s antithetical to what reasonable accommodation means in this instance. UA is attempting to prevent unvaccinated employees from being around the vast, vast majority of their vaccinated workforce. This wasn’t an issue until the vaccines rolled out. Their current work structure, generally formed pre-Covid, doesn’t support that sort of separation. So no, what they’re doing now doesn’t apply and they cannot just maintain the status quo if they want to maintain their initial intent.
Indeed. Quite obvious isn’t it?
Yeah, finding alternative accommodation to put say a pilot, flight attendant or mechanic IRL isn’t going to work. UAL will either need to let them continue to work, like they have been for the last 2 years or let them stay home and continue to pay them.
No they don’t. If there is no reasonable accommodation, then the employee can be fired.
I suppose they could be put on unpaid leave until conditions change, but they aren’t required to do that.
Covid shots neither prevent the disease, nor prevent transmission to others. The manufacturers state that their Covid shots provide a reduced risk to serious symptoms or death. Neither of those things have anything to do with where an employee works or in what capacity. And even those two things have not proven true in countries that actually report and break down total hospitalizations or death between those who have had the shots and those who have not (the US is a country that has chosen NOT to do this, unfortunately. Countries like the UK and Israel do break down hospitalizations and the majority of hospitalizations in both locations are those who have had the shots). So while the mandate itself is unethical and unnecessary, it most definitely has nothing to do with the safety of coworkers or passengers. Choosing to move workers anywhere else other than their normal job speaks of politics, not health. Choosing to get or not get the shots is only about the individuals thoughts on their own health, not of those around them.
So filled with misinformation…
Vaccines do reduce transmission it not completely, hence breakthrough infections.
And amongst the breakthrough infections there will be hospitalizations and deaths.
You conveniently fail to mention that these numbers in the UK and Israel are still lower than the previous unvaccinated peaks and as the vaccinated percentage approaches 90-100%, the percentage of patients presenting who are vaccinated will invariably be higher.
Um, no. Israel is among the highest shot rate in the world with over 80% of those over 12 having had all the shots. But the hospitalizations for those with the shots are at 95% of those hospitalized. So even when you take into account that the majority have had the shots, the ratio of shots versus hospitalization is still much higher.
Israel is also the most infected it has ever been, and far more infected than any rate of infection before they had the shots. So your statement on how much infection they have is also incorrect. Their highest rate of infection to date has been between 9/7/21 and 9/14/21 where they were the highest in the world, despite over 80% having had shots.
I do understand that there is a term being thrown around called “breakthrough infections”. But that is neither science nor accurate. When the majority of those hospitalized have also had the shots, that is not anything like a breakthrough infection. Those are not science claims. Nor would that make any sense scientifically. And again, the manufacturers are not claiming that if you get their shots you won’t contract COVID, neither are they claiming you won’t transmit it. They are only claiming reduced serious infection or death, which has nothing to do with employment or job placement.
That’s right, Doug. Thank you for your comments.
Further, let’s use accurate terminology. “Breakthrough” is simply a euphanisim for the “injection failed.”
Any of the injections will continue to fail at higher and higher rates. They were designed for a narrow range of virus that is virtually gone. We have known for decades that virus rapidly change. The experimental biological agents treat a virus that is no longer infecting people. Thus, they fail with the “mutations” that most probably were quickly created by the very narrow effective range of the injections. Continuing to push these injections is only allowing the manufacturers to clean out their inventory of expired and ineffectual experimental biological agents. (You are aware that the US government is allowing Pfizer to use the mRNA agents that had expired?)
Well that certainly is a lot of words. This is why this pandemic is still going on. Too many people that think they know what they are talking about because they “did their research” on parler. Maybe step out of the echo chamber and try following a virologist for instance, you might learn something factual.
I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
Can you give us your reference for “ hospitalizations for those with the shots are at 95% of those hospitalized”?
Thanks
Finally. A man who speaks on pure facts and not just what the media,current administration and the CDC has misinformed and led people to believe. It is unethical to mandate any employee ( section v11) look it up.
These employees of the airlines have every right to ” choose ” what unknown pharmaceutical goes in their bodies. Stand up and shout loud for your rights UAL. SWA and all the rest!! Hit em’ where it hurts and do the walk-outs just in time for Holiday travel. Maybe then your company will listen!
Dear Boss,
First, I request a religious exemption. Each of the manufacturers of the Covid vaccines currently available developed and confirmed their vaccines using fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines confirmed their vaccine by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. ( https://lozierinstitute.org/an-ethics-assessment-of-covid-19-vaccine-programs/ ) 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. In addition, any coerced medical treatment goes against my religious faith and the right of conscience to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.
Equally, 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, informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord 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 perceived 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, education or public accommodations 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. As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs in lieu of masks, public shaming, and forced injections of foreign substances into the body that the FDA admits we do not know the long -term effects of.
For instance, 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?
This right to refuse forced injections, 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.
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 cause 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 the all 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,
Thomas Paine
Acura, I’d like to add a correction to your first paragraph. The vaccines don’t use cells from aborted fetuses. The babies were actually delivered alive then murdered by having their kidneys cut out of them without benefit of anesthesia. That’s infanticide, not abortion. The pharmaceutical companies, and products like Coffee-mate refrigerated creamer, use the cells grown from that murdered child’s kidneys. Yum…pumpkin spice coffee creamer with a side of murdered baby…tasty!
But of course, there’s no possible authentic religious or moral objection to these vaccines. They’re perfectly holy.
Awful either way. Here’s what the Titus Institute sent me:
https://titusinstitute.com/religiousexemption/fetalcellsc19vaccines.pdf
https://titusinstitute.com/religiousexemption/documentationinterference.pdf
Hate to break it to you, but if your religious beliefs don’t let you take medications that use fetal stem cells then if you have taken Tylenol or advil then you are going to hell
Original testing and development of Advil and Tylenol did not use aborted fetal cell tissue. Later studies have been conducted by academic researchers on these products using fetal cell tissue so it’s not even remotely the same thing.
Perhaps United should follow what Delta Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian is implementing. He notified employees that they will face $200 monthly increases on their health insurance premiums starting Nov. 1 if they aren’t vaccinated against Covid-19, citing steep costs to cover employees who are hospitalized with the virus. Unvaccinated employees will face other restrictions, including indoor masking effective immediately and weekly Covid-19 tests started on Sept. 12. Hit them in the wallet. Money talks and bullsh— excuses walk.
Actually, United has said company insurance will pay for the twice weekly covid tests for those they’ve now exempted from the vaccine mandate.
Fine . United should Have them pay for their own health insurance and weekly Covid testing then.
it figures…..Texas! ‘Nuf said!