Dear Human Resources,
This letter serves as my formal request for a religious exemption from being required to take the COVID-19 vaccination.
According to publicly available data, all the COVID vaccines that are currently available in the United States underwent a confirmation process using fetal cell lines . To be specific, the vaccines were confirmed by protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293 . Partaking in a vaccine that utilized aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such COVID vaccine at this time.
In addition, any coerced medical treatment deeply offends my conscience and moral values. I religiously believe in the right to control one’s own medical treatment, free of coercion or force. My belief in this matter falls under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) definition of a religious belief . As fellow state governments recognize, “Religion includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief. Religious beliefs are not only those beliefs held by traditional, organized religions, but also include moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right or wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional religious views” .
Please provide me a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.
Equally, compelling any employee to take any current COVID-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect .
I have three key concerns:
First, voluntary informed consent is the guiding light of all medicine, in accord with the Nuremberg Code of 1947 . The principles established by this code for medical practice have been extended into the general codes of medical ethics. This is also reiterated in the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3), which the current COVID-19 vaccines fall under . The code explicitly states potential recipients must be given the option to refuse administration, as well as being fully informed of the potential risks involved.
Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes, and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees’ medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their perceived medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest .
Third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment, education or public accommodations upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possibly suffice to mitigate such a supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.
As one federal court just recently held, the availability of reasonable accommodations like accounting for prior infection, antibody testing, temperature checks, remote work, other forms of testing, and the like suffice to meet any institution’s needs. For instance, the symptomatic can be self-isolated; hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: viral transmission by the asymptomatic employee in the employment setting. Yet even NIAID Director Dr. Fauci admits, and scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is “very low”  . Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic  . Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer’s decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine.
As to the first point, the right to refuse forced injections, such as the COVID-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of voluntary informed consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must “be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision”  for any medical experimental drug, as the COVID-19 vaccine currently is .
As to the second point, demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)). Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from making invasive inquiries about their employees’ medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines . As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only request medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business .
An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee’s medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Just look at all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages, and fines.
As to the third point, conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. As of this writing, there have been 1,088,560 adverse events related to the COVID-19 vaccines reported to the CDC’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System . To put that number in perspective, there have only been 870,175 adverse reaction reports for ALL vaccines, excluding the COVID-19 vaccines, throughout the several decades long existence of the VAERS database.
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long ago made clear “no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others” .
References D. Prentice, “Update: COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates and Abortion-Derived Cell Lines,” Charlotte Lozier Institute, 2 Jun 2021. [Online]. Available: https://lozierinstitute.org/update-covid-19-vaccine-candidates-and-abortion-derived-cell-lines/. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Office of Legal Counsel, “Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination,” 15 Jan 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  State of Tennessee, “Religious Accommodation Guidelines,” [Online]. Available: https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/hr/documents/Religion_Accommodation_Guidelines.pdf. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  M. Musumeci and J. Kates, “Key Questions About COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates,” Kaiser Family Foundation, 7 Apr 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  CIRP, “The Nuremberg Code (1947),” 9 Jun 2002. [Online]. Available: http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  Defending The Republic, Inc., “as Amicus Curiae, National Federation of Independent Business, et al., v. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al.,” 4 Nov 2021. [Online]. Available: https://cdn.locals.com/documents/47656/47656_dp144ohsmkxxocc.pdf. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Titles I and V of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA),” 26 Jul 1990. [Online]. Available: https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/titles-i-and-v-americans-disabilities-act-1990-ada. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  M. Sones, “Anthony Fauci: Asymptomatic transmission never drives outbreaks,” Israel National News, 9 Sep 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/286920. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  S. Cao and et al., “Post-lockdown SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid screening in nearly ten million residents of Wuhan, China,” Nature Communications volume 11, Article number: 591, 20 Nov 2020. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  A. Singanayagam and et al., “Community transmission and viral load kinetics of the SARS-CoV-2 delta (B.1.617.2) variant in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the UK: a prospective, longitudinal, cohort study,” The Lancet Volume 22, Issue 2, P183-195, 1 Feb 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  J. Del Águila-Mejía and et al., “Secondary Attack Rates, Transmission, Incubation and Serial Interval Periods of first SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant cases in a northern region of Spain.,” Research Square, 20 Jan 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1279005/v1. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Disability Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act,” 7 Jul 2000. [Online]. Available: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical. [Accessed 9 Feb 2022].  U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS),” [Online]. Available: https://wonder.cdc.gov/vaers.html. [Accessed 8 Feb 2022].  Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250 1891.