EEOC sues UnitedHealthcare for firing workers who wanted religious exemptions to vaccine mandates

[HARK!]

The Biden administration has filed federal lawsuits against two employers that denied religious accommodation to workers seeking an exemption from COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

EEOC sues UnitedHealthcare for firing workers who wanted religious exemptions to vaccine mandates

The Biden administration has filed federal lawsuits against two employers that denied religious accommodation to workers seeking an exemption from COVID-19 vaccine requirements.

www.washingtontimes.com

Well finally something that I can applaud comes out of the Biden Administration.

Credit where credit is due.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It sounds like in this case, it wasn't so much that it was a religious exemption, but that was a procedural grey area.

If it were simply a matter of people who claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine being told "yeah, but no, either get it or lose your job", then there'd probably be a few hundred thousand lawsuits in progress.

UnitedHealthcare explicitly said that “the policy did not apply to full-time telecommuters,” according to the EEOC, but Ms. Stone was notified she had to be vaccinated.

A UnitedHealthcare spokesman told The Washington Times in an email that the company plans to “vigorously defend ourselves.”

“The EEOC’s contention that the employee in question was a remote worker with no in-person job responsibilities is inaccurate.


At the end of the day, and this is gonna sound harsh, most of the supposed "religious objections" that I heard from people were bogus or wildly inconsistent with the rest of their behaviors/attitudes. They were just people who didn't want to get the vaccine, and found a religious angle to justify their position in order to circumnavigate the requirement.

The most common one being "well, the vaccine research used fetal cell lines from abortions, that's my objection".

The issue with that? The same is true for this list of drugs:

acetaminophen,
albuterol,
aspirin,
ibuprofen,
Tylenol,
Pepto Bismol,
Tums,
Lipitor,
Senokot,
Ivermectin,
Motrin,
Maalox,
Ex-Lax,
Benadryl,
Sudafed,
Preparation H,
Claritin,
Prilosec,
Zoloft,
Z-pak


Meaning, if you've taken any of these with no objections, you can't claim "I object to taking a drug developed with fetal cell lines for religious reasons"

I have more respect for a person who simply says "No, I don't want to take this, it's my body" than a person who concocts some sob story about fetal cell lines when I know for a fact that 99.9% of the population has taken at least one of these aforementioned drugs with nary an objection.


Heck, Z-pak (made from research that used fetal cell lines) was a favorite among people who didn't want to take the vaccine. As was Ivermectin. Did this lady have a religious objection to Ivermectin? My gut says no.

 

[HARK!]

It sounds like in this case, it wasn't so much that it was a religious exemption, but that was a procedural grey area.

If it were simply a matter of people who claimed religious exemptions to the vaccine being told "yeah, but no, either get it or lose your job", then there'd probably be a few hundred thousand lawsuits in progress.

UnitedHealthcare explicitly said that “the policy did not apply to full-time telecommuters,” according to the EEOC, but Ms. Stone was notified she had to be vaccinated.

A UnitedHealthcare spokesman told The Washington Times in an email that the company plans to “vigorously defend ourselves.”

“The EEOC’s contention that the employee in question was a remote worker with no in-person job responsibilities is inaccurate.


At the end of the day, and this is gonna sound harsh, most of the supposed "religious objections" that I heard from people were bogus or wildly inconsistent with the rest of their behaviors/attitudes. They were just people who didn't want to get the vaccine, and found a religious angle to justify their position in order to circumnavigate the requirement.

The most common one being "well, the vaccine research used fetal cell lines from abortions, that's my objection".

The issue with that? The same is true for this list of drugs:

acetaminophen,
albuterol,
aspirin,
ibuprofen,
Tylenol,
Pepto Bismol,
Tums,
Lipitor,
Senokot,
Ivermectin,
Motrin,
Maalox,
Ex-Lax,
Benadryl,
Sudafed,
Preparation H,
Claritin,
Prilosec,
Zoloft,
Z-pak


Meaning, if you've taken any of these with no objections, you can't claim "I object to taking a drug developed with fetal cell lines for religious reasons"

I have more respect for a person who simply says "No, I don't want to take this, it's my body" than a person who concocts some sob story about fetal cell lines when I know for a fact that 99.9% of the population has taken at least one of these aforementioned drugs with nary an objection.


Heck, Z-pak (made from research that used fetal cell lines) was a favorite among people who didn't want to take the vaccine. As was Ivermectin. Did this lady have a religious objection to Ivermectin? My gut says no.

You have failed to demonstrate that this was Amanda Stone's reason for objecting.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

You have failed to demonstrate that this was Amanda Stone's reason for objecting.

EEOC sues United Healthcare for firing woman who refused COVID-19 vaccine

DUBLIN, Ohio (WCMH) – The federal employment discrimination watchdog is suing United Healthcare out of its Dublin office for firing an employee who would not receive the COVID-19 vaccine due to her…

www.nbc4i.com

In October 2021, United Healthcare implemented a COVID-19 vaccination requirement but exempted fully remote employees. Despite the exemption, the complaint claims, Stone was ordered to receive a vaccine.

According to the EEOC’s complaint, Stone is a Christian whose religious beliefs preclude her from receiving vaccines developed or tested using “cell lines derived from aborted fetuses.” She submitted two religious exemption requests, which were both denied. After placing her on a month of administrative leave, United Healthcare fired Stone in January 2021 for her vaccine refusal.



...hopefully that clears up that little matter.


So, back to my original question, do you think Amanda Stone has ever taken Tylenol, Pepto, Benadryl, Claritin, or Motrin?

 

[FireDragon76]

There shouldn't be any religious exemption to vaccines. The concept is nonsensical. There are no large religious groups in the US opposed to vaccination.

It is often not understood by the wider public, but Christian Scientists, a religious group that has been stereotyped as seeking religious exemptions to medical interventions, aren't actually opposed to vaccinations..

 

[ThatRobGuy]

There shouldn't be any religious exemption to vaccines. The concept is nonsensical. There are no large religious groups in the US opposed to vaccination.

I'm not opposed to actual religious exemptions, per say.

But the key is whether or not that person had been staunchly adhering to that before, or if this was some "new found convenient conviction" that seemingly came out of the blue because there was something they didn't want to do.


For instance, if there was a person ff Jewish descent who had strictly been following Kosher laws for a decade, and didn't want to intake something that had pork products in it, I'd be sympathetic to that. However, if it's a person who I've eaten bacon cheeseburgers with for the last 5 years, then all of the sudden "oh, I can't do that, I'm Jewish"...yeah, that's not gonna fly.


Which is why I provided the laundry list of other drugs that used the same research methodology on fetal cell lines (which don't actually rely on any new abortions to use...they've been culturing the same set of cell lines since the 70's...meaning taking or not taking something has zero impact...not taking the drug isn't magically going to time travel back to the 70's and prevent an abortion).

If a person takes Tylenol when they have a headache, takes a Tums when they have heartburn, and takes Claritin when the pollen levels are high, they don't get to all of the sudden pretend to have a sincere belief against fetal cell lines being used in the R&D process.