Religious Exemption

Share to the world...

Flowcharts

This is where mandates are in the grand scheme of national affairs.  The gavel indicates places in the sequence where lawsuits can resolve differences.  For example, a company that releases a vaccine mandate but does not have a religious exemption option can be sued for violating Title VII of civil rights law.

The religious exemption process starts when your company releases the details of their mandate.  It is not recommended that you submit any religious exemption paperwork until your company releases their procedures.

Summary

  • Vaccine mandates cannot be applied to everyone in the USA unless the government makes exceptions.  There is more than 100 years of case law backing this up and law as recent as 2020 (Tandon v. Newsom of California) re-affirms this.  You are entitled to a Religious Exemption which grants you a “reasonable accommodation”, which is a compromise that you and your employer agree on.
  • The Religious Exemption is codified in U.S. law:  42 U.S. Code Title 42—THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND WELFARE – Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
    • (j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer –

      (1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

      (2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

General Advice

  • Keep a journal of everything (emails, phone calls, in person meetings, screenshots, PDFs, documents, company communications).
  • Obey company procedures and deadlines.  Don’t let them disqualify you on process failures.
  • Do not file a religious exemption until your company makes a vaccination mandate.
    • They will have company specific procedures for filing a religious exemption.  Every company’s will be different.
  • You can do a religious and medical exemption at the same time.
  • You are entitled to a religious exemption under the law.
    • The company is free to invent whatever artificial legal obstacles they want to grant or deny the religious exemption.
      • Anything you tell a corporation is 100% voluntary.  No law governs what you tell them, or what you do not tell them.
      • After getting a religious exemption, they negotiate with you to agree on a “reasonable accommodation”.
    • If they deny your religious exemption, you can sue them to get qualified under a religious exemption.
    • If you feel the “reasonable accommodation” is unfair, you can sue for a better accommodation.
  • You do not need to be part of an organized religion (you can be an athiest, agnostic, etc.).
    • There is no list of “formally recognized religions”.
    • You do not need to attend church.
    • There is no length of time that you needed to hold that sincerely held belief (although length can be used to affirm your position).
  •  Do not stray away from arguments that affirm “your sincerely held belief”. 
    • Do not engage into arguments about vaccine safety, vaccine effectiveness, or anything technical about the vaccine.
    • Unless you really know these arguments well, they will find a way to believe you have a philosophy instead of a sincerely held belief.
  • Provide your responses in writing.
  • Avoid verbal exchanges because a seasoned interrogator will maneuver you into saying something that defeats your sincerely held belief.  Some companies will fight you to try to deny you getting a religious exemption while others may hand them out like candy.
    • For example:  Do not talk about how many people vaccines have killed or about their effectiveness.
  • Stick to your prepared statements.
    • If you are denied, the legal case will be on what you said.  Saying the wrong thing can be used against your case.
  • If you are not studied on religious exemption case law, it’s recommended you hire a law firm to write all responses for you to the employer.
  •  Do not resign.  Do not quit.  Let them fire you.  Do not stop going to work unless they tell you about being fired.
  • Try to use scripture references affirming your faith (but not required).

Other Resources

  • Children of God for Life – shows religious issues with various vaccines  (snapshot 2022-09-11 taken below for reference only).  Please visit the original website.
  • Note:  this appears to be Catholic based, which appears to have leneancy towards vaccination in extreme conditions.  Be aware that the opinions of an organized religion are not more important than the individual belief or interpretation of the individual.  e.g.  corporations may say “the Pope has said that vaccinations are okay“.  It doesn’t matter what the organized religion says if the individual believes otherwise.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not recognize or create a notion of authorized religions.  Instead it uses the notion of sincerely held belief, which does not mean that the religion tells an individual what is religiously valid.

source:  Children of God for Life

Guidance on Getting the COVID-19 Vaccine

Based on the questions you asked the most, here is a compilation of information about the four vaccines in the U.S. market. We will update as more vaccines become available.

Are any COVID-19 vaccines available that are not tested or produced using a cell line derived from an aborted child?

No, for now, all vaccines for the COVID-19 virus being distributed are produced and/or tested with cell lines that originated from an aborted child. Each person/family must make a prudential decision with an informed conscience and do what is best for you, your family, and your community.

Moderna

The Moderna vaccine is a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is found naturally in cells. It transfers the instructions from the DNA code, the sequence of nucleic acids, to make the proteins. The mRNA vaccine instructs a patient’s cells to produce proteins, in this case the spike protein found on the outer surface of the COVID-19 virus. This is the part of the virus that interacts with our immune cells. By stimulating the production of the spike protein, an antigen (antibody generator), the body builds up antibodies to it. Then if the body is infected with the whole COVID-19 virus, it is prepared to fight it. Moderna codes the vaccine as mRNA-1273.

How does an mRNA vaccine work? See Moderna’s website.

Fetal cell line: The HEK293 cell line (info here) originated from a healthy aborted child in the 1970s, age unknown.

Did Moderna use the HEK293 fetal cell line in research? Yes, they did in the research and development of the vaccine.

  • In March 2020, researchers explained in Science journal that they expressed the 2019-nCoV spike in the prefusion conformation using HEK293 cells. That means they made the spike protein so they could study it, and they used HEK293 cells as the medium to express it in.
  • In this preliminary report from July 2020, researchers explain in the supplementary appendix that ACE-2-overexpressing 293T cells were used in a neutralization assay to detect the presence of antibodies, a test to make sure the vaccine works as it should.
  • This August 2020 preclinical trial report in Nature journal also explains that researchers transfected HEK293 cells to test expression. That means they added the vaccine in each step of development to the cells to see if they produced the protein as expected. This is the in vitro (in the lab) mRNA expression test.
  • This U.S. patent for the in vivo (in the body) production of proteins explains a similar test, including testing the mRNA encapsulated in the lipid for delivery into the body. Again, they needed to see if the vaccine was stable and worked as expected.

Does Moderna use HEK293 fetal cell line in ongoing quality control testing during manufacturing? No, they answered that they do not.

Also see:

Pfizer

The Pfizer vaccine, developed in conjuction with BioNTech, is a messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is found naturally in cells. It transfers the instructions from the DNA code, the sequence of nucleic acids, to make the proteins. The mRNA vaccine instructs a patient’s cells to produce proteins, in this case the spike protein found on the outer surface of the COVID-19 virus. This is the part of the virus that interacts with our immune cells. By stimulating the production of the spike protein, an antigen (antibody generator), the body builds up antibodies to it. Then if the body is infected with the whole COVID-19 virus, it is prepared to fight it. Pfizer/BioNTech codes the vaccine as BNT162b2.

How does an mRNA vaccine work? See Pfizer’s website for more information.

Fetal cell line: The HEK293 cell line (info here) originated from a healthy aborted child in the 1970s, age unknown.

Did Pfizer/BioNTech use the HEK293 fetal cell line in research? Yes, they did in the research and development of the vaccine, similar to the way Moderna (above) did. They used the HEK293 cell line for testing the vaccine.

  • In September 2020, researchers explained that they used HEK293 in a neutralization assay to detect the presence of antibodies, a test to make sure the vaccine works as it should, and they transfected HEK293 cells to test expression. That means they added the vaccine in each step of development to the cells to see if they produced the protein as expected. This is the in vitro (in the lab) mRNA expression test.
  • This U.S. patent describes how they made RNA molecules encoding fusion proteins (like the spike protein) and tested them in development. They used a variety of cell lines, HEK293 among them, but do not specify which cell line they used for the COVID-19 vaccine. Again, they needed to see if the vaccine was stable and worked as expected.

Does Pfizer/BioNTech use HEK293 fetal cell line in ongoing quality control testing during manufacturing? We do not know.

Also see:

AstraZeneca

The AstraZeneca vaccine, developed in conjuction with Oxford University, is an adenovirus-vector-based vaccine, which encodes the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2Adenoviral vectors are genetically engineered forms of the virus. AstraZeneca codes the vaccine as ChAdOx1 nCoV-19.

Fetal cell line: The HEK293 cell line (info here) originated from a healthy aborted child in the 1970s, age unknown.

Did AstraZeneca use the HEK293 fetal cell line in research? Yes, they did in the research and development of the vaccine, as explained in this scientific report from July 2020 in Nature journal. To propogate the virus in the HEK293 cells means to grow it in them. They will need to do this in ongoing manufacturing.

Does AstraZeneca use the HEK293 fetal cell line in manufacturing? Yes, see above, the viral vaccine is propogated (grown) in the cell line.

Johnson & Johnson

The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, developed in conjunction with Janssen Research & Development, Inc., is an adenovirus-vector-based vaccine. Adenoviral vectors are genetically engineered forms of the virus. Johnson & Johnson explains the science behind their vaccine here. Johnson & Johnson codes the vaccine as Ad26.COV2.S.

Fetal cell line: AdVac® technology uses PER.C6® cell line (info here) originating from a healthy 18-week-old aborted child.

Did Johnson & Johnson use the PER.C6 fetal cell line in research and production? Yes, they did in the research and development of the vaccine, as explained in this scientific report from July 2020 in Nature journal and in this scientific report from September 2020 also in Nature journal. To propogate the virus in the PER.C6 cells means to grow it in them. They will need to do this in ongoing manufacturing.

Novavax

Novavax has submitted a request to the FDA for Emergency Use Authorization of its COVID-19 vaccine, NVAX-CoV2372. Unfortunately, a fetal cell line was used in testing. Here’s a snapshot of this vaccine candidate’s research and development history:

  • Novavax used its SF9 insect cell line process throughout the vaccine’s development.
  • Multimerization was observed when evaluating the vaccine against different forms of the spike protein.
  • Researchers designed a test in HEK-293T cells to better understand what they observed. The research team was composed of scientists at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, CA as well as employees at Novavax, Inc.
  • Novavax participated in the testing that used an aborted fetal cell line, and the company funded the testing research along with the NIH and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. See Author Contributions and Funding sections under Acknowledgements in this Science journal paper, “Structural analysis of full-length SARS-CoV-2 spike protein from an advanced vaccine candidate.”

For most of its development, the Novavax product was the ethical frontrunner. The test with HEK-293T cells with Scripps occurred towards the end of the development, immediately prior to initiating clinical trials. See our original post and comments on Novavax here.

More information from a full post on Corbevax, Covaxin, and Novavax:

Novavax finds itself in the middle of some controversy. A paper published in Science in October of 2020 clearly describes an assessment of glycosylation, comparing the spike proteins produced in Sf9 insect cell lines and those produced in aborted fetal cell lines, namely HEK-293F cells. The methods employed make reference to this National Center for Biotechnology Information publication describing the glycosylation assessment process in detail, although the specific application was not the Novavax SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. The use of aborted fetal cell lines is clear and unambiguous in this publication.

Novavax, however, has claimed that their glycosylation assessment did not make use of aborted fetal cell lines, nor in any other way in the development and/or testing of their vaccine candidate. Confusion abounds. The literature clearly describes an assessment performed by the Novavax development team and the description refers to HEK-293 cell lines. The specific methods employed are referenced in a cited publication and the use of aborted fetal cell lines is described in detail in this paper.

It gets even better. We have encountered arguments from different sources, each claiming that the paper published in Science reflected the work product of an independent third party, the Scripps Research Institute, located in La Jolla, CA, without affiliation or involvement with Novavax. This point of contention is easily put to rest. Six of the paper’s authors are employed by Novavax and Novavax was listed among the funding organizations for the research, along with the NIAID and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. So, Novavax provided funding and their cooks were in the kitchen. Done.

Here’s where we are with Novavax: What has been published seems clear, in that aborted fetal cell lines were used in assessing glycosylation of the Sf9-produced spike proteins relative to the proteins produced in HEK-293.  Novavax says otherwise.  It is incumbent on them to bring crystalline clarity to this, and until that is done, we will defer to what has been published in peer-reviewed journals.  After all, that is what the scientists wrote down.

Corbevax

Corbevax made the news in late December of 2021, following its approval for use in India. This vaccine candidate was developed by a group of researchers from Texas Children’s Hospital and Baylor College of Medicine, applying more traditional protein-based technologies and with an emphasis on simple, inexpensive manufacturing and storage. Notably, this vaccine is medicine’s equivalent of ‘open source’, enabling any manufacturer to produce the vaccine without any patent or licensing restrictions. Read the press release from Texas Children’s Hospital here.

Initial indications were that Corbevax was ethically researched, developed and tested, without connection to abortion. The research team did not DIRECTLY use aborted fetal cell lines in their development and testing processes; however, a thorough review of the literature revealed the use of two biologics that are produced in aborted fetal cell lines. Human ACE-2 protein from LakePharma (reference #46672) was used in an in vitro functional assay, described in Section 2.8, Materials and Methods, in this ScienceDirect publication. This biologic is produced in HEK-293 cell lines or in CHO (Chinese Hamster Ovary) cell lines.

In Section 2.3, Materials and Methods, the paper also describes the evaluation of three different receptor binding domains (RBDs) and their interaction with the ACE-2 receptor. A monoclonal antibody from SinoBiological was used in this evaluation. This antibody is expressed in HEK-293 cell lines.

It is now time to apply the but for test as it relates to the ethics of Corbevax. The first procedure mentioned was essential to the development of this vaccine. The purpose of a functional assay is to determine whether or not the stuff works, akin to ensuring that a line of computer code performs the desired operation. The second procedure is less clear in terms of necessity, in that several vaccines, including the two that are licensed and approved for use in the U.S., were developed without employing such a procedure, but the fact remains that the research team designed and executed the procedure as part of the vaccine’s development. One should note that the characteristics of materials used in these tests are well understood by the people using them and the importance of these characteristics are underscored by the supporting information made available by the suppliers, so ‘I didn’t know’ is not a reasonable excuse. ‘But for’ is answered definitively by these procedures described in the literature and a degree of ethical compromise is established.

See our full post on Corbevax, Covaxin, and Novavax.

Covaxin

Covaxin is ethically produced but not likely to make it to the U.S. market.

We have looked at Covaxin very closely and we have found no direct or indirect association with abortion. The World Health Organization granted emergency authorization to this vaccine on November 3, 2021. It is now available in 17 countries, including Mexico. Covaxin filed an Investigational New Drug Application for full approval (not EUA) in October of 2021 and that application is pending before the FDA. When can we expect approval? Perhaps we can deduce an answer from the following:

  • The FDA rejected Bharat BioTech’s original application for Emergency Use Authorization in June of 2021 indicating, in part, that more robust clinical trials data would be needed. The FDA suggested an application for full approval at a later date.
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci said the following during an interview on NewsNation’s ‘Morning in America’ program, when asked about Covaxin’s INDA: “We have enough vaccines, the best vaccines available, in the United States.”. . . “I’m puzzled by that question. We have more vaccines than we need right now. We just need the people to get vaccinated with the vaccines that we have. The mRNA vaccines are vaccines that are desired by everyone else in the world. So, we have what we need; we need to use it.” Dr. Fauci closed the interview with this: “We don’t need another vaccine.”
  • Bharat BioTech submitted an Investigational New Drug Application (not an application for Emergency Use) for Covaxin on October 27, 2021. A clinical hold was issued by the FDA on November 26, 2021, citing deficiencies in the data submitted in support of the application.
  • The FDA’s clinical hold was lifted on February 18, 2022. This means the review process can resume.
  • There are two approved vaccines at this time – Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax. Emergency authorization is no longer a possibility from a statutory perspective.

If we had to handicap this one, we would say that Covaxin’s application will languish for quite some time. Now that new infections are down significantly and the news cycles are noticeably shifting away from COVID-19 all day/every day, we don’t like Covaxin’s chances when considering the politics of it all. We have discussed this with other organizations, and this seems to be the prevailing conclusion. See the second bullet point above.  That may be more significant than the legal observation made in the final bullet point.

See our full post on Corbevax, Covaxin, and Novavax.

Are any COVID-19 vaccines available that are not tested or produced using a cell line derived from an aborted child?
Moderna
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
Johnson & Johnson
Novavax
Corbevax
Covaxin

Covaxin is ethically produced but not likely to make it to the U.S. market.

We have looked at Covaxin very closely and we have found no direct or indirect association with abortion. The World Health Organization granted emergency authorization to this vaccine on November 3, 2021. It is now available in 17 countries, including Mexico. Covaxin filed an Investigational New Drug Application for full approval (not EUA) in October of 2021 and that application is pending before the FDA. When can we expect approval? Perhaps we can deduce an answer from the following:

  • The FDA rejected Bharat BioTech’s original application for Emergency Use Authorization in June of 2021 indicating, in part, that more robust clinical trials data would be needed. The FDA suggested an application for full approval at a later date.
  • Dr. Anthony Fauci said the following during an interview on NewsNation’s ‘Morning in America’ program, when asked about Covaxin’s INDA: “We have enough vaccines, the best vaccines available, in the United States.”. . . “I’m puzzled by that question. We have more vaccines than we need right now. We just need the people to get vaccinated with the vaccines that we have. The mRNA vaccines are vaccines that are desired by everyone else in the world. So, we have what we need; we need to use it.” Dr. Fauci closed the interview with this: “We don’t need another vaccine.”
  • Bharat BioTech submitted an Investigational New Drug Application (not an application for Emergency Use) for Covaxin on October 27, 2021. A clinical hold was issued by the FDA on November 26, 2021, citing deficiencies in the data submitted in support of the application.
  • The FDA’s clinical hold was lifted on February 18, 2022. This means the review process can resume.
  • There are two approved vaccines at this time – Pfizer’s Comirnaty and Moderna’s Spikevax. Emergency authorization is no longer a possibility from a statutory perspective.

If we had to handicap this one, we would say that Covaxin’s application will languish for quite some time. Now that new infections are down significantly and the news cycles are noticeably shifting away from COVID-19 all day/every day, we don’t like Covaxin’s chances when considering the politics of it all. We have discussed this with other organizations, and this seems to be the prevailing conclusion. See the second bullet point above.  That may be more significant than the legal observation made in the final bullet point.

See our full post on Corbevax, Covaxin, and Novavax.

A COVID-19 vaccine that does not use aborted fetal cell lines in research or production is not expected in the foreseeable future.

Summary

For now, all vaccines for the COVID-19 virus being distributed are produced and/or tested with cell lines that originated from an aborted child. This is most unfortunate. However, this is not the fault of good people who are just trying to be safe.

The Church has said that each person/family must make a prudential decision with an informed conscience and do what is best for you, your family, and your community.

The moral duty to avoid such passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is a grave danger, such as the otherwise uncontainable spread of a serious pathological agent[3]–in this case, the pandemic spread of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes Covid-19. (CDF Note)

We are obliged, then, to avoid using vaccines that rely on aborted fetal cell lines unless we are in grave danger. The Church says we have a “moral duty” to avoid cooperation in evil, however remote, as the default condition. It is only morally permissible to get the vaccine if you need it. Either way, we are all also supposed to work to change the culture that got us backed into this corner.

We all have an obligation to effectively oppose the use of aborted children in biomedical research. That is the mission of Children of God for Life. We will update as more vaccines become available.

Aborted-Fetal-Cell-Line-Chart

2021-10-14 – Freedom Flyers / Liberty Council Teleconference on Religious Exemptions

Peggy Hall joins Owen with advice on what to do about employers requiring vaccines

 

More Detailed Peggy Hall video on Religious Exemptions

Thomas Moore Society Wins Temporary Restraining Order Against New York State

NYS was disallowing religious exemptions.  Special Counsel Christopher Ferrara explains key aspects of the religious exemption.

https://thomasmoresociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/ORDER-GRANTING-TRO.pdf

 

Law Firms by State

source:  https://fightthemandates.godaddysites.com/

Case Law

See Legal.

Law Firm Siri Glimstad

Excerpt: 

RELIGIOUS VACCINE EXEMPTIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

What constitutes a religious belief?

Short Answer:  Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) broadly defines “[t]he term ‘religion’ [as] all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that [it] is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

Long Answer:  The statutory definition of “religion” has been the source of much litigation.  The Supreme Court clarified the definition of “religion” by creating a standard for determining whether a belief is religious: “does the claimed belief occupy the same place in the life of the objector as an orthodox belief in God holds in the life of one clearly qualified for exemption?” United States v Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184, (1965). In creating this standard, the court aimed to differentiate between religious views (which are covered by the statute) and “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical” ideas (which are not). Id. at 165.

The Supreme Court later applied the same test in Welsh v United States.  In that case, the Court clarified that religion does not require belief in God or divine beings. Instead, the Court found that nontheistic beliefs could also be religious within the meaning of Title VII as long as the belief  “occup[ies] in the life of that individual ‘a place parallel to that filled by God’ in traditionally religious persons.” 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970).

Later, the Third Circuit identified three “useful indicia” to determine the existence of a religion. “First, a religion addresses fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. Second, a religion is comprehensive in nature; it consists of a belief system as opposed to an isolated teaching. Third, a religion often can be recognized by the presence of certain formal and external signs.” Africa v Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 662 F.2d 1025 (1981).

The EEOC’s Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace has also attempted to define “religion.”  The document explains religion in the context of Title VII as follows:

Title VII protects all aspects of religious observance and practice as well as belief and defines religion very broadly for purposes of determining what the law covers. For purposes of Title VII, religion includes not only traditional, organized religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, but also religious beliefs that are new, uncommon, not part of a formal church or sect, only subscribed to by a small number of people, or that seem illogical or unreasonable to others.

An employee’s belief or practice can be “religious” under Title VII even if the employee is affiliated with a religious group that does not espouse or recognize that individual’s belief or practice, or if few – or no – other people adhere to it. Title VII’s protections also extend to those who are discriminated against or need accommodation because they profess no religious beliefs. Religious beliefs include theistic beliefs (i.e. those that include a belief in God) as well as non-theistic “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views.”

Although courts generally resolve doubts about particular beliefs in favor of finding that they are religious, beliefs are not protected merely because they are strongly held. Rather, religion typically concerns “ultimate ideas” about “life, purpose, and death.” Social, political, or economic philosophies, as well as mere personal preferences, are not “religious” beliefs protected by Title VII.

What constitutes a valid religious belief?

Short Answer:  It is unlawful for an employer to question the accuracy of a sincerely held religious belief.  Hence, most any belief is valid under Title VII.  The biggest hurdle in securing a religious accommodation pursuant to Title VII is not whether the belief is correct, but whether it is sincerely held.

Long Answer:  Title VII requires employers to accommodate only those religious beliefs that are “sincerely held.” Seeger, 380 U.S. at 185.  However, the Court stated in Seeger and has continued to reiterate that no court should inquire into the validity or plausibility of the beliefs; instead, the task of a court is “to decide whether the beliefs professed [] are sincerely held and whether they are, in [the believer’s] own scheme of things, religious.” Id. at 185.  The religious belief need not be “correct” or even “plausible.” It is unlawful for the employer to questions the correctness of a sincerely held religious belief.  Furthermore, Title VII protects a sincerely held religious belief even if the employee’s spiritual advisor (such as a pastor) or the affiliated religious sect (such as Protestant) disagrees with it.  Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 887 (1990); U.S. E.E.O.C. v Consol Energy, Inc., 860 F.3d 131 (2017).

Can the employer inquire into the sincerity of the employee’s belief?

Short Answer:  Yes but in a very limited manner.  When an employer has a genuine uncertainty about the basis for the employee’s accommodation request, it is permitted to make a limited inquiry to determine if the belief or practice is religious and sincerely held and gives rise to the need for accommodation.

Long Answer:  Typically, an employer has no reason to question whether the practice at issue is religious or sincerely held.  However, when an employer has a genuine doubt about the basis for the employee’s accommodation request, it is permitted to make a limited inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the employee’s claim that the belief or practice at issue is religious and sincerely held and gives rise to the need for accommodation.

The EEOC’s Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the Workplace lists factors that might weaken an employee’s claim that he or she sincerely holds the religious belief at issue as:

  1. whether the employee has behaved in a manner markedly inconsistent with the professed belief;
  1. whether the accommodation sought is a particularly desirable benefit that is likely to be sought for secular reasons;
  1. whether the timing of the request renders it suspect (e.g., it follows an earlier request by the employee for the same benefit for secular reasons); and
  1. whether the employer otherwise has reason to believe the accommodation is not sought for religious reasons.

The issue of “sincerely held” is a totality-of-the-circumstances assessment.  Therefore, none of the above-listed factors are dispositive of the issue of sincerity.  For example, although prior inconsistent conduct is relevant, an individual’s beliefs and degree of adherence may evolve.  Thus, a requestor’s newly adopted or inconsistently followed religious practices can qualify as “sincerely held” under Title VII. EEOC v Ilona of Hungary, Inc., 108 F.3d 1569 (7th Cir. 1997). Furthermore, “an employer [] should not assume that an employee is insincere simply because some of his or her practices deviate from the commonly followed tenets of [the] religion.” Questions and Answers: Religious Discrimination in the WorkplaceSee also, Commission Guidelines, 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1.

If an employer makes a reasonable request for information regarding the need for accommodation, a requestor should respond.  An employee who refuses to cooperate with an employer’s requests for valid information may deprive the employer of the information necessary to resolve the accommodation request and potentially forfeit the requested accommodation.

What constitutes notice of a need for an accommodation?

Short Answer:  A person requiring a religious accommodation must give the employer notice of the need.  No magic language is required to put the employer on notice.  However, the requestor must inform the employee that an accommodation is needed because a conflict exists between religion and work.

Long Answer:  The requestor does not need to use specific language, mention Title VII, or use the words “religious accommodation” to request a religious accommodation. However, an applicant or employee seeking a religious accommodation must make the employer aware that (1) accommodation is needed, and (2) the employee requests accommodation due to a conflict between religion and work.

The requestor must also explain the belief or practice’s religious nature and not assume that the employer will already know or understand it. Seshadri v Kasraian, 130 F.3d 798, 800 (7th Cir. 1997); Chrysler Corp. v Mann, 561 F.2d 1282, 1285 (8th Cir. 1977); Redmond v GAF Corp., 574 F.2d 897, 902 (7th Cir. 1978).  For example, courts have ruled against employees who refused to cooperate with an employer’s requests for reasonable information when, as a result, the employer was deprived of the information necessary to resolve the accommodation request. Macon v J.C. Penney Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 695 (N.D. Ohio 2014).

On the other hand, the employer should not assume that a request is invalid because the associated religious beliefs or practices are unfamiliar.  Instead, the employer should, in limited fashion, request that the employee explain the practice’s religious nature and how it conflicts with a work requirement.

What constitutes reasonable accommodation?

Short Answer:  A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to comply with the religious belief but that does not cause undue hardship for the employer.

Long Answer:  Title VII (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1)) requires employers to adhere to certain employment standards and makes it unlawful for an employer to discharge an individual based upon that person’s religious beliefs or practices. Once an employer is on notice that a religious accommodation is needed, Title VII requires that the employer “make reasonable accommodation for the religious observances of its employees, short of incurring an undue hardship.” EEOC v Firestone Fibers & Textiles Co., 515 F.3d 307, 312 (4th Cir. 2008); 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).  Title VII requires only reasonable accommodation, not “satisfaction of an employee’s every desire.” Rodriguez v City of Chicago156 F.3d 771, 776 (7th Cir. 1998).

The accommodation requirement is “plainly intended to relieve individuals of the burden of choosing between their jobs and their religious convictions, where such relief will not unduly burden others.” Protos v Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 797 F.2d 129, 136 (3d Cir. 1986).  A reasonable religious accommodation is any adjustment to the work environment that will allow the employee to comply with the religious belief.  An employer violates the “reasonable accommodation” duty where an employee can prove (1) a bona fide religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) notice to the employer of this belief; and (3) discipline for failure to comply with the conflicting employment requirement. Firestone Fibers, 515 F.3d at 312.

However, an employer may have an “undue hardship” defense for failure to provide accommodation.  This defense requires a showing that the proposed accommodation in a particular case poses a material cost or burden.  The EEOC lists factors relevant to a finding of undue hardship as “the type of workplace, the nature of the employee’s duties, the identifiable cost of the accommodation in relation to the size and operating costs of the employer, and the number of employees who will [] need a particular accommodation.”  Costs relevant to “undue hardship” include the direct monetary costs and the burden on the employer’s business. For example, according to the EEOC, undue hardship exists where the accommodation “diminishes efficiency in other jobs, infringes on other employees’ job rights or benefits, impairs workplace safety, or causes coworkers to carry the accommodated employee’s share of potentially hazardous or burdensome work.”  Finally, the employer must also assess whether the proposed accommodation conflicts with another law.

Finally, an employer violates an employee’s religious rights if it provides more favorable accommodation to other employees for non-religious purposes. For example, in the case of Memorial Hospital, the lawsuit alleged it treated the employee’s request for religious accommodation to wear a mask rather than receive a flu vaccine differently than the same request made by employees for medical, rather than religious, reasons. EEOC v Memorial Healthcare, No. 2:18-cv-10523 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 13, 2018).  Therefore, an employer that provides a medical accommodation to a mandatory vaccination does so without undue hardship, and the employer can make similar accommodation for religious exemptions.

Must I provide support from a spiritual advisor such as a pastor or priest?

Short Answer:   No.

Long Answer:  Religious beliefs can be unique to an individual; thus, evidence from others is not always necessary. However, letters of support from a spiritual advisor may help bolster the “sincerely held” element, expedite the requested accommodation, and eliminate the employer’s justification in conducting an inquiry. Furthermore, courts have ruled against employees who refused to cooperate with an employer’s requests for reasonable information when, as a result, the employer was deprived of the information necessary to resolve the accommodation request. Macon v J.C. Penney Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 695 (N.D. Ohio 2014).

Am I entitled to compensation if I am harmed by a mandated vaccine?

Short Answer:  Maybe.

Long Answer:  A vaccine-related injury sustained from an employer-mandated vaccine may qualify for a “work-related injury” pursuant to workers’ compensation law.

Regarding EUA COVID-19 vaccines, workers’ compensation cases have not been tested in courts.  Workers’ compensation liability will evolve as COVID-19 cases are litigated and as state lawmakers define COVID-19-specific rules in the context of workers’ compensation claims.

Aside from workers’ compensation, can I get compensation for harm caused by a mandated vaccine?

Short Answer:  Maybe.

Long Answer:  The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (the “VICP”) is a federal program developed in the 1980s to compensate people with specific reactions and injuries caused by certain vaccinations. The VICP compensates for pain and suffering,  past and future lost wages, and medical expenses.  However, only about 33% of VICP claims receive compensation.  Currently, COVID-19 vaccines are not compensated through the VICP.

Workers’ compensation benefits typically pay around 2/3 of the employee’s actual lost wages.  A person receiving workers’ compensation cannot “double-dip” and receive full compensation from the VICP.  However, the person can seek the difference between the workers’ compensation benefit and the actual lost wages from the VICP.  If the person incurred costs for treatment of the vaccine injury, the VICP will reimburse the costs. The VICP will only reimburse the portion paid, or due to be paid, by the injured person. The VICP does not reimburse any amount paid by insurance companies or Medicaid.

Regarding emergency use COVID-19 vaccines, the federal Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (the “PREP Act”) may provide immunity from certain types of liability arising from the administration of vaccines to “covered persons” under the Act. In addition, this immunity may extend to certain private-sector employers as specified under the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services’ advisory guidance.  Consequently, an employer providing a COVID-19 vaccine onsite may be immune from claims of injury or loss arising from the administration of a COVID-19 vaccine, except in instances of “willful misconduct.”

The PREP Act also provides a compensation program, the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (the “CICP”), to eligible individuals who suffer serious injury from one of the protected countermeasures, which currently includes emergency use COVID-19 vaccines.

America’s Front Line Doctors

AFLDs has an extremely exhaustive database of Religious Exemption material.

Loyola University

  • Loyola denied religious exemption – students file lawsuit.
  • The students objected based on the fetal cell line/abortion connection since each of the three injections available were either produced or tested with fetal cell lines that originated in elective abortions. These students did not want to be forced to choose between their faith and their education.
  • Loyola ended up granting exemptions.  Loyola was also found to be violating federal law.
  • source:  More Victories Against Loyola’s Unlawful Shot Mandate

The Rutherford Institute

Know Your Rights: How To Request a Religious Accommodation for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates in the Workplace

For good or bad, COVID-19 has changed the way we navigate the world and the way in which “we the people” exercise our rights. Those hoping to navigate this interconnected and highly technological world of contact tracing, vaccine passports and digital passes will find themselves grappling with issues that touch on deep-seated moral, political, religious and personal questions for which there may be no clear-cut answers.

While the courts may increasingly defer to the government’s brand of Nanny State authoritarianism, we still have rights. The government may try to abridge those rights, it may refuse to recognize them, it may even attempt to nullify them, but it cannot litigate, legislate or forcefully eradicate them out of existence. Among these, we have the right to bodily integrity, a right long been recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. More relevant to the issue of forced vaccines is the recognition by courts that there is a constitutional right to bodily integrity that gives persons the right to refuse medical treatment.

Those in positions of power and authority have already sought to leverage that power to coerce members of the public to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Daily, growing numbers of public and private employers are requiring employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 and using the threat of termination to force acceptance of the vaccine.

Unfortunately, legal protections in this area are limited. While the Americans with Disabilities Act protects those who can prove they have medical conditions that make receiving a vaccination dangerous, employees must be able to prove they have a sensitivity to vaccines. The requirement established by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that employers provide religious accommodations may be invoked by employees who have sincere religious beliefs against receiving vaccinations. But an employer’s duty of accommodation is not absolute, and if it can show that accommodating the worker’s objections to vaccinations will interfere with its operations or workplace safety, the employee may face the choice between keeping her job or violating her religious beliefs.

The following “Know Your Rights” fact sheet will provide some background and guidance to those seeking to request a religious accommodation for COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace.

The Rutherford Institute, a nonprofit civil liberties organization, provides legal assistance at no charge to individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a wide spectrum of issues affecting their freedoms.

TruthForHealth.org

 In seeking a religious exemption, along with the information in the following links, the request should be based on “my personal, individual, long-standing, strongly held religious belief.”  The emphasis is on personal religious belief, not the teachings/doctrine of any particular religion – this is what have been accepted elsewhere since individual right is key under the Constitution. 

The National Catholic Bioethics Center

This resource explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics to decline certain vaccines. It is intended for Catholics who have made a sure judgment in conscience to refuse a vaccine and should be adapted to fully reflect their beliefs and reasoning. It is not a decision-making guide and does not address all legal, medical, and moral considerations. The NCBC has provided such guidance here. It is not a determination that an exemption will be granted.

To view a PDF version of this document, complete with detailed references, click here.

 

Template

[Date]

To Whom It May Concern,

I am a baptized Catholic seeking an exemption from an immunization requirement. This letter explains how the Catholic Church’s teachings may lead individual Catholics, including me, [name], to decline certain vaccines.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that a person may be required to refuse a medical intervention, including a vaccination, if his or her informed conscience comes to this sure judgment. While the Catholic Church does not prohibit the use of any vaccine, and generally encourages the use of safe and effective vaccines as a way of safeguarding personal and public health, the following authoritative Church teachings demonstrate the principled religious basis on which a Catholic may determine that he or she ought to refuse certain vaccines:

·        Vaccination is not morally obligatory in principle and so must be voluntary.

·        There is a general moral duty to refuse the use of medical products, including certain vaccines, that are produced using human cells lines derived from direct abortions. It is permissible to use such vaccines only under certain case-specific conditions, based on a judgment of conscience.

·        A person’s informed judgments about the proportionality of medical interventions are to be respected unless they contradict authoritative Catholic moral teachings.

·        A person is morally required to obey his or her sure conscience.

A Catholic may judge it wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety of reasons consistent with these teachings, and there is no authoritative Church teaching universally obliging Catholics to receive any vaccine. An individual Catholic may invoke Church teaching to refuse a vaccine developed or produced using abortion-derived cell lines. More generally, a Catholic might refuse a vaccine based on the Church’s teachings concerning therapeutic proportionality. Therapeutic proportionality is an assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention outweigh the undesirable side-effects and burdens in light of the integral good of the person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods. It can also extend to the good of others and the common good, which likewise entail spiritual and moral dimensions and are not reducible to public health. The judgment of therapeutic proportionality must be made by the person who is the potential recipient of the intervention in the concrete circumstances, not by public health authorities or by other individuals who might judge differently in their own situations.

At the core of the Church’s teaching are the first and last points listed above: vaccination is not a universal obligation and a person must obey the judgment of his or her own informed and certain conscience. In fact, the Catechism of the Catholic Church instructs that following one’s conscience is following Christ Himself:

In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law: “Conscience is a law of the mind; yet [Christians] would not grant that it is nothing more; . . . [Conscience] is a messenger of him, who, both in nature and in grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by his representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ.”

Therefore, if a Catholic comes to an informed and sure judgment in conscience that he or she should not receive a vaccine, then the Catholic Church requires that the person follow this certain judgment of conscience and refuse the vaccine. The Catechism is clear: “Man has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. ‘He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.’”

Sincerely in Christ,

[Name]

Thomas More Society vaccine legal help materials

original source:  https://thomasmoresociety.org/vaccine-legal-help/

Applying for a Medical and/or Religious Accommodation (Exemption)

Please be advised that, given the extraordinary number of requests for assistance the Thomas More Society is receiving, Thomas More Society’s attorneys are not providing individual consultations in connection with initial accommodation (exemption) requests, and are unable to assist in drafting or reviewing individual accommodation requests from vaccine mandates. However, here is some information you might find helpful in connection with requesting a accommodation relating to a Covid-19 vaccine mandate.

Vaccine Mandates and Requests for Medical and Religious Accommodations (Exemptions)

Is your employer or school requiring Covid-19 vaccination in order to continue employment or enroll in classes? Do you oppose getting a Covid-19 vaccination because of a sincerely held religious belief (as distinguished from a philosophical or political stance)? Do you have any medical conditions making the vaccine risky for you? If so, this information might be helpful. You do have rights, you just need to assert them.

You should be aware that employers are not required to offer medical or religious accommodations to their employees under circumstances in which the accommodation imposes an undue hardship upon the employer.

MEDICAL ACCOMMODATIONS: The Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act protect employees and students with disabilities from discrimination. A “disability” is a medical condition that substantially limits a major life activity, such as sleeping, eating, walking, reading, attending college or engaging in everyday activities. Examples of disabilities that have qualified as a disability under the ADA and Rehab Act include, among many others, immune conditions, migraines, anxiety, cancer, ear infections, alcoholism.

If you have a medical condition constituting a disability, employers and most universities (those that receive federal funding) must make reasonable accommodations or adjustments to allow you to participate.

Ask yourself, do I have a medical condition that may be exacerbated by the vaccine? Employers and schools will need to consider notes from physicians and nurse practitioners in order to ascertain the need for a medical accommodation. The process is legally required to be interactive between the employee or student and the management or administration.

A typical medical accommodation letter from a physician may look like this:  [Employee/student] has been diagnosed with [medical condition], which can be exacerbated by the vaccination, and therefore I do not recommend that [employee/student] take the vaccine.

Please note that the Thomas More Society’s mission does not include legal help for individuals who have requested, but been denied, medical accommodations from  Covid-19 vaccine mandates.  The information above is provided solely as a courtesy and because some individuals who may have grounds for requesting religious accommodations from vaccine mandates may also have grounds for requesting medical accommodations.

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS:  Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits religious discrimination in most employment situations (with some exceptions, such as for ministerial employees). Thus, religious beliefs must be accommodated by most employers if doing so does not impose an undue burden upon the employer. You should request a religious accommodations even if you do not believe it will be granted.

In private universities, the law is not as clear, but some non-discrimination policies may protect students against discrimination based on religious beliefs. Students in public universities are protected by the First Amendment’s free exercise clause of religion.

What is religion? The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the “EEOC”) (the agency that enforces Title VII of the Civil Rights Act) has issued guidance for employers regarding what constitutes “religion” in the context of employment, which can be found here.

“[T]he Commission will define religious practices to include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views. This standard was developed in United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163 (1965) and Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333 (1970). The Commission has consistently applied this standard in its decisions.  The fact that no religious group espouses such beliefs or the fact that the religious group to which the individual professes to belong may not accept such belief will not determine whether the belief is a religious belief of the employee or prospective employee. The phrase “religious practice” as used in these Guidelines includes both religious observances and practices, as stated in section 701(j), 42 U.S.C. 2000e(j).” 29 CFR 1605.1

When you write your religious accommodation letter, write it in the first person. You should articulate in the greatest detail as possible, the basis of your religious objections to the vaccination (not your objection to the mandate – remember the focus is on the shot itself). Religious accommodation letters can be broad and need not mention specific references to the Bible or tenets of the faith, but they can if you would prefer to be explicit.  However, ultimately you must provide sufficient information to show you have a sincerely held religious belief that forecloses your ability to receive the Covid-19 vaccinations available. Some examples of requests for religious accommodations can be found here: SAMPLE 1SAMPLE 2SAMPLE 3.

These samples are provided as a guide and should not be simply copied. Before
using any language included in any of the samples, you should CAREFULLY review that language and confirm it accurately reflects your beliefs, objections, and willingness to undergo vaccination once a vaccine, which is not subject to your religious objections becomes available, or revise that language to accurately reflect your religious objections and position regarding vaccination.

You should be aware that employers are not required to offer medical or religious accommodations to their employees under circumstances in which the accommodation imposes an undue hardship upon the employer, or when the employee presents a “direct threat.” To  date,the EEOC has stated that a person with COVID-19 or with similar symptoms is a direct threat, but the EEOC has been silent on whether a non-vaccinated employee is a direct threat.

FORMS REQUESTING ACCOMMODATIONS (EXEMPTIONS): Employees and students should consult employer or school policy regarding how to submit their requests for accommodations, but should keep in mind that the law, rather than any limitations set forth in an employer or school policy, will govern whether the employer or school is required to allow an accommodations. So submit your request regardless of whether the policy states that you will not get one, or are unlikely to get one.

If your employer or university provides an online form that requires checking boxes approving agreements regarding such things as agreeing that if your request for a medical or religious accommodation is denied you agree you will be deemed to voluntarily resign, or other similarly objectionable conditions, you may want to simply write a letter and submit the request to an appropriate person in order to avoid agreeing to terms that you find objectionable.

For additional information, you may wish to review the EEOC guidance available at the following link – we believe it  provides valuable information.

DENIAL OF ACCOMMODATION: If your employer denies your accommodation request or discriminates against you for not getting a religiously objectionable vaccine, and you are terminated or expelled or placed on a leave of absence that affects your income, employees will need to file a charge of discrimination with the EEOC and with your state human rights commission or department. There are deadlines that differ in each state. The deadline for the federal EEOC charge is 300 days from the adverse employment action. Instructions are available online at www.eeoc.gov and your state agency’s website.

For students, if your public university denies your religious or medical accommodation request, or if your private university denies your medical accommodation request, you will need to file a complaint with the Office of Civil Rights and with any state or local agency that investigates such complaints. Information regarding how to file a claim with OCR can be found here: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/howto.pdf. We suggest that you seek legal counsel for assistance with any charge of discrimination.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST THE UNVACCINATED: If your employer or university discriminates against you because you are unvaccinated for medical reasons, and if you have shared your medical reason for not getting the shot with your employer or university, then you can file a claim of disability discrimination with either EEOC, OCR or a state agency as discussed above. If your employer or public university discriminates against you because you are unvaccinated for religious reasons, you can also file a claim with those agencies. There are deadlines to file so make sure to check those. Examples of discrimination include requiring the previously Covid-19 infected person to be tested or wear masks or stay apart from others while simultaneously not requiring the same from the vaccinated who have never had Covid-19. We suggest that you seek private legal counsel for assistance with any charge of discrimination.

The EEOC’s introduction states: “Religion is very broadly defined for purposes of Title VII. The presence of a deity or deities is not necessary for a religion to receive protection under Title VII. Religious beliefs can include unique beliefs held by a few or even one individual; however, mere personal preferences are not religious beliefs. Individuals who do not practice any religion are also protected from discrimination on the basis of religion or lack thereof. Title VII requires employers to accommodate religious beliefs, practices and observances if the beliefs are “sincerely held” and the reasonable accommodation poses no undue hardship on the employer.”

For New York State Healthcare Workers

New York healthcare workers are encouraged to apply or reapply for a religious accommodation with their employer at this time. Because of a lawsuit the Thomas More Society filed on September 13, 2021, the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York has issued a temporary restraining order on the New York government’s statewide  vaccine mandate law for healthcare workers. At this time the Thomas More Society is working to notify healthcare industry employers about this statewide injunction. There is a hearing scheduled on September 28 regarding this case.

If your request for a religious accommodation from your employer’s or university’s Covid-19 vaccine mandate has been denied and you want to request assistance from the Thomas More Society, please complete the Legal Help Form available below. Make sure to indicate in your Legal Help Form when your request was denied. Please do not submit a Legal Help form unless your request for a religious accommodation was previously denied; the Thomas More Society will not respond to requests for assurances of assistance in the event requests for religious accommodations are denied in the future. It will only evaluate requests for assistance in connection with previously denied requests for religious accommodations based on the availability of resources at the time of the denial.

Please note that you must provide all of the information requested on the form so that we may appropriately initially assess your request for assistance.  You should be aware that Thomas More Society seeks to respond as quickly as possible to requests for assistance but it is currently receiving hundreds of such requests.

Liberty Council

original source:  https://lc.org/exempt

Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics related to COVID shot exemptions, vaccine passports, and religious freedom. To stay informed and get involved – visit http://www.LC.org

Liberty Council website excerpt

LEGAL HELP FOR RELIGIOUS EXEMPTIONS FROM VACCINATIONS

In these uncertain times, it is essential for you to be certain of your rights. Follow the steps below to protect your health, family, and freedom:

 



NOTE: 

If your employer or school provides a form or asks questions that are designed to make you affirm something with which you disagree, you can respond with the below statement before your signature if in print, or, if verbal:

 

“I understand the above is your position. I am signing this document without waiver of my legal right to seek religious exemption and accommodation from any requirement that conflicts with my sincerely held religious beliefs, and without waiver of the right to seek legal redress from any wrongful denial of such exemption or accommodation.”


 

Vaccine Exemption Guide – Mat Staver

Constitutional expert, lawyer, author, pastor, and founder of Liberty Counsel Mat Staver discusses the important topics related to COVID shot exemptions, vaccine passports, and religious freedom.


 

DENIED REQUEST

NURSING STUDENT
Email a copy of your religious exemption and denial:
– SUBJECT: DENIED NURSING STUDENT (YOUR STATE)
– FILE ATTACHMENTS: YOUR_NAME-document short description.extension
– EMAIL TO: Liberty@LC.org — include your Name, Address and Phone Number

STUDENT
Email a copy of your religious exemption and denial:
– SUBJECT: DENIED STUDENT  (YOUR STATE)
– FILE ATTACHMENTS: YOUR_NAME-document short description.extension
– EMAIL TO: Liberty@LC.org — include your Name, Address and Phone Number

EMPLOYMENT
Email a copy of your religious exemption and denial:
– SUBJECT: DENIED EMPLOYMENT  (YOUR STATE)
– FILE ATTACHMENTS: YOUR_NAME-document short description.extension
– EMAIL TO: Liberty@LC.org — include your Name, Address and Phone Number
– File EEOC Complaint – see details below

FILE EEOC Complaint

If your request for religious exemption at your WORK has been DENIED, or APPROVED WITH UNPAID LEAVE, you will need to file a Complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Go the EEOC website at https://EEOC.gov and scroll to the bottom of the page where you will find additional links and information about submitting a complaint. The Complaint form will need to include a description of your religious accommodation request regarding your sincerely held religious beliefs to not take these COVID shots along with the employer’s response and the termination date. Please note that you generally have 180 DAYS to file a complaint against a private employer.

  1. Federal Employees:  Please note that Federal employees have different requirements and shorter deadlines (see https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/overview-federal-sector-eeo-complaint-process (“Generally, you must contact the EEO Counselor within 45 DAYS from the day the discrimination occurred.”).
  2. State and Local Agencies:  States also have agencies that receive complaints, and you may be able to dual file to have both federal and state rights considered, which we strongly recommend. See https://www.eeoc.gov/filing-charge-discrimination (scroll to heading “With a State or Local Agency).

If filing with a state or local agency, please make sure that your complaint has been dually filed with the EEOC.  If it has not, you may need to file with both agencies.  Please note that filing with one agency may not extend the deadline for filing with another agency.

NOTE: Filing the EEOC Complaint is required before you can file suit alleging a violation of federal law. This administrative process is the next step you should complete. The EEOC may (1) choose to attempt resolution of your Complaint with your employer, (2) file suit against your employer, or (3) issue you a “right to sue” letter that clears the way for you to file suit. If you receive a “right to sue” letter, you can contact us to review the matter or seek private counsel. Until we review the facts of each case, we are not able to determine ahead of time whether we would be able to represent you.

File a Civil Rights Complaint with the Department of Justice.

Questioning the orthodoxy of sincerely held religious beliefs or requiring a clergy, place of worship, or a third party to agree with or affirm such religious beliefs is unlawful

source:  https://lc.org/Site%20Images/Resources/ReligiousBeliefs.pdf

  • Fetal cell lines
  • EUA vs approved Comernaty
ReligiousBeliefs

Fetal Tissue Used In Vaccine Development

Examples of Religious Exemption Forms from Various Employers

Note:  There is no official form that is required by law.  Each company is free to make up their own form and ask whatever questions they want.

Use of Fetal Tissue

FDA Admission of Fetal Tissue

Project Veritas – Pfizer Whistleblower Leaks Execs Emails ‘We Want to Avoid Having Info on Fetal Cells Out There’

Religious Exemption Denials

See Religious Exemption Denials

B6 Religious Exemption and Medical Exemption forms

Anonymous contributions:

Your Questions and Answers

Please submit a question and you’ll get an answer from someone who has seen the religious exemption process and has researched things (this is not legal advice).

     

    Yes, you definitely should fill it out. It’s the easiest option to not getting vaccinated. Can you copy/paste and send me the questions?   Just fill out the form again with your email address.

    Do not, under any circumstance, copy/paste anything from online religious exemption examples. They are screening for those and lawyers will not defend you if you cut/paste from a sample (because you have no legal case).

    Legal stuff may not make sense until you dissect it. They can ask it but it’s not legally actionable until you fill it out and get denied. Then when you appeal to the EOCC that you got denied, you point out that case law shows that you got denied over a question that is overreach.

    Religious Exemption Articles


    Share to the world...