NorthShore Jab Mandate Case

NorthShore Jab Mandate Case

NorthShore Jab Mandate Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating Experimental Injections as a Condition for Employment

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: October 2021
  • Location: Chicago, Illinois, USA
  • Court: Federal Northern District Court of Illinois
  • Case #: 1:21-cv-05683
  • Plaintiffs: 500+ health care workers
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: Liberty Counsel
  • Defendant: NorthShore University HealthSystem
  • Trial Type: Class Action
  • Judge: John F. Kness
  • Status: Decided (Jul 29, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff


*updated Jan 08,2023

 

Background

The case centers around workers at NorthShore University HealthSystem, who filed a lawsuit in October 2021 claiming their employer illegally refused to grant any religious exemptions to a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. [2]

The Suit was initiated by 14 employees, including nurses, a pharmacy tech and a senior application analyst. They were named anonymously in the litigation. [6]

These healthcare employees said they were victims of religious discrimination, and  were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells. [4]

In October 2021, Liberty Counsel sent a demand letter to NorthShore on behalf of numerous health care workers who had sincere religious objections to NorthShore’s “Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.” If NorthShore had agreed then to follow the law and grant religious exemptions, the matter would have been quickly resolved and it would have cost it nothing. But, when NorthShore refused to follow the law, and instead denied all religious exemption and accommodation requests for employees working in its facilities, Liberty Counsel filed a class action lawsuit, along with a motion for a temporary restraining order and injunction. [3]

Northshore has estimated that it denied Religious exemption to 523 employees between July 1 2021- July 1 2022. 204 of the workers succumbed to the pressure and were jabbed. The other 269 were fired or resigned. [6]

The Plaintiff’s Lawyer Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver explained on “Fox & Friends”  that NorthShore implemented a “jab or job” policy, meaning employees were required to get the vaccine or be terminated. [1]

“All of them were denied religious accommodations,” Staver told host Will Cain. “It was literally no religious accommodation, which they’re required to do under the federal employment law called Title VII.” [1]

 
Liberty Council

Liberty Counsel advances religious liberty, the sanctity of human life, and the family through litigation and education. (from their website) [3]

Staver said his group is not just limiting the battle over mandates to the Illinois health care workers, telling the Washington Examiner that Liberty Counsel is working for private sector employees in industries such as airlines and other health care systems. [3]

“We have been working with thousands of employees across the country,” he said. “Many of them face the same jab-or-job mandate that is that issue in NorthShore.” [3]

 

Significance

This is the first US classwide lawsuit for healthcare workers over a COVID shot mandate.

Liberty Counsel Vice President of Legal Affairs Horatio Mihet said in a statement that the settlement should “serve as a strong warning to employers across the nation that they cannot refuse to accommodate those with sincere religious objections to forced vaccination mandates.” [2]

“Let this case be a warning to employers that violated Title VII,” Mat Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, the group behind the lawsuit, told the Washington Examiner. “It is especially significant and gratifying that this first classwide COVID settlement protects healthcare workers.” [3]

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Staver explained that Title VII applies to both private and public employers and requires that sincere religious beliefs be accommodated. [1]

Title VII Explained . . .

This federal law, which applies to all 50 states and every American territory, requires employers to make reasonable accommodations for both legitimately-held religious beliefs and medical exemptions.

Straight out of 42 U.S. Code § 2000e-2, what you need to know is there in black and white:

“It shall be unlawful employment practice for an employer — (1) to fail or refuse to hire or 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.” (emphasis added)

Religious exemptions should, and must be accommodated, under the law.

Additionally, Title VII’s protections extend to nonreligious beliefs if related to morality, and ultimate ideas about life, purpose and death.

 

Defendant’s Argument

…More information is needed…

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…

 

Decision

NorthShore will be required to pay $10.3 million to employees who were denied religious exemptions. [1]

Anyone fired because of their refusal to get the jab will also be eligible for reemployment in the system. [2]

U.S. District Judge John Kness, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, approved the settlement and appeared to side with Liberty Council’s claim that the mandate violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. [2]

The settlement must be approved by the federal District Court. Employees of NorthShore who were denied religious exemptions will receive notice of the settlement, and will have an opportunity to comment, object, request to opt out, or submit a claim form for payment out of the settlement fund, all in accordance with deadlines that will be set by the court. [3]

 
Compensation Agreement

NorthShore employees who were terminated or forced to resign will receive $25,000 and those who were forced to get the vaccine will receive $3,000 as part of the settlement. [1]

The settlement approved in the Illinois Northern District Court will result in 473 employees of the system becoming eligible for compensation for being denied a religious exemption to the vaccine mandate, with any of those fired as a result of the rules being eligible for $25,000. [2]

The 13 healthcare workers who are lead plaintiffs in the lawsuit will receive an additional approximate payment of $20,000 each for their important role in bringing this lawsuit and representing the class of NorthShore healthcare workers. [4] …while those who complied with the mandate to keep their jobs despite having religious objections will be eligible for $3,000. [2]

NorthShore will pay $10,337,500 to compensate these health care employees who were victims of religious discrimination, and who were punished for their religious beliefs against taking an injection associated with aborted fetal cells. [3]

 
Other Agreements

As part of the settlement agreement, NorthShore will also change its unlawful “no religious accommodations” policy to make it consistent with the law, and to provide religious accommodations in every position across its numerous facilities. No position in any NorthShore facility will be considered off limits to unvaccinated employees with approved religious exemptions. [3]

In addition, employees who were terminated because of their religious refusal of the COVID shots will be eligible for rehire if they apply within 90 days of final settlement approval by the court, and they will retain their previous seniority level. [3]

 

Aftermath

Plaintiff Reaction

Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver said

“But as we went more into discovery, it was pretty clear they didn’t have a basis and they would lose big time,” [1]

 in addition to financial payouts, NorthShore will also have to change its policy. [1]

“There will no longer be a no religious accommodation policy. Every position will be accommodated,” he said. “All the people can come back with no loss of seniority or job status.” [1]

Staver said he believes the case will have a broad impact. [1]

“It’s a big wakeup call to employers across the country that did not do these accommodations as they’re required under Title VII,” he said. [1]

“And I think it’s an encouragement for the employees that were abused and lost their jobs or threatened to lose their jobs, and some of them retirement, that they can pursue justice.” [1]

Liberty Counsel Vice President of Legal Affairs and Chief Litigation Counsel Horatio G. Mihet said,

“We are very pleased with the historic, $10 million settlement achieved in our class action lawsuit against NorthShore University HealthSystem. The drastic policy change and substantial monetary relief required by the settlement will bring a strong measure of justice to NorthShore’s employees who were callously forced to choose between their conscience and their jobs. [3]

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
On Corona Cases

 

Media


MO AG Full briefing: Judge’s ruling halts federal vaccine mandate for health care workers in 10 states

source: KSDK News


Victory for Medical Choice in Illinois

source: TrialSite News


NorthShore University Health agrees to pay $10.3 million in C19 Jab lawsuit

source: CBS Chicago


Vaccine Injury Claims Skyrocket & Government Won’t Resolve for Decades -Jan 6 2023

source: TrialSite News


Heavily Vaxxed Japan’s Covid Surge Turns Deadly

source: TrialSite News


Science Summit Uncensored: Dutch Excess Mortality Data -Aug 15, 2022

source: Odysee/ shortXXvids


Back to All Cases

 

PDF-NIA Amicus Brief

PDF-NIA Amicus Brief

The Liberty Clause Case: Amicus Brief

Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates to supersede the Constitutional Rights of an Individuals Personal Autonomy under the Liberty Clause

 

Back to All Cases

Nations in Action Amicus Curiae Brieffiled Sept 19, 2022


Click the “View Fullscreen” button below to get full functionality in fullscreen.

NIA Amicus Brief

NIA Motion for Amicus


Back to All Cases

The Liberty Clause Case

The Liberty Clause Case

The Liberty Clause Case

Re: The Legality of Vaccine Mandates to supersede the Constitutional Rights of an Individuals Personal Autonomy under the Liberty Clause

 

Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Sept 19, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: New Jersey, USA
  • Court: US Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit
  • Case #: 22-2230
  • Plaintiff: Katie Sczesny, Jamie Rumfield, Debra Hagen & Mariette Vitti
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: State of New Jersey, Governor Philip Murphy
  • Trial Type: Appeal
  • Judge: TBD
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: TBD


*updated Dec 6, 2022

 

Background

Nations in Action has brought this case to court via an unopposed motion [1] using the legal vehicle of a so-called Amicus Curiae Brief.  This is a written submission to a court in which an Amicus Curiae (literally a “friend of the court:” a person or organization who/which is not party to the proceedings) can set out legal arguments and recommendations in a given case.

The nonprofit organization ’Nations in Action’[2], founded by Maria Zack is dedicated to upholding the US Constitution and all laws to protect and advance democracy and justice for all Americans and has brought this case to court from their interest to ensure a proper protection of the Liberty Clause of the US Constitution to protect personal autonomy — in this case as it relates to the legality of vaccine mandates.

Nations in Action supports the Plaintiffs-Petitioners and seeks a reversal of the District Court’s ruling that applied rational basis review to medical (vaccine) mandates. Nations in Action has no financial interest in the outcome of the case. 

Amicus Curiae attorney Deana Pollard Sacks authored the entire Amicus Brief which can be

read here. (link to document)

It was submitted to the court 19th Sept 2022 and the New Jersey Attorney General has just (as of Nov 17) filed their responsive brief to the appeal.  

 

Significance

Potential to change the standard of judicial review w.r.t. challenges to vaccine mandates and shift burden of proof re safety/efficacy of Covid-19 “vaccines” to the government resulting in mandates being struck down.

 

Plaintiff’s Argument

Nation in Action’s attorney, Deana Pollard Sacks seeks to present the oral argument to the Third Circuit based on the following [1&2]:

 

  • … that the right to reject all forms of unwanted bodily contact is a fundamental right implicit in liberty aspect of the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, also known as the Liberty Clause.
  • The history and tradition of both English and American common law as well as American constitutional law make clear that the longstanding policy protecting the “inviolability” of a person’s body manifests a centuries-old natural right held by all persons not to be touched physically without valid and voluntary consent. 
  • This fundamental right of bodily autonomy … is a quintessential fundamental right implicit in the Liberty Clause based on American constitutional norms and historical English and American common law theory and precedent. The Amicus Brief provides the Third Circuit with historical tort and constitutional precedent to establish that the right to reject COVID-19 injections is fundamental.
  • The fact that the government in this case conditioned the benefit of employment on the relinquishment of a constitutional right does not alter the Liberty Clause analysis. Pursuant to the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, the extraordinary level of coercion involved in the COVID-19 injection mandates render them presumptively unconstitutional and subject to the same judicial scrutiny as laws of general applicability. In addition, the irregularities, misinformation, and lack of democratic and legislative due process at the promulgation stage of the COVID -19 injection mandates in conjunction with the many constitutional infringements that attend the mandates (medical autonomy, religious freedom, and/or childrearing autonomy in some cases, inter alia) render careful judicial review at the challenge stage absolutely critical to maintain some semblance of individual rights assured by the Constitution.
  • The District Court’s deference to a medical mandate involving injections under the skin is dangerous considering the complete lack of due process at the promulgation stage of the mandates. At some point the government’s invasive medical dictates must be subject to checks and balances and this duty falls on the judiciary under these circumstances. Strict judicial scrutiny concerning the efficacy, safety, and necessity of the COVID-19 injection mandates is essential to avoid medical oppression, and so far the judicial branch has failed to provide this critical check by erroneously applying rational basis review and deferring to executive branches’ highly irregular and non-democratic medical mandates.

 

Defendant’s Argument

Jacobsen v. Massachusetts sets the judicial review standard as the national basis (this point is opposed in detail in the Amicus Brief). [as per lawyer D Sachs]

 

Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

On first hearing, the court denied the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction leading to this appeal (more information needed). [as per lawyer D Sachs]

 

Decision

TBD

 

Aftermath

…More information is needed…

 


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:
  • …More information is needed…

 

Media


NIA’s Legal Effort to End Forced Vaccines -July 31 2022

source: Rumble/ Nations In ACTION


Pilot Josh Yoder of US Freedom Flyers discusses Covid Mandates

source: Rumble/ USFREEDOMFLYERS


Vaccine Damage—Real People: Adam -Dec 1 2022

source: Rumble/ UK Column

 

References

  1. NIA_Motion_for_Amicus
  2. nationsinaction.org

 

Keyword

Amicus Curiae, Amicus Curiae Brief, Bodily Autonomy, Consent, Constitution, Deana Pollard Sacks, Informed Consent, Jacobsen v. Massachusetts, Liberty Clause, Mandate, Medical Autonomy, Nations in Action, New Jersey, US Court of Appeals, USA, Zack 


Back to All Cases