West Virginia Attorney General Joins Lawsuit in Georgia Challenging Mandate’s Application to Federal Contractors

West Virginia Attorney General, Patrick Morrisey, filed a lawsuit last week, along with six other states, in federal court in Georgia, challenging Biden’s mandate on behalf of federal contractors. It asserts procedural deficiencies in the federal swamp process, as well as more important constitutional violations, such as violations of separation of powers and principles of federalism. Here is the full lawsuit:

Today Morrissey is expected to file yet another lawsuit challenging the actual OSHA rule created pursuant to Biden’s executive order. I don’t have a copy of it yet, but as soon as I do, I’ll post it here….

Florida sues Biden Administration over mandate for federal contractors

The Biden Administration executive order mandate states that all federal contractors must be fully vaccinated by Dec. 8. The administration also mandated that all businesses with more than 100 employees mandate COVID-19 vaccinations. Now the State of Florida has sued the Administration in federal court to invalidate the mandate’s application to the numerous federal contractors in the State of Florida. West Virginia can, and should, file a similar lawsuit. I’m told that this is in the works.

The lawsuit challenges the procedural manner in which the mandate was issued, and also asserts several different constitutional violations, including separation of powers, since the mandate didn’t issue from Congress. Here’s the full lawsuit:

Current Status of Exemption Requests for Employer Mandates

We’re getting a huge volume of calls and emails on exemptions to employer mandates. This is the current general information we’ve been providing, which again, is general information. This is all based on federal law. State laws around the country may provide for different, possibly better, protections. We are currently on taking cases in West Virginia. If you’re in Kentucky, you should contact Attorney Chris Wiest, from whom I hijacked some of the below Q&As.

1. Exemption requests: Yes, you need to submit the requests to trigger legal protections.  The only legal exemptions are for medical or religious exemptions.  Yes, you need to make the request even if your employer says they are not taking or accepting them.  Yes you should do so even if your employer is requiring a pastor note and you cannot get one.  The buzz word is that you have a “sincerely held religious belief.”  You should document the what and why of that belief.  The employer can require you to answer questions about the request to determine if it is sincere.  Including asking questions about prior vaccines (if your request is based on aborted fetal cells, be prepared to answer the question on your having received prior vaccines — and answering it that you didn’t know when you received them but now do is an acceptable answer).

You can learn more about the basis for a religious exception, based on the Thomas More Society litigation in New York, here: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/09/25/religious-exemptions-for-vaccines-under-title-7-and-private-employers-in-the-health-care-field/

You can learn more about the issue of whether an employer gets to question your religious beliefs here: https://thecivilrightslawyer.com/2021/10/07/employers-do-not-get-to-define-religion-in-exemption-applications/


You should also document prior exposure, infection, and any antibody tests.  And send that to the employer to document the fact that giving you an exemption cannot possibly burden the employer.For medical exemptions, you need a doctors note.  It should document your particular medical condition and indicate the threat the vaccine poses to you.  These are going to be the rare exception.


2. They denied my exemption: Ask them to explain what burdens, if any, they expect to suffer from the grant of exemption.


3. What next?: As a practical matter: you are left with two choices after a denial: (a) get fired and pursue a wrongful discharge lawsuit; or (b) get the vaccine. Injunctive relief actions prior to firing may be available if your employer is a governmental entity but these are tricky unless there are blanket denials. We may be able to help in these situations.


If you are FIRED from either a private and government employer and (I) you requested a religious exemption; (II) you documented prior infection and antibodies; and (III) the employer denied the exemption, we may be able to help.


If you’re in West Virginia, the State Legislature just tentatively passed legislation created three state-law based exceptions to both public and private employer mandates. It provides for medical, religious and natural immunity exceptions. It hasn’t yet been signed by the Governor. However, since he proposed the legislation, he is expected to sign it. Unfortunately, it doesn’t become effective law until 90 days after it’s signed (because there wasn’t 2/3 majority vote).

The new law provides that:

(a) A covered employer, as defined in this section, that requires as a condition of continued employment or as a condition of hiring an individual for employment that such person receive a COVID-19 immunization or present documentation of immunization from COVID-19, shall exempt current or prospective employees from such immunization requirements upon the presentation of one of the following certifications:

(1) A certification presented to the covered employer, signed by a physician licensed pursuant to the provisions of §30-3-1 et seq. or §30-14-1 et seq. of this code or an advanced practice registered nurse licensed pursuant to the provisions of §30-7-1 et seq. of this code who has conducted an in person examination of the employee or prospective employee, stating that the physical condition of the current or prospective employee is such that a COVID-19 immunization is contraindicated, there exists a specific precaution to the mandated vaccine, or the current or prospective employee has developed COVID-19 antibodies from being exposed to the COVID-19 virus or suffered from and has recovered from the COVID-19 virus; or

(2) A notarized certification executed by the employee or prospective employee that is presented to the covered employer by the current or prospective employee that he or she has religious beliefs that prevent the current or prospective employee from taking the COVID-19 immunization.

So, in other words, the employer will not have discretion to question the religious sincerity of the employee, which is currently occurring on a wide basis. Therefore, any current religious applications being asserted might as well include a notarized certificate tracking this statutory language. E.g., “I, John Doe hereby certify that I have religious beliefs that prevent me from taking the COVID-19 immunization.” Additionally, any medical exemptions being asserted might as well include a physician’s certification that the employee has antibodies and/or has already suffered from and recovered from the virus.

Many have asked whether this will be applicable to federal employees. This new law applies to “covered employers,” who are defined as follows:

(A) The State of West Virginia, including any department, division, agency, bureau, board, commission, office or authority thereof, any political subdivision of the State of West Virginia including, but not limited to, any county, municipality or school district; or

(B) A business entity, including without limitation any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, company, estate, trust, business trust, receiver, syndicate, club, society, or other group or combination acting as a unit, engaged in any business activity in this state, including for-profit or not-for-profit activity, that has employees.

So, no it doesn’t appear to apply to federal employees, which would probably be unconstitutional for a couple of reasons. I see no reason why employees of business entities who are federal contractors wouldn’t be covered, to the extent said employees are based in West Virginia and the business activity is based in West Virginia. As for independent federal contractors who are being subjected to the federal mandate, there would be no applicability if they don’t have a business entity as an employer who is engaging in business activity in West Virginia.

NY Federal Court Grants Thomas More Society Preliminary Injunction Blocking NYS Mandate

Breaking: I just checked the docket of the lawsuit filed in the Northern District of New York by the Thomas More Society, challenging NY State’s mandate of healthcare workers, which DID NOT allow for a religious exemption. The Court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and today was the hearing on whether a preliminary injunction would be granted, continuing the Court’s injunction blocking the mandate. The Court ruled in favor of the healthcare workers, blocking the mandate. Here’s the ruling, just issued:

Defendants also argue that § 2.61’s elimination of the religious exemption language found in the August 18 Order brings it more in line with healthcare workplace immunization requirements for measles and rubella. Although fetal cell lines were used in the development of the rubella vaccine, there is no religious exemption in the State regulations that require workers to be immunized against this pathogen. Rausch-Phung Decl. ¶¶ 44, 47–48.

However, this argument conflates the merits of plaintiffs’ present constitutional claims with a hypothetical Title VII anti-discrimination claim for a religious accommodation. What matters here is not whether a religious practitioner would win or lose a future Title VII lawsuit. What matters is that plaintiffs’ current showing establishes that § 2.61 has effectively foreclosed the pathway to seeking a religious accommodation that is guaranteed under Title VII.

However, there is no adequate explanation from defendants about why the “reasonable accommodation” that must be extended to a medically exempt healthcare worker under § 2.61 could not similarly be extended to a healthcare worker with a sincere religious objection. Fulton, 141 S. Ct. at 1881 (cautioning courts to “scrutinize[ ] the asserted harm of granting specific exemptions to particular religious claimants”).

As plaintiffs point out, defendants have not shown that granting the same benefit to religious practitioners that was originally included in the August 18 Order “would impose any more harm—especially when Plaintiffs have been on the front lines of stopping COVID for the past 18 months while donning PPE and exercising other proper protocols in effectively slowing the spread of the disease.”

Zoom Discussion: Legal Options for Healthcare Personnel Against Mandates

Former State Delegate and gubernatorial candidate S. Marshall Wilson set up a Zoom discussion for Wednesday, October 13 at 9:00 p.m. with myself and another attorney to discuss the legal options for healthcare personnel in response to the pending mandates across West Virginia. Here’s the log-in information:

Topic: Legal Options for Healthcare Personnel Against Mandates
Time: Oct 13, 2021 09:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada)

Join Zoom Meeting
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/3526468683?pwd=ZUhFUGhjU3VXb29Ja243NVNmT2tVdz09

Meeting ID: 352 646 8683
Passcode: M5LWvP
One tap mobile
+13017158592,,3526468683#,,,,*782119# US (Washington DC)
+13126266799,,3526468683#,,,,*782119# US (Chicago)

Dial by your location
        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)
        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)
        +1 929 205 6099 US (New York)
        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)
        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)
        +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose)
Meeting ID: 352 646 8683
Passcode: 782119
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/koAVbkdRV

Employers Do Not Get to Define Religion in Exemption Applications

Lately I’ve been helping quite a few people with their religious exemption applications, particularly in regards to one particular hospital in West Virginia. Since I’ve talked with numerous employees, I’ve seen the identical boilerplate form email denials from the hospital – whether the employee is a physician, nurse or remote IT worker. From what I’ve been told the only religious exemptions they’ve granted have been to Jehovah’s Witnesses. Otherwise, they’ve been arguing with employees that mainstream Christianity doesn’t oppose the COVID vaccines.

Since these employers are private employers, rather than agencies of the government, the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to them. Generally they can just fire employees at-will in West Virginia. However, there are state and federal statutes which provide they can’t do so pursuant to religious discrimination. This hospital appears to be discriminating between Jehovah’s Witnesses and other belief systems. In fact, it’s really not the employer’s right to tell the employee what they believe, but rather only to determine whether the belief is sincerely-held, and to accommodate it, if doing so wouldn’t be an undue hardship to the company.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) “makes it an unlawful employment practice ‘to discharge any individual because of such individual’s religion.’” EEOC v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131, 141 (4th Cir. 2017). In other words, the law provides potentially significant protections to West Virginians who might seek a religious exemption from an employer-imposed vaccine requirement. To make out a prima facie case of that type of discrimination, an employee must show that “(1) he or she has a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he or she informed the employer of this belief, and, (3) he or she was not hired or promoted, fired, or otherwise discriminated against for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.” Henegar v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 965 F. Supp. 833, 836 (N.D.W. Va. 1997). “[A]n employer must make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship.” Consol Energy, 860 F.3d at 141. An accommodation becomes an “undue hardship” when it imposes “more than a de minimis cost” on the employer. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 84, 97 S. Ct. 2264 2277, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1977).

West Virginia lies within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Fourth Circuit specifically has warned employers that it’s not their place to question the correctness or plausibility of an employee’s religious understandings:

It is not Consol’s place as an employer, nor ours as a court, to question the correctness or even the plausibility of Butcher’s religious understandings. See Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990) (“Repeatedly and in many different contexts, we have warned that courts must not presume to determine … the plausibility of a religious claim.”). Butcher’s religious beliefs are protected whether or not his pastor agrees with them, cf. Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Emp’t Sec. Div. , 450 U.S. 707, 715–16, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) (protection of religious beliefs not limited to beliefs shared by religious sect), and whether or not Butcher’s pastor—or Consol, or the manufacturer of Consol’s scanning system—thinks that Butcher, in seeking to protect his religious conscience, has drawn the line in the right place, see id. at 715, 101 S.Ct. 1425 (“[I]t is not for us to say that the line [the religious objector] drew was an unreasonable one.”). So long as there is sufficient evidence that Butcher’s beliefs are sincerely held—which the jury specifically found, and Consol does not dispute—and conflict with Consol’s employment requirement, that is the end of the matter.


U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). 

Certainly, for employees who are now working remotely, it would be difficult for the employer to claim that further accommodation during a pandemic is an undue hardship. The Fourth Circuit addressed this in the Consol Energy case:

Indeed, once we take out of this case any suggestion that Butcher may have misunderstood the Book of Revelation or the significance of the Mark of the Beast, there is very little left. This case does not present, for instance, the complicated questions that sometimes arise when an employer asserts as a defense to a religious accommodation claim that the requested accommodation would not be feasible, and would instead impose an “undue hardship” on its operations. See Firestone Fibers , 515 F.3d at 311–12 ; TransWorld Airlines , 432 U.S. at 79–85, 97 S.Ct. 2264 (considering whether requested religious accommodation was feasible). Quite the contrary: Consol expressly conceded that allowing Butcher to bypass the scan by entering his identification number into a keypad would impose no additional burdens or costs on the company. And Consol knew this, of course, because it had provided precisely that accommodation to two other employees who needed it for non-religious reasons—and then, in the very same email, refused to give equal regard to Butcher’s request for a religious accommodation. In light of all of this evidence, we have no reason to question the jury’s determination that Consol should be held liable for its response to a conflict between Butcher’s sincere religious beliefs and its scanner-system requirements.

U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). 

Another thing this hospital has been doing is informing employees that they aren’t being disciplined or terminated, but instead are choosing to “voluntarily” resign. The Fourth Circuit rejected that claim already in the same case I’ve already cited:

“According to Consol, Butcher was not disciplined or terminated but instead voluntarily retired, and the jury’s contrary finding of constructive discharge cannot be sustained on the evidence introduced at trial.”…. 

We agree with the district court that there exists substantial evidence that Butcher was put in an intolerable position when Consol refused to accommodate his religious objection, requiring him to use a scanner system that Butcher sincerely believed would render him a follower of the Antichrist, “tormented with fire and brimstone.” J.A. 683–84. This goes well beyond the kind of run-of-the-mill “dissatisfaction with work assignments, [ ] feeling of being unfairly criticized, or difficult or unpleasant working conditions” that we have viewed as falling short of objective intolerability. Cf. Carter v. Ball , 33 F.3d 450, 459 (4th Cir. 1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). And like the district court, we do not think that the future prospect of a successful grievance under a collective bargaining agreement—even assuming, contrary to the union’s determination, that the collective bargaining agreement at issue here allowed for a grievance based on a right to religious accommodation—would do anything to alleviate the immediate intolerability of Butcher’s circumstances.

U.S. Equal Emp’t Opportunity Comm’n v. Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (4th Cir. 2017) (emphasis added). 

Thus, despite this hospital’s attempts at mislabeling the termination of their employees as “voluntary” resignations, they will still remain potentially liable because their intention is to force the employee out – to give them no choice of staying. That’s either a termination, or a constructive termination. The remedy here is to file a charge with the EEOC, after which the charge will run its course with the EEOC and then litigation for religious discrimination can ensue – hopefully to a jury for a large award of damages.

Here’s a link to the EEOC website where you go through their online portal in order to file an EEOC charge for religious discrimination against an employer:

https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination

Religious Exemptions for Vaccines under Title 7 and Private Employers in the Health Care Field

It’s heartbreaking what’s currently happening to health care workers across the country. I’ve talked to dozens here in West Virginia who are currently facing losing their careers due to their health care employer – usually hospitals – mandating the current vaccines. Ironically, one can’t just choose to refrain from taking these vaccines because they’ve undertaken a common sense rational risk vs. reward analysis based on their own circumstances and health care situation, but rather only for religious reasons, which may, nor may not have any basis in rationality. But as with much of civil rights law, the only realistic way of stopping government tyranny is to somehow connect their actions to religious restrictions, because doing so triggers statutory and constitutional protections.

Almost all of the religious exemption applications I’ve seen thus-far have been denied by the large healthcare employers. Outrageously, what I’ve mostly seen is that these HR departments have been essentially arguing theology with these employees. They no doubt assume that the employees are lying, or being un-sincere about their beliefs. They’ve been arguing to the employees that they actually DON’T have a religious exception. They cite the fact that the pope is encouraging people to be vaccinate, etc.

Fortunately, however, the law generally provides that employees aren’t required to follow any particular religion or theology. The requirements are subjective to the employee. The only requirement is that the beliefs, which could just be strongly held moral beliefs, must be sincerely held by the employee. Thus, it doesn’t matter what the Pope said, or even what the pastor of an employee’s church said. What matters is subjective sincerity.

I’ve posted about the New York lawsuit which has currently obtained a temporary restraining order protecting New York health care employees from being fired pursuant to the NY state mandate currently in place. Whenever the ultimate ruling comes in that case, employees will have some legal guidance on what their legal rights may be in the current situation. Until that happens, it makes sense to pay attention to the claims being made by the physicians and other health care workers who are plaintiffs in the case.

The religious exemptions in the NY case surround the fact that the vaccines at issue either utilize, or did utilize in their development stages, fetal cell lines derived from abortions. Here are the details on the three separate vaccines:

  • Johnson & Johnson/Janssen: Fetal cell cultures are used to produce and manufacture the J&J COVID-19 vaccine and the final formulation of this vaccine includes residual amounts of the fetal host cell proteins (≤0.15 mcg) and/or host cell DNA (≤3 ng).
  • Pfizer/BioNTech: The HEK-293 abortion-related cell line was used in research related to the development of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
  • Moderna/NIAID: Aborted fetal cell lines were used in both the development and testing of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.

Based on those indisputable facts, these are the grounds upon which the physicians in the New York lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Society base their religious exemptions. I highly suggest that health care workers who are pursuing religious exemptions utilize these points in countering the theological exemptions currently being presented by tyrannical health care employers:

  • They oppose abortion under any circumstances, as they believe that abortion is the intrinsically evil killing of an innocent, and thus they also oppose the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines for medical purposes and abortion- derived fetal stem cell research.
  • It would be a violation of their deeply held religious beliefs and moral consciences to take any of the available COVID-19 vaccines given their use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines in testing, development, or production.
  • By receiving one of the COVID vaccines currently available, all of which are abortion-connected, they believe they would be cooperating with the evil of abortion in a manner that violates their consciences and that they would sin gravely if they acted against their consciences by taking any of these vaccines.
  • They agree with the teaching of spiritual leaders, including certain Catholic bishops, who urge Christians to refuse said vaccines to avoid cooperation in abortion and to bear witness against it without compromise, and who defend the right to a religious exemption from vaccination with such vaccines.
  • They do not accept the opinion—expressed by certain other Catholic bishops, the Pope included—that there is a therapeutically proportional reason to resort to abortion-connected vaccines which can justify “remote” cooperation in abortion. They reject as a matter of religious conviction any medical cooperation in abortion, no matter how “remote.”
  • They believe in the primacy of conscience in this matter. While one may personally conclude that recourse to abortion-connected vaccines can be justified in his or her case, vaccination is not morally obligatory and must be voluntary, and those who in conscience refuse vaccination need only take other protective measures to avoid spreading the virus.
  • Although they are not “anti-vaxxers” who oppose all vaccines, they believe as a matter of religious conviction that the ensouled human person, made in the image and likeness of God, is inviolable as a temple of the Holy Ghost and that civil authorities have no right to force anyone to be medicated or vaccinated against his or her will, whether or not the medication or vaccine is abortion-connected.
  • A risk-benefit analysis factors into each person’s formulation of a conscientious religious position on the morality of vaccinations. Plaintiffs are all aware of the vaccines’ side effects, which can be quite serious, their fading efficacy, requiring “booster shots,” their evident inability to prevent transmission or infection, and the fact that natural immunity is likely more protective than injections with the available COVID-19 vaccines. These medical facts inform Plaintiffs’ religious conviction against involuntary or coerced vaccination as an invasion of bodily autonomy contrary to their religious beliefs. Given that the Vaccine Mandate requires that employers insure that employees are “continuously” “fully vaccinated”— as many times as the government advises—Plaintiffs now reasonably fear that “booster shots” of the same vaccines they consider immoral will soon be demanded by the government as a condition of employment and even normal life in society, as is already the case with the original vaccines.

You can review these arguments in more detail and access their exhibits in my original post, which included their complaint in its entirety. I’ve been encouraging people to use as much specificity as possible in their applications for a religious exemption.

But also remember, that even if the employer accepts your religious exemption – which it legally must so long as its sincerely-held, that doesn’t automatically exempt the employee from the vaccine, while also ensuring they can keep their job. That only entitles the employee to an accommodation, if an accommodation can be made by the employer. The employer isn’t required to provide an accommodation if they would incur more than a de minimis expense in doing so. What does this mean? Well, that could mean wearing masks, getting tested frequently, working remotely, plexiglass, etc., etc. These sorts of accommodations may, or may not be possible for any particular employee.

So it’s not a perfect option, even if an exemption is granted. But right now it’s the only option available to a ton of employees who are in jeopardy – many of whom were forced to work through the pandemic in direct contact with covid patients, at times when there were no vaccines invented yet. But now that they’ve survived that, they’re expendable. Because, politics and virtue-signaling.

Federal Judge in NY Blocks State Mandate

A federal judge today temporarily blocked New York state from enforcing a vaccine mandate on health care workers who seek or obtain a religious exemption. Here’s the Complaint, filed by the Thomas More Society on behalf of numerous physicians and other health care professionals who are acting under pseudonyms. The Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order pending the response of the defendants and a hearing on the matter. The basis of the Complaint is failure to provide a religious exception. There are tons of exhibits attached to the Complaint detailing the basis for the religious exception under Christianity.

Employer Mandate Options? Live Webinar with Attorneys Chris Wiest and Andy Fox

What are the current best options in dealing with the flood of employer mandates? Lawsuit? Quit? Exemptions? Join me for a discussion / webinar with Kentucky Attorney Chris Wiest and Tennessee Attorney Andy Fox. Live at 5:30 p.m. ET

Here’s a sample religious exemption letter courtesy of Chris Wiest, as discussed in the video. It has some Kentucky-specific language in it, but you get the idea:

Lawsuit Filed Against Chicago Company for Mandating the Vaccination of West Virginia Employees

Today we filed suit against Enlivant, a Chicago company who owns and operates an assisted living facility in Greenbrier County, West Virginia operating as Seasons Place Assisted Living. On June 1, 2021 they terminated my client, Stephanie McCutcheon, for refusing to take an unapproved non-mandatory vaccine for COVID-19.

This is the letter Stephanie received from the Human Resources Director in Chicago after complaining about the company’s verbal vaccine mandate. As you can see, knowing it was a violation of federal law to mandate the vaccine, they attempted to frame her termination as a resignation.

Given that it appears to be a form letter, they have apparently done this to other employees. They have assisted living facilities in numerous states.

Our legal theory is a state-law based claim of retaliatory discharge. Basically, as everyone knows, West Virginia is an at-will employment state. However, there was an exception created in Harless v. First National Bank, 162 W.Va. 116, 246 S.E.2d 270 (1978), which provides that:

The rule that an employer has an absolute right to discharge an at will employee must be tempered by the principle that where the employer’s motivation for the discharge is to contravene some substantial public policy principle, then the employer may be liable to the employee for damages occasioned by this discharge.

The State Supreme Court has defined the areas from which “public policy” may derive:

“The sources determinative of public policy are, among others, our federal and state constitutions, our public statutes, our judicial decisions, the applicable principles of the common law, the acknowledged prevailing concepts of the federal and state governments relating to and affecting the safety, health, morals and general welfare of the people for whom government—with us—is factually established.”

See Frohnapfel v. ArcelorMittal USA LLC, 235 W.Va. 165, 772 S.E.2d 350 (W. Va. 2015)

So federal laws and regulations may form the basis of “public policy.” Now whether that public policy is “substantial” depends on whether it’s “widely regarded as to be evident to employers.” No doubt that requirement is met in this case. A quick google search will reveal an enormous amount of discussion and advice regarding the legality of employers mandating the vaccine. But we shall see….

Here’s the lawsuit, in full, which lays out the facts and law pertaining to the COVID-19 vaccines at the current time:

Here are the exhibits, including the EUA letter to Pfizer:

We are asking for an expedited hearing for a preliminary injunction enjoining Enlivant from terminating employees for choosing not to take a non-mandatory, unapproved vaccine, and directing that my client be re-hired, as well as a declaration that a private employer may not terminate or take adverse action against employees for choosing not to take the COVID vaccine. We are also seeking money damages, punitive damages and attorney fees.

Media Reports:

https://wvrecord.com/stories/602196867-employee-sues-assisted-living-facility-after-she-was-fired-for-refusing-to-take-covid-vaccine