Here We Go - Biden's DOJ Declares COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Legal

[Ray From Cleveland]

And you know this how?

Because taking an experimental drug is risking your health and life. Anybody that takes this vaccine is. But it's your decision--not your employers nor should it be. If your employer demands you risk your health and life to continue your employment at the company, they are liable because they are not only giving you medical advice, they are forcing you to take their medical advice and they have no expertise or training in which to do so.

Because of my medical conditions, I was kind of at the front of the line for these vaccines. I asked my cousin about it on facebook. She never replied. She called me a few days later to give her opinion because of the liability factor of somebody possibly reading her opinion as a doctor and taking the vaccine and getting harmed by it based on what she wrote. She said it would be stupid for her to do that. She's a retired research doctor. She was the supervisor of her lab and knows every detail about these vaccines, what they do and how they work. She has met US Presidents before and even worked with Dr. Fauci. If she is at risk for putting her opinion to me on Facebook, certainly an employer is at risk for forcing an employee to follow their medical demands.

 

[Nostra]

You must not be a very good physician because you are usually here all day every day. My doctors at the Clinic have to run around like chickens with their heads cut off. When they come into the examination room, they are sweating. I once joked with my endocrinologist that I'd get him a job as a truck driver so he didn't have to bust his ass so much. A real physician knows the difference between FDA approved drugs and those with no approval but only a Emergency Use Authorization which is all these vaccines have. In other words an experimental drug. Your employer forcing you to take an experimental drug would make he or she liable.

To say that taking away somebody's livelihood is not a threat is like saying the armed robber didn't force you to give him your wallet. You other choice could have been him shooting you and taking your wallet. How do you think that would play in court?

He mops the floors in a hospital at night.

 

[colfax_m]

Because taking an experimental drug is risking your health and life. Anybody that takes this vaccine is. But it's your decision--not your employers nor should it be. If your employer demands you risk your health and life to continue your employment at the company, they are liable because they are not only giving you medical advice, they are forcing you to take their medical advice and they have no expertise or training in which to do so.

Because of my medical conditions, I was kind of at the front of the line for these vaccines. I asked my cousin about it on facebook. She never replied. She called me a few days later to give her opinion because of the liability factor of somebody possibly reading her opinion as a doctor and taking the vaccine and getting harmed by it based on what she wrote. She said it would be stupid for her to do that. She's a retired research doctor. She was the supervisor of her lab and knows every detail about these vaccines, what they do and how they work. She has met US Presidents before and even worked with Dr. Fauci. If she is at risk for putting her opinion to me on Facebook, certainly an employer is at risk for forcing an employee to follow their medical demands.

Your employer is not requiring you to risk your life since they are not requiring you to work there. As long as you have access to the known information about the drug, they cannot be sued because ultimately you are the one making the call based on the available information.

There is no force.

This has nothing to do with the approval status of any medication. It has nothing to do with "giving medical advice". It has to do with what is being required.

The best clinic in the world, Mayo, is requiring it for all their employees. There isn't a risk of lawsuit.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Your employer is not requiring you to risk your life since they are not requiring you to work there. As long as you have access to the known information about the drug, they cannot be sued because ultimately you are the one making the call based on the available information.

There is no force.

This has nothing to do with the approval status of any medication. It has nothing to do with "giving medical advice". It has to do with what is being required.

If a requirement to work there is meeting their medical demands, yes they are liable. It's worse than them giving medical advice.

 

[jc456]

All we can hope for is this vaccine doesn't have any serious long term effects. I'm just pointing out the possibilities if this turns out to be something bad, or real bad. It would be one thing if you lose a loved one over a decision of taking the vaccine all on their own, but quite another when they didn't want the vaccine and were forced to take it to keep their job. I know if that were an immediate member of my family, I'd be looking for the best lawyer I possibly could.

The concern with women is for little girls, and themselves, will it cause issues with future pregnancies?

 

[jc456]

There is no force.

dude, you still understand that word. It's blackmail

 

[jc456]

Maybe the doctors running around with their heads cut off aren't the good physicians.

maybe overworked. hmmmmmmmmm you're still strange.

 

[jc456]

Your employer is not requiring you to risk your life since they are not requiring you to work there. As long as you have access to the known information about the drug, they cannot be sued because ultimately you are the one making the call based on the available information.

There is no force.

This has nothing to do with the approval status of any medication. It has nothing to do with "giving medical advice". It has to do with what is being required.

The best clinic in the world, Mayo, is requiring it for all their employees. There isn't a risk of lawsuit.

the moment they post a new job opportunity to replace you is then an EEOC matter. And lawsuit is coming. See they hire because they need workers, It's strange how you don't know how it all works.

 

[colfax_m]

If a requirement to work there is meeting their medical demands, yes they are liable. It's worse than them giving medical advice.

But you are not required to work there at all.

Do you have any case law that shows they'd be liable?

 

[jc456]

But you are not required to work there at all.

Do you have any case law that shows they'd be liable?

discrimination law.

 

[colfax_m]

discrimination law.

Post the law that makes it illegal to discriminate based on vaccine status.

 

[dblack]

Post the law that makes it illegal to discriminate based on vaccine status.

There is no such law. He's just making shit up.

 

[jc456]

Post the law that makes it illegal to discriminate based on vaccine status.

Religious

 

[dblack]

Religious

"Religious" is not a law. It's an adjective.

 

[colfax_m]

Religious

So you got nothing.

 

[jc456]

"Religious" is not a law. It's an adjective.

it's discrimination to take action against an employee with religious beliefs. Dude, I can't help your stupid.

 

[jc456]

So you got nothing.

Religious. sorry pal. Perhaps look it up.

Here, because I know you haven't the talent to do it.

Discrimination Laws: Everything You Need to Know

Discrimination laws protect people from being treated differently, given opportunity differently, or serviced differently.

www.upcounsel.com

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)​

Enforcing federal laws that make workplace discrimination illegal in the United States is the responsibility of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). This commission was formed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VIII) as an organization within the federal government. The function of this agency is to enforce and interpret laws regarding workplace discrimination. In order to meet its objectives, the EEOC issues regulations interpreting the law, administers EEO laws for employees of the federal government, litigates cases of discrimination, and holds hearings. In addition, the EEOC receives discrimination charges from employees, researches these charges, and then tries to negotiate settlements between employers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VIII) requires employers to ensure that promotions and employment cannot be based on someone’s religion, race, sex or national origin. Claims of discrimination in the workforce are investigated and any violators prosecuted by the EEOC. Anti-discrimination laws that protect employees from discrimination are also implemented by the agency. Many states (and even companies) have agencies that are similar to the EEOC to handle charges of discrimination at the local level.

 

[colfax_m]

Religious. sorry pal. Perhaps look it up.

Fake religion isn't protected.

 

[dblack]

it's discrimination to take action against an employee with religious beliefs. Dude, I can't help your stupid.

It's not illegal to take action against an employee with religious beliefs. Can you restate that in a way that makes sense? I kinda doubt you can, but I at least want to give you a chance.

 

[jc456]

It's not illegal to take action against an employee with religious beliefs. Can you restate that in a way that at least makes some sense?

I suppose you can ignore this exists.​

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)​

Enforcing federal laws that make workplace discrimination illegal in the United States is the responsibility of the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). This commission was formed by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VIII) as an organization within the federal government. The function of this agency is to enforce and interpret laws regarding workplace discrimination. In order to meet its objectives, the EEOC issues regulations interpreting the law, administers EEO laws for employees of the federal government, litigates cases of discrimination, and holds hearings. In addition, the EEOC receives discrimination charges from employees, researches these charges, and then tries to negotiate settlements between employers and employees.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VIII) requires employers to ensure that promotions and employment cannot be based on someone’s religion, race, sex or national origin. Claims of discrimination in the workforce are investigated and any violators prosecuted by the EEOC. Anti-discrimination laws that protect employees from discrimination are also implemented by the agency. Many states (and even companies) have agencies that are similar to the EEOC to handle charges of discrimination at the local level.