The chickens are coming home to roost for vaccine dictators who make life miserable for people with religious objections to shots. But it might be too little, too late for some.
A hospital maintenance worker was awarded a $45,000 payout after being fired by Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta for requesting a religious exemption to the hospital’s mandatory flu vaccination policy, according to a news release from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. This case sheds light on the issue of religious discrimination when it comes to vaccine mandates.
The employee in question had previously received religious exemptions from the flu shot requirement in 2017 and 2018 when he was working for the pediatric hospital. However, in 2019, his exemption request was denied, and he was terminated, despite having little interaction with patients or other staff in his role. This prompted the former worker to file a religious discrimination lawsuit against Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta with the help of the EEOC.
The EEOC found that the hospital’s conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which requires employers to reasonably accommodate employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Marcus G. Keegan, the regional attorney for the EEOC’s Atlanta District Office, stated that it is the responsibility of an employer to accommodate its employees’ religious beliefs unless doing so would pose an undue hardship.
As part of the consent decree, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta will change its religious exemption procedures for the flu vaccine. The hospital will also presume remote employees are eligible for exemptions and protect their ability to transfer to alternative positions if an exemption request is denied. Additionally, the hospital will provide training to relevant employees on religious accommodation rights under Title VII.
While hospitals have the right to take safety precautions for the health of their employees, it is important to respect individuals' religious freedom as guaranteed by the First Amendment. The fact that this employee had received exemptions in previous years, only to be denied in 2019, points to blatant religious discrimination.
While the payout awarded to the hospital worker represents a small victory for civil liberties, it raises the question of the civil liberties of employees who complied with immunization mandates out of sheer desperation to keep their jobs and livelihoods. The case also brings to mind a similar situation in 2002 where McDonald's paid out $10 million to Hindu organizations for not disclosing beef tallow in the list of ingredients in its french fries. One must wonder what would have happened if McDonald's had forced its Hindu employees to eat the fries or lose their jobs.
This issue highlights the inconsistency in how certain civil liberties are prioritized. While leftists argue for “my body, my choice” when it comes to abortion, it seems that this argument does not extend to other medical decisions. Additionally, religious freedom is often only seen as applicable to minority groups. However, the truth is that all Americans have the right to make decisions for their own bodies and protect their faith.
Although monetary settlements can never fully undo the distress caused to individuals who were forced to choose between their faith and providing for their families, it is a step in the right direction. Hopefully, as more companies face financial consequences for disregarding religious beliefs, they will take into consideration people’s deeply held convictions before mandating across-the-board vaccines.
In conclusion, the case of the hospital maintenance worker who was fired for requesting a religious exemption to a mandatory flu vaccination policy raises important questions about religious discrimination and vaccine mandates. It serves as a reminder that employers have a responsibility to reasonably accommodate their employees' sincerely held religious beliefs. While the payout awarded to the worker represents a victory for civil liberties, it also highlights the struggles faced by employees who felt compelled to comply with immunization mandates out of fear of losing their jobs. The hope is that this case will lead to greater respect for individuals' religious rights and prompt companies to consider alternative solutions before implementing blanket vaccine mandates.
