The Supreme Court has dismissed a push from a group of hospital workers in Massachusetts who tried to argue that their facility’s vaccine mandate for employees violates their religious freedom.
Justice Stephen Breyer, who overseas appeals from this region of the United States, declined the request from the workers without asking for a response from the hospital or sending the case on to the Supreme Court to see. NBC News reported that this is a sign that Justice Breyer felt that the case lacked merit.
This came after staffers at Mass General Brigham who were either fired or placed on leave for refusing to get the jab against COVID-19 applied for an emergency stay. They had already tried to get religious or medical exemptions, but their applications were turned down. They then filed their lawsuit, claiming that the hospital was breaking discrimination laws with its mandate.
Mass General Brigham announced back in June that it would force all staffers to get vaccinated, setting up committees that would review requests from staffers for religious or medical objections. Court documents show that about half of the employees who applied for these exemptions were ultimately given them.
In their emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, the employees said that the hospital “is already accommodating hundreds of other employees conclusively refutes respondent’s mere assertions that it would cause an undue hardship to accommodate ‘further exemptions’ or ‘additional unvaccinated employees.'”
“Applicants face the continuing inability to feed their children, the continuing loss of any practical ability to work in their professions, constant potential homelessness, and continuing significant emotional and psychological harm,” the emergency application continued, according to Mass Live.
“This Court is presented now with a different shade of religious and disability discrimination under the guise of ‘undue hardship,’ namely a refusal to recognize and accommodate sincerely held religious beliefs and real disabilities contra the COVID-19 vaccines,” the application stated. “This case presents the issue of an employer’s claiming undue hardship in accommodating Applicants while at the very same time accommodating other employees.”
The application also stated that this mandate could cost employees their jobs in the healthcare field at a time when our society needs workers in this field the most.
“Applicants’ having to seek new healthcare employment while explaining their prior terminations and ongoing litigation could effectively prevent them from working in health care in the Commonwealth,” the application states. “Granting Applicants’ requested injunction will enable them to return to work…or at least communicate to other healthcare employers that (Mass General Brigham’s) is likely unlawful.”
Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.