Sign into an existing account

That's incorrect. Exemptions for religious and medical reasons were offered and granted to hundreds of employees. There were also deferments where the employee promised to get the jab at a later date due to a specific condition or issue.

This was done to basically cover the ADA style rules of making "reasonable accommodations."

The issue was that the lawsuit was a publicity stunt, was written like a press release replete with (((Holocaust))) comparisons, and other ridiculously inflated statements, rather than case law and legal arguments.

Look, I think it's bullshit. Companies should not base employment on joining experimental medical tests. But this is at-will employment. What I want people to do is to critically think, find the truth, and not go all cock-eyed because some (((faggot))) writes some queer, shit-tier article with little to no facts in order to enflame people. I want people to stop being sheep led around by others and think for themselves. I know, it's a lost cause, but I will continue to fight it.

Except that isn't what he "ruled"

The judge did not rule that the hospital can force staff to take a Covid-19 vaccine, the judge ruled that the lawsuit that was filed was not a valid legal argument and "read like a press release."

The title is 100% wrong.

Everything I said is exactly true.

These employees were not "fired", they were suspended. They refused to voluntarily join the ridiculous medical experiment AND they refused to file for one of the exemption programs offered, and they hired a flimflam POS lawyer who was in it for publicity, not for his client's actual case.

Since the suspension, over 20% of the lawsuit filers have undergone the medical experiment of their own volition for the money.

problem reaction solution