patrick.net

Patrick says

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/states-challenge-vaccine-mandates-healthcare-workers/?source=patrick.net

02/07/22
•
COVID › NEWS

16 States File New Lawsuit Challenging Vaccine Mandates for U.S. Healthcare Workers
Attorneys general from 16 states, led by Louisiana, filed a new legal challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for U.S. healthcare workers claiming the mandates are illegal and obsolete, as the vaccines don’t work against Omicron, the dominant variant in the U.S.

Calling the mandates obsolete after only about one year of experimental injections is like saying the experiment was a failure. Which is true, and that is completely separate from the fact that mandating an injection of any kind into another human being is unreasonable and therefore a violation of their basic right to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Tomorrow I'm going to sit in public with the petition from https://patrick.net/post/1343597/2022-02-07-california-medical-freedom-initiative

I'll just ask people a simple question: "Should you have the freedom to control what goes into your body?"

Actually, truckers are the answer, but I still think lawsuits can help.

https://turnthetide.buzz/legal-action-plans/?source=patrick.net

https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/massachusetts-judge-blocks-bostons-covid-19-vaccine-mandate?source=patrick.net

Massachusetts judge blocks Boston's COVID-19 vaccine mandate
The judge's injunction will prevent the firing of union workers and first responders who have opted not to get vaccinated.

By Sophie Mann
Updated: February 16, 2022 - 9:16am

A Massachusetts Appeals Court judge has blocked Boston's COVID-19 vaccine mandate for municipal employees, in response to a suit brought by unions that represent first responders.

Justice Sabita Singh of the Massachusetts Appeals Court on Tuesday temporarily blocked the mandate from going into effect, prevents union workers from getting fired for failing to comply with the mandate.

Workers will for now be able to opt for routine testing instead of vaccination.

https://abc7news.com/santa-clara-university-booster-mandate-students-sue-childrens-health-defense-california-covid-vaccine-lawsuit/11637284/?source=patrick.net

https://reclaimthenet.org/concordia-professor-suspended-over-blog-post-about-woke-ism-pushes-back/?source=patrick.net

Concordia University Wisconsin (CUW) suspended professor Gregory Schulz days after he published an article criticizing the university. The administration suspended him without affording him an opportunity to answer to the misconduct allegations, according to Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE).

In an article published on February 14 by Christian News titled “Woke Dysphoria at Concordia.” Schulz accused CUW of “coming under the influence of Woke-ism (that is, a potent cocktail of Progressivism, NeoPragmatism, and Marxism).” According to him, that contradicts the university’s Lutheran principles.

On Friday, February 18, the university’s president William Cario emailed Schulz asking to meet that afternoon. Schulz did not make the meeting because he had classes to teach, so he asked to reschedule the meeting for the following Monday.

Cairo refused to reschedule and sent Schulz a notice informing him that he was suspended pending an investigation. He was accused of misconduct because the article was “conduct unbecoming a Christian,” disclosed confidential information, and violated certain limitations on academic freedom.

Schulz was suspended from teaching, banned from campus, and prohibited from contacting any member of the CUW community, including students and colleagues, without Cario’s permission. He was also threatened with further sanctions and termination if he did not publicly recant the article.

In a letter demanding Schulz reinstatement, FIRE notes that the suspension was conducted without due process, which the university promised in Schulz contract. He was not properly informed about the allegations nor was he given ample time to respond to the allegations.

We obtained a copy of the letter for you here.

FIRE also claims that the suspension was a violation of academic freedom, which includes the freedom to criticize an institution’s leadership.

https://therightscoop.com/massachusetts-university-sued-after-asking-applicant-to-defend-her-whiteness-during-interview/?source=patrick.net

https://www.ntd.com/nearly-100-city-employees-sue-los-angeles-over-vaccine-mandate_753955.html?source=patrick.net

https://markchangizi.substack.com/p/airline-pilots-sue-to-end-airline?s=r&source=patrick.net

Airline pilots sue to end airline mask mandates

Mark Changizi
Mar 21

So, the landlords that were stiffed 8+ months of rent are supposed to sue what the deadbeat renters. They ain't got the money and will never have the money because they spent it. Maybe sue the government for having illegal eviction moratoriums...well just good fucking luck with that.

Every lawyer fuck got PPP money from the government. One of the clauses there is they have to abide by the government mandates or the forgiven loans become loans they have to pay back to the government.

Mexico has a better legal system than here in the States.

https://www.ky3.com/2022/04/21/workers-could-sue-over-vaccine-mandates-under-missouri-bill/?source=patrick.net

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Workers required to get vaccinations for their jobs could sue if they have negative reactions under a Missouri bill advanced in the state House on Wednesday.

The Republican-led House voted 92-44 to give the measure initial approval. It needs another vote to move to the GOP-led Senate.

The measure would apply to any employer-required vaccines, although bill sponsor Rep. Mitch Boggs, R-LaRussell, said cited recent COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Under the measure, employers who make their workers get a vaccine could be held liable if workers experience negative side effects.

Proponents argued that bosses should be held accountable for medical complications if they make workers get vaccinated. Critics argued that private business owners should be allowed to decide whether to mandate vaccinations without the threat of lawsuits.

This is good news.

Patrick says

Workers required to get vaccinations for their jobs could sue if they have negative reactions under a Missouri bill advanced in the state House on Wednesday.

Hopefully that gets through the Senate, gets the Governor's' signature, and is not struck down by a court.

https://etana.substack.com/p/brook-on-behalf-of-the-people

The story of Brook Jackson is a fascinating sequence of events that’s nowhere near the end of the story. I believe by the time this is over, Brook Jackson will be a household name and a widely regarded heroine. Back in September 2020, Brook worked at a company called Ventavia that was hired by Pfizer to run clinical trials for the Covid-19 vaccine. She alleges that in her short time employed at Vestavia, she witnessed serious medical misconduct and even straight-up fraudulent behavior by Ventavia and Pfizer that calls the integrity of the entire trial process into serious question. ...

The Lawsuit

Brook Jackson, on behalf of the People of the United States, is suing 3 companies for stealing ~2 billion dollars from the American people by selling 100 million vaccine doses to the US Govt/Dept of Defense under allegedly FALSE and FRAUDULENT pretenses.

Those 3 companies are:

Pfizer, Inc - Together with BioNTech in Germany, they manufacture and create the vaccines, sponsor the clinical trials, and report their findings to the FDA together with a request for approval of their product or an Emergency Use Authorization.

ICON PLC - An Irish company based in Dublin, ICON was contracted by Pfizer to oversee more than 160 clinical trial sites worldwide, and was responsible for monitoring protocol compliance and required information reporting of the clinical trial sites.

Ventavia Research Group, LLC - Ventavia is a company in Texas that runs numerous clinical trial sites throughout the state. Pfizer contracted Ventavia to run clinical trials for their vaccine at 3 of Ventavia’s clinical trial sites. Ventavia then reports results and submits information to ICON and Pfizer.

Patrick says

Brook Jackson, on behalf of the People of the United States, is suing 3 companies

Hopefully this will not be thrown out for "lack of standing." Brook is suing companies that have at their disposal whole groups of bought off politicians, scientists, and judges, as well as threatened employees at those companies.

https://gaacoalition.substack.com/p/dutch-airline-pilots-association

Dutch Airline Pilots Association (VNV) successfully blocks mandated vaccinations for new pilots
Court case against vaccination mandate won

https://www.theepochtimes.com/18-major-airlines-faa-and-dot-to-be-sued-over-covid-vaccine-mandates_4484295.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink

https://rumble.com/v181c2b-dr-naomi-wolfs-legal-team-is-bringing-civil-suits-against-pfizer-for-racket.html

Dr Naomi Wolf’s Legal Team is Bringing Civil Suits Against Pfizer for Racketeering 🔥

It's good to try in any case.

https://prosecutenow.com/

OUR PURPOSE
Our purpose manifold:

First, to reveal to you, the public, the criminal organization that is seeking to coercively extort and obtain complete control over the global population. The primary instruments of the organization’s criminal conduct include the creation of patented bioweapons marketed as novel viruses and injections.

Second, to remove the protective anonymity of the criminal syndicate’s participants, including individuals, business entities, and government organizations who are pursuing a 21st century, 100-year program, called “The Century of the Vaccine.”

Finally, to expose and detail the specific crimes this organization has committed to extort commercial gain from, and raw political power over citizens of the United States of America and the world through the creation and use of bioweapons and engaging in bio-terrorism.

OUR OBJECTIVE
Our objective is to prosecute the participants of the criminal organization for those crimes, to obtain justice, and to achieve monetary relief for the millions who have been injured and who have died at their hands. This incalculable injustice is the result of the criminal malfeasance of the individuals and organizations who forced the implementation of their experiments-in-a-syringe upon the world. We stand for, protect, and defend humanity, you our brothers and sisters, fellow citizens of this earth.

OUR MISSION
Our mission is to organize and amplify individual and collective citizen voices in the ears, minds, and hearts of our elected and appointed state officials for the singular purpose of demanding and obtaining the immediate appointment of special prosecutors and independent counsel to initiate criminal investigations and pursue criminal proceedings against the perpetrators for violations of criminal statutes in their pursuit of planning, orchestrating, and executing the alleged SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and all consequent actions taken and infringing the inalienable rights and liberties of we, the people.

We pledge to do all necessary and possible to ensure that all monies obtained pursuant to such prosecutions be distributed to those who have suffered any injury from the commission of these crimes.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/doctors-suing-food-and-drug-administration-over-ivermectin_4515103.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink

A Washington law firm has filed a federal lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for interfering with the use of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19.

The lawsuit was filed by Boyden Gray & Associates on behalf of three doctors who were disciplined for prescribing human-grade ivermectin to patients.

The firm’s founder, attorney Boyden Gray, is a former legal adviser to the Reagan and Bush administrations.

Gray told The Epoch Times that the FDA had violated well-established law that allows doctors to prescribe an FDA-approved drug as an off-label treatment.

Ivermectin was no different, he said. It was approved by the FDA in 1966.

“Congress recognized the importance of letting doctors be doctors and expressly prohibited the FDA from interfering with the practice of medicine,” Gray said.

“That is exactly what the FDA has done time and time again throughout this pandemic, assuming authority it doesn’t have and trying to insert itself in the medical decisions of Americans everywhere.”

Unfortunately, the damages will be paid by the insurance company, and not the government who did the shutdown. Now insurance premiums will increase, and new clauses will be dreamed up.

https://gettr.com/post/p1euht6cc83

@Arnie1974

Jun 19
Sue Your Doctor" - They've Violated Their Oath and Failed to Give Informed Consent

Dr. Ryan Cole: "If you are injured by a shot or you know somebody who's injured by a shot, you need to file a suit against a physician, because nobody in the world got informed consent. They didn't tell you about antibody-dependent enhancement; they didn't tell you about the risks of myocarditis ... Any physician giving this and not giving informed consent is putting you involuntarily into the largest trial on humanity ever. And so they've violated their oath."

https://www.conspatriotnews.com/missouri-attorney-general-files-landmark-lawsuit-against-biden-for-colluding-with-big-tech-evidence-from-the-gateway-pundit-plays-major-role-in-case/

Totally overlooked by the mainstream press, at the beginning of May 2022, Missouri Attorney General (AG) Eric Schmitt’s office filed a landmark lawsuit against the Biden Administration.

Then, just last week, Attorney General Schmitt landed a big blow against Biden by filing a motion to prohibit the censorship conspiracy immediately.

The AG’s suit against the Biden Admin. also sues some other deserving people and agencies, including:

Joe Biden, himself
Anthony Fauci
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
The CyberSecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA)
The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
Former Ministry of Truth head Nina “Mary Poppins” Jankowicz
Former Biden Press Secretary Jen Psaki
And several more agencies and officials
The suit, brought along with the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office, is filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

In the suit, Missouri Attorney General Schmitt pounds away on the Biden regime for both conspiring with and also compelling Big Tech social media companies, to censor millions of Americans on their social media accounts through a governmentally created social media censorship program.

https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/alexberenson

You know what it took Twitter to admit it shouldn’t have done what it did?

You do not, and I can’t tell you, because the statement is all I can say about the settlement.

Except I need to add one thing. The settlement does not end my investigation into the pressures that the government may have placed on Twitter to suspend my account. I will have more to say on that issue in the near future. I made a promise to readers last month, and I take my promises to readers seriously.

Looks like Berenson's lawsuit against Twitter was successful.

https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/judge-rules-la-unified-school-district

LAUSD parents can now file for damages from the illegal COVID vaccine mandates
A judge has ruled that the LA Unified School District wasn't authorized to mandate the COVID vaccines or force kids into independent study. If you were injured, I can help you recover damages.

An important decision on vaccine mandates was just signed and released this morning.

The case was filed by a father on behalf of his son who attends the Science Academy STEM LAUSD magnet school. The lawyer in this case was Lee Andelin.

LAUSD will likely appeal the decision, but it’s unlikely they will prevail.

The decision means that:

LAUSD was wrong in requiring the COVID vaccines

For all but ten vaccines, a personal belief exemption must be respected.

LAUSD can no longer send kids away from their school and to independent study because they are not vaccinated.

Only the Department of Public Health can mandate vaccines, not the schools

The ruling applies to all students, not just the student filing the complaint

Parents whose children were injured, either by having to have their child vaccinated (regardless of whether your child has a vaccine injury or not) or whose child was shifted into independent study, now have an opportunity to sue for monetary damages.

If you are in the last category, please register here and I’ll let you know how you can join with other parents to preserve your rights and to potentially recover monetary damages.

Patrick says

Parents whose children were injured, either by having to have their child vaccinated (regardless of whether your child has a vaccine injury or not) or whose child was shifted into independent study, now have an opportunity to sue for monetary damages.

I hope this is real and not some grifting. My daughter has "long Covid" along with the tachycardia and I would love to sue that bastard at Nebraska Wesleyan that force all the students to get the shot to stay in school.

HeadSet says

Patrick says

Parents whose children were injured, either by having to have their child vaccinated (regardless of whether your child has a vaccine injury or not) or whose child was shifted into independent study, now have an opportunity to sue for monetary damages.

I hope this is real and not some grifting. My daughter has "long Covid" along with the tachycardia and I would love to sue that bastard at Nebraska Wesleyan that force all the students to get the shot to stay in school.

I hope your daughter pulls through. The @Rin protocol ;might help, but I'm no expert.

There are few things more important than our own lives than the lives of our children. TPTB are going after our children. Where do any of you stand?

https://reclaimthenet.org/dr-robert-malone-and-other-censored-doctors-sue-twitter/

Maybe Malone and McCullough will also have success in suing Twitter, like Alex Berenson did.

https://www.theepochtimes.com/judge-sides-with-parent-strikes-down-los-angeles-school-vaccine-mandate_4580965.html?utm_source=share-btn-copylink

A plan to mandate COVID-19 vaccine shots for hundreds of thousands of students in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) will remain on pause after a Los Angeles County judge ruled on July 5 that the district lacks the authority to do so.

In his ruling, Judge Mitchell Beckloff of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County sided with a parent, whose 12-year-old son attends a public magnet school in North Hollywood. The parent filed the complaint in October 2021, about a month after the LAUSD announced its vaccination mandate.

Under the district’s mandate, all eligible students aged 12 and above must show proof of COVID-19 vaccination, or get approved for exemptions by Jan. 10 in order to attend school in person. Those who don’t comply would be transferred into the district’s remote learning program, City of Angels, which offers a mixture of live instruction and self-study.

The suing parent, identified as G.F., argued that it is unfair and unlawful for the child, identified as D.F., to have to lose his hard-earned place at a competitive school just because he and his parent have chosen to not get vaccinated on the basis of personal beliefs.

According to G.F., his son had acquired natural immunity after recovering from COVID-19. He also said he worried that vaccinating the child would put the child’s health in jeopardy.

ONA wins second arbitration against hospitals on ‘vaccinate or mask’ policy

For a second time, an arbitrator has ruled in favour of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, ordering a major hospital group in Toronto to rescind its “vaccinate or mask policy.”

In St. Michael’s Hospital and The Ontario Hospital Association and The Ontario Nurses’ Association, arbitrator William Kaplan struck down the policy in effect at St. Michael's Hospital and several other hospitals that form the Toronto Academic Health Science Network, saying that the policy does not protect patients and doesn’t serve to prevent the transmission of the flu in hospitals.

A VOM policy forces nurses and other health-care workers to wear an unfitted surgical mask during their shift if they choose not to receive the influenza vaccine. St. Mike’s is one of a small number of hospitals with a VOM policy — less than 10 per cent of about 165 hospitals in the province.

Most Read

Record general damages award in Alberta sexual harassment case a 'message' to employers: lawyers

Two BC lawyers disbarred a second time as regulator seeks public’s confidence in discipline process

Why Sara Forte wants to share how to find happiness in the law

After reviewing extensive expert evidence submitted by both the ONA and St. Michael's Hospital, which was the lead case for the TAHSN group, Kaplan, in a Sept. 6 decision, rejected the hospital’s evidence and found that the St. Mike’s VOM policy is “illogical and makes no sense” and “is the exact opposite of being reasonable.”

Sharan Basran, legal counsel and manager of litigation for the ONA, says the organization was “very courageous” to take on the hospitals in the VOM battle. The ONA was represented by Kate Hughes, Philip Abbink and Tyler Boggs of Cavalluzzo LLP.

“I think the orthodoxy on this at the beginning was that these are policies that protect patients and so I really feel that ONA understood that the notion that a healthy unvaccinated nurse needs to wear a mask when she doesn’t have any symptoms was not a credible means to achieve what was a laudable objective. ONA really went to bat on something proven correct at the end of the day,” says Basran.

The TAHSN group includes Sinai Health System, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, North York General Hospital, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Michael Garron Hospital and Baycrest Health Sciences. Other TAHSN hospitals did not have VOM policies in place.

In 2015, arbitrator James Hayes struck down the same type of policy in an arbitration that included other Ontario hospitals across the province, with Sault Area Hospital as the lead case. It was the first to go against a 2013 British Columbia decision that had found a similar VOM policy to be a reasonable exercise of management rights.

In that case, 19 hospitals across the province agreed to the initial process where Sault Area Hospital was the lead case.

Speaking on behalf of St. Michael's Hospital and the OHA, Melanie McNaught, partner with Filion Wakely Thorup Angeletti LLP said in an emailed statement:

"St. Michael’s Hospital decided to amend its policy to include a vaccinate-or-mask requirement in 2014, following a report by a Toronto Area Health Sciences Network expert working group. St. Michael’s VOM policy was applied in the 2014/15 flu season, before Arbitrator Hayes released his decision in September 2015 finding that the VOM policy at Sault Area Hospital was unreasonable. After the Hayes decision, St. Michael’s and a number of other TAHSN hospitals wanted to continue with their VOM policies because they believed it was in the best interest of patient safety. The Ontario Hospital Association supported their decision. Also, we believed we could put forward a better case for the reasonableness of the VOM policy. Arbitrator Hayes found that certain aspects of the Sault Area Hospital’s implementation of the VOM policy were, to use his words, “coercive.” St. Michael’s had implemented its VOM policy in a thoughtful way, with lots of consultation with various hospital committees. We were confident that the implementation at St. Michael’s had not been coercive. Arbitrator Kaplan found in our favour on that point. He found that St. Michael’s policy was not coercive and that it was made in the pursuit of reasonable objectives. Nevertheless, he still found that the policy was unreasonable.

"Naturally, we are disappointed with the outcome. This case involved a lot of difficult, and sometimes conflicting, scientific evidence. As Arbitrator Kaplan observed in his decision, these kinds of public health policy questions are better resolved by experts, rather than through litigation or labour arbitration. That being said, the reasonableness of the policy was to be decided at labour arbitration, using a labour relations framework. We did our best to present the scientific evidence in a way that was fair and clear. The Arbitrator preferred the evidence of ONA’s experts," McNaught said.

The ONA had first grieved the policy as an unreasonable exercise of management rights and a breach of employee privacy rights because a hospital-wide posting explained to the public that masks were required to be worn by unvaccinated employees.

Hayes found there was “scant evidence” that forcing nurses to use masks reduced the transmission of influenza to patients.

“Essentially, they all had vaccinate or mask policies and all agreed to rescind their policies,” says Basran. “However, the TAHSN group wouldn’t agree to be bound by the result so they were forced to arbitrate it again and it was a lengthy protracted litigation — this is now the second decision on the issue.”

Basran says the “vast majority” of hospitals in Ontario have rescinded their VOM policies either through arbitration or they have voluntarily agreed to change their policies, except for two in London, Ont. — London Health Sciences Centre and St. Joseph’s Health Centre.

“I think there is now a consensus developing in the arbitral community that there is no question that these policies really do not protect patients. The arbitrator was quite robust in describing the evidence led by the hospital as ‘insufficient, inadequate and completely unpersuasive,’” she says.

Legal Feeds reached out to London Health Science Centre and St. Joseph’s Health Care London for comment. In an emailed statement provided by a spokesperson for St. Joseph's, the hospital indicated it has an "Influenza Vaccination for Staff" policy that currently requires unvaccinated staff to wear a mask while in areas where there are patients during the period that influenza is circulating in our community. "In the coming weeks we will be carefully reviewing the arbitrator’s decision to determine if our current policy needs to be revised for the coming flu season."

“I would hope they are going to study the decision carefully and appreciate that it’s a waste of time to re-litigate it when the matter has been decided twice now,” Basran says. “I think we have exhausted hearing the evidence on this — this is a definitive statement.”

Through the arbitration process, Basran says, it has become evident there are much better alternatives to ensuring patient safety.

“It was necessary to create clarity, but I think there is crystal clarity now,” she says.

The nurses’ collective agreement already protects patients if the medical officer of health determines there is an influenza outbreak by ensuring that comprehensive measures are put in place to reduce the risk of transmission to patients.

In his decision, Kaplan noted that both vaccinated and unvaccinated health-care workers can transmit the flu and asymptomatic transmission can occur. “If donning a surgical or procedural mask provided protection, the conclusion should be inevitable that everyone should mask — at least until a vaccine with one hundred percent effectiveness, or close to it, becomes available. That is not, however, required illustrating how illogical the VOM policy actually is,” he wrote.

The ONA's expert witnesses included Toronto infection control expert Dr. Michael Gardam, Quebec epidemiologist Dr. Gaston De Serres and Dr. Lisa Brosseau, an American expert on masks, who testified that there was insufficient evidence to support the St. Michael's policy and no evidence that forcing healthy nurses to wear masks during the influenza season did anything to prevent transmission of influenza in hospitals.

They further testified that nurses who have no symptoms are unlikely to be a real source of transmission and that it was not logical to force healthy unvaccinated nurses to mask.

https://www.canadianlawyermag.com/practice-areas/privacy-and-data/ona-wins-second-arbitration-against-hospitals-on-vaccinate-or-mask-policy/275455

Cancelled Saskatchewan professor taking university and health authority to court.

A University of Saskatchewan professor who was cancelled for voicing controversial views on Covid-19 vaccination is taking his former employer and provincial health authorities to court.

Dr. Francis Christian was suspended from his job as a professor of surgery after he called Covid shots “experimental injections” and said vaccinations of children against Covid-19 should be halted.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has filed a claim on behalf of Christian challenging his suspension and termination from his teaching post.

“The Saskatchewan Health Authority and the college have violated Dr. Christian’s Charter-protected freedoms of expression and conscience. The college’s conduct is a gross violation of the principles of academic freedom and scientific inquiry,” JCCF lawyer Andre Memauri wrote in court documents.

“The defamatory statements made by some of the defendants against Dr. Christian add insult to injury, and Dr. Christian will pursue justice accordingly.”

When contacted by CTV News, representatives with the university stated that they plan on pursuing a “vigorous defence” against the allegations.

“The university intends to advance a vigorous defence in these proceedings. Since the matter is before the courts, the university will not make further comment at this time,” wrote a spokesperson.

The controversy largely centres on a June 2021 interview in which he “expressed concerns about the censorship of scientific facts and opinions during the pandemic.”

Soon after, Christian was in trouble with his employer who subsequently suspended him. An appeal of his suspension was unsuccessful and complaints about the university’s treatment went unresponded.

Christian was terminated from his job despite the university finding in an internal investigation that that his “statements were made in a civil manner, in good faith, and that he did not engage in unprofessional conduct or act contrary to the safety of individuals and the public.”

The University of Saskatchewan professor is not the only health professional who has taken the government to task over suspensions during the pandemic.

16 unvaccinated healthcare workers have filed a lawsuit against the Manitoba government and provincial health authority after they were terminated from their job for refusing to get the Covid-19 shot.

https://tnc.news/2022/07/09/sask-professor/

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3551146-former-disney-employees-sue-company-over-vaccine-mask-requirements-claiming-religious-discrimination/

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/fired-worker-receives-nearly-9000-in-damages-after-being-let-go-for-refusing-to-wear-a-mask/

This month, the Edmonton Labour Board ruled that Acorn Welding Ltd. of Edmonton, a federally regulated aircraft maintenance company, must pay Yates $8,917 for firing him without cause. as reported by Blacklock’s Reporter.

“Go home, think about it and come back on Monday when we can have a clearer discussion,” Yates’ supervisor told him when the engineer would not wear a mask.

“You cannot work without a mask,” the supervisor was quoted in board hearings. “Yates replied, ‘he was not a sheep’ and stated he would not wear a mask.”

Yates was sent home and subsequently fired via email. “We are writing to inform you that Acorn Welding is accepting your resignation,” the company’s human resources officer wrote.

“This is based on your firm unwillingness to wear a facial covering while not working in your cubicle as required,” it added.

The Labour Board ruled that the letter amounted to dismissal without notice, which is a breach of the Employment Standards Code.

This incident occurred during the week after the passage of a November 2020 bylaw stating that all Edmonton residents “must wear a face covering at all times while in an indoor, enclosed or substantially enclosed public place or in a public vehicle.”

The mandate was issued despite a number of experts and studies in other countries suggesting that wearing a mask is not only inefficient at slowing the spread of COVID-19 but could also have harmful effects on people’s physical and mental health.

Yates is not alone in being fired for his refusal to comply with COVID-19 regulations. Many have lost their jobs over mask and vaccine mandates, and unmasked and unvaccinated students have been denied entry to universities and colleges.

Many are seeking justice for facing discrimination for their choices. Dr. Francis Christian, a clinical professor of general surgery, is suing University of Saskatchewan after being fired for questioning “experimental injections” for children.

Earlier this month, the City of Toronto reinstated about 100 Sikh security guards who refused to go against their religion by shaving their beards to wear masks.

@FarmersWon

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/ex-disney-employees-sue-company-for-rejecting-religious-exemptions-to-covid-jabs/

Racist Policies: Refugee From Communist State Sues Biden.

Christian Bruckner, who owns a small business in Florida, filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration Wednesday over race and sex quotas that ban him from competing for a reserved set of government contracts drafted in last year’s Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.

Bruckner, who owns Project Management Corporation, came to America in the 1970s when his parents fled communist Romania. In 1989 a car accident left him forever disabled. According to Bruckner’s lawsuit, his business “can fulfill transportation and infrastructure-related contracts, including those contracts available under the Infrastructure Act.”

Though because of Bruckner’s race and sex, his company is ineligible to compete for over $37 billion worth of infrastructure contracts.

According to the lawsuit, in the $1.2 trillion infrastructure act passed in November, Congress “authorized $370 billion in new spending for roads, bridges, and other surface transportation projects. But Congress also implemented a set aside, or quota, requiring that at least 10% of these funds be reserved for certain ‘disadvantaged’ small businesses.”

The law contains a quota, asking that at least 10% of all funding ($37 billion) go to small businesses owned by “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.”

“If … President Biden really wants to help disadvantaged small business owners, then he should help new businesses struggling to survive or small business owners who have a disability like me,” Bruckner announced in a press release. “But helping groups based on race and gender is never fair.”

The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, claims that this quota breaks the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process by denying Bruckner the equal protection of the law. Bruckner is suing President Joe Biden, White House Senior Advisor and Infrastructure Implementation Coordinator Mitchell Landrieu, and Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

In the legal complaint, Bruckner requests the court for a preliminary injunction “removing all unconstitutional race and gender-based classification” from the infrastructure act, as well as a declaration that such quotas are unconstitutional and an enduring ban on their implementation.

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty’s Equality Under the Law Project is representing Bruckner and Project Management Corporation in the lawsuit. According to a press release from WILL, the project “has successfully sued the Biden Administration twice for race discrimination in the Farmer Loan Forgiveness Program and the Restaurant Revitalization Fund” and “forced the removal of race-based preferences in the Homeowner Assistance Fund, another program under the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.”

https://www.blabber.buzz/conservative-news/1040434-racist-policies-refugee-from-communist-state-sues-biden?utm_term=whats-trending-side-web

https://reclaimthenet.org/simon-isherwood-wins-case-after-getting-fired/

Simon Isherwood, who was caught on hot mic criticizing diversity training, wins case after getting fired
A win for free speech.

Simon Isherwood, a rail conductor, won an unfair dismissal case against his employer, the West Midland Trains (WMT), after he was fired in March 2021 for criticizing diversity training on a hot mic.

The diversity training session, attended by about 80 rail workers, was held in January 2020. After the session ended, Isherwood forgot to turn off his microphone and was heard by colleagues complaining about the session to his wife.

“I couldn’t be arsed because I thought, ‘you know what, I’ll just get fucking angry.’ You know what I really wanted to ask?… and I wish I had, do they have black privilege in other countries? So, if you’re in Ghana?” he was heard saying.

Some colleagues complained to the bosses, and Isherwood was suspended pending an investigation. He was dismissed in March after it was determined that his remarks “caused offense, brought the company into disrepute” and breached the company’s “equality, diversity, and inclusion policy, and the code of conduct.”

After his internal appeal was rejected, he decided to sue his employer.

“I’ve lost my job, my income, my reputation, my health is absolutely shot to pieces,” he said at the time.

“I’d worked there for 11-and-a-half years and never had anything but promotion, praise and awards and even now I can’t believe it.

“All I was trying to do was understand the subject better – we had been asked to think of questions so I did exactly what I was asked to do.”

This week, an employment tribunal determined that Isherwood was unfairly dismissed.

“Freedom of expression, including a qualified right to offend when expressing views and beliefs [in this case on social issues], is a fundamental right in a democratic society,” employment judge Stephen Wyeth ruled.

"Qualified" right to offend?

https://www.ntd.com/state-attorneys-general-sue-the-biden-administration-for-tying-school-lunch-funding-to-lgbt-policies_815323.html

The attorneys general of 22 states have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over a new rule that seeks to block federal meal funding from schools that don’t follow the administration’s gender identity policies.

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/health-care-workers-settle-covid

Health Care Workers Settle COVID Shot Mandate for $10.3 Million

CHICAGO, IL – Today, Liberty Counsel settled the nation’s first classwide lawsuit for health care workers over a COVID shot mandate, for more than $10.3 million. The class action settlement against NorthShore University HealthSystem is on behalf of more than 500 current and former health care workers who were unlawfully discriminated against and denied religious exemptions from the COVID shot mandate. The agreed upon settlement was filed today in the federal Northern District Court of Illinois.

As a result of the settlement, NorthShore will pay $10,337,500 to compensate these health care employees who were victims of religious discrimination, and who were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells.

This is a historic, first-of-its-kind class action settlement against a private employer who unlawfully denied hundreds of religious exemption requests to COVID-19 shots.

The settlement must be approved by the federal District Court. Employees of NorthShore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement, and will have an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment out of the settlement fund, all in accordance with deadlines that will be set by the court.

As part of the settlement agreement, NorthShore will also change its unlawful “no religious accommodations” policy to make it consistent with the law, and to provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities. No position in any NorthShore facility will be considered off limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.

Good news, but a human rights objection to the dangerous and ineffective vaxx must also be upheld.

Patrick says

https://viralimmunologist.substack.com/p/health-care-workers-settle-covid

No position in any NorthShore facility will be considered off limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions.

That’s good. It rules out remote reassignment which as I’ve heard appears to be a common “accommodation.”

But will there be additional testing and masking requirements for “exempt” unvaccinated?

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/unvaccinated-canadian-firefighter-gets-his-job-back-after-department-faces-legal-pressure/

Unvaccinated Canadian firefighter gets his job back after department faces legal pressure
'To accept this medical procedure, he said, would violate his conscience and religious convictions.'

CELISTA, British Columbia (LifeSiteNews) – After pressure from a constitutional legal group, a Canadian firefighter who lost his job for refusing COVID vaccines was reinstated to his position.

According to the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF), volunteer firefighter Craig Nygard of the Columbia Shuswap Regional District (CSRD) in British Columbia was able to get his job back after it sent a legal warning letter to the fire department in April.

The JCCF demanded that “Mr. Nygard be accommodated in his request for a religious exemption from CSRD’s mandatory Covid vaccine policy.” ...

No less than 30 firefighters from the CSRD lost their jobs for refusing to comply with a workplace COVID vaccine mandate despite the fire department experiencing worker shortages.