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



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]



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…



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]



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



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


LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD School Vaccine Case

LAUSD Vaccine Case

Re: the Legality of Mandating the Covid “Vaccine” to Children & Segregating those who Refuse


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: Oct 8, 2021 (filed)
  • Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
  • Court: Superior Court of California- Civil Division
  • Case #: 21STCP03381
  • Plaintiff: Father & Son
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer:
  • Defendant: LAUSD Schools
  • Trial Type: Civil
  • Judge: Mitchell L. Beckloff
  • Status: Decided (July 5, 2022)
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff

*updated July 11, 2022



A parent of a 12-year-old student at the Science Academy STEM Magnet school filed court papers challenging the Los Angeles Unified School District’s mandate that all students aged 12 and older be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemption. [1]

The plaintiff is identified only as G.F. in the lawsuit brought on behalf of the parent and the student, who is identified only as D.F. [1]

The district’s mandate requires all eligible students aged 12 and older to be vaccinated against the coronavirus by Jan. 10 to enter campus unless they have a medical or other exemptions. [2]


The Science Academy STEM Magnet school, located in North Hollywood, is a seven-year, college-preparatory public school that incorporates science, technology, engineering and mathematics. G.F.’s court papers state that D.F. studied hard to pass the entrance exam to be admitted to the school and does not want to have to leave because he and his parent choose to not have him receive the COVID-19 vaccine. [1]

“Losing his spot at the school would devastate D.F. and potentially foreclose future educational opportunities,” G.F’s court papers state. [1]

G.F. presented a notice to the LAUSD on Sept. 24 demanding that the vaccine mandate be rescinded, but the district did not respond, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

The following statement comes from September 9, 2021, from the Interim Superintendent of the LAUSD Megan K. Reilly: [5]

All students who are 12 years of age and older and are part of in-person extracurricular programs, must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than October 3, and their second dose by no later than October 31, 2021. All students who are 12 years of age and older must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than November 21, 2021, and their second dose by no later than December 19, 2021. All other students must receive their first vaccine dose by no later than 30 days after their 12th birthday, and their second dose by no later than 8 weeks after their 12th birthday.”

A spokesperson for the LAUSD released the following statement to City News Service: [5]

“In April of this year (2022), the Los Angeles Unified School District aligned with the state’s timeline for implementation of the governor’s student vaccine mandate wherein any vaccine requirement would not take effect until after full FDA approval and no sooner than July 1, 2023. Accordingly, the district’s alignment with the governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction. Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees, and school community.”



This case follows the San Diego ruling which ended the vaccine in that city’s schools. A similar decision could see more such rulings.


Plaintiff’s Argument

G.F. maintained the state and not the LAUSD is authorized to issue vaccination mandates and that the district’s requirement that unvaccinated pupils 12 years old and over attend independent learning classes outside campus violates the state Education Code. [3]

Coronavirus cases in the LAUSD have declined since teachers and children returned to in-person instruction in August, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control has found that children with the coronavirus have mild symptoms or none at all and that they rarely spread the virus, according to the court papers. [1]

Healthy children who have a natural immunity to COVID-19 and have not received the vaccine should not be discriminated against by the LAUSD, G.F.’s court papers state. In addition, keeping healthy children out of the classroom is contrary to state law and the students affected will not be able to make up for lost in-person learning, according to G.F.’s court papers. [1]

D.F., who has received all other required childhood immunizations, will suffer irreparable harm if not allowed to continue with his in-person learning and his two extra-curricular activities, G.F.’s court papers state. [1]

In a sworn declaration, G.F. says he believes the vaccine could irreparably harm his son, who has already contracted and recovered from the coronavirus and may have strong natural immunity. [3]

“Further, I worry that vaccinating him could prove even more dangerous now that he has had COVID-19,” G.F. says. “Among other things, I fear that the vaccination could overexcite his immune system and antibodies.” [3]

Having weighed those risks against what he believes to be a “statistically minuscule risk” that his son will contract the coronavirus again, G.F. says he “vehemently objects to LAUSD’s attempt to force his (son’s) vaccination.” [3]


Defendant’s Argument

In their court papers, LAUSD lawyers maintain that the court relief sought by G.F. and his son “fails on every conceivable level” and should have been denied. [3]

The relief sought by G.F. “asks this court to ignore the life-threatening risks presented by COVID-19 and the corresponding threat it poses to public education,”  the LAUSD attorneys argued in their court papers. [3]



Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

The group Let Them Breathe filed a lawsuit against the district in October 2021 in an attempt to enjoin the state from enforcing the mandate for students ages 12 and older, asserting that the requirement violates the law. [7]

San Diego Superior Court Judge John Meyer ruled in favor of the anti-mask group, determining that the vaccine requirement was in breach of state law. School staff, however, will still have to abide by the mandate. [7]

Meyer ruled that the state legislature, not the school districts themselves, has the power to enforce a vaccine mandate for school attendance. [7]

“The statutory scheme leaves no room for each of the over 1,000 individual school districts to impose a patchwork of additional vaccine mandates, including those like the [San Diego Unified vaccine] Roadmap that lack a personal belief exemption and therefore are even stricter than what the [state health department] could itself impose upon learned consideration,” Meyer wrote in a ruling, according to The San Diego Union-Tribune. [7]

Meyer said that though the California legislature has granted the state public health department authority to mandate the COVID-19 vaccine for schools, with the requirement that allowances be made for personal belief exemptions, the body did not give school districts the same power. [7]

See here for more “Let Them Breathe” Legal Actions



During a hearing in April (?) Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff said he was initially inclined to find in favor of the LAUSD [3]



Finding that the Board of Education’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff ruled in favor of the father of a 12-year-old student who challenged the Los Angeles Unified School District’s student COVID vaccine mandate, finding that the resolution approving the directive clashes with state law. [3]

The judge noted in his ruling that if D.F. remains unvaccinated, he will be forced to leave the academy and be subjected to a different curriculum. Beckloff further said that while the Board of Education’s authority is “great,” it is not unlimited. He found that the student vaccine resolution approved Sept. 9 conflicts with state law and clashes with the state Health and Safety Code by not allowing exemptions for personal beliefs. [3]

“While LAUSD argues the court’s ruling should apply to D.F. only, the court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [3]

In his decision, Beckloff wrote that, with the exception of 10 vaccines that the state Legislature previously required of children to attend school in person, any new childhood immunization mandate must include a personal belief exemption clause. He noted that LAUSD’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate does not allow for that exemption. [6]

“That LAUSD’s resolution does not exempt the COVID-19 vaccine for personal beliefs is in direct conflict with (state) Health and Safety Code,” Beckloff wrote. [6]

He went on to say the Legislature “intended to preclude local legislation on a matter of state concern.” [6]

The district had also sought to have the court’s ruling apply only to D.F., instead of all students, but the judge disagreed. [6]

“The court finds no justification for such a limitation given the board’s lack of authority to adopt the resolution,” Beckloff wrote. [6]



Reaction from the Plaintiffs:

Arie Spangler, attorney for the plaintiff, said in a statement that the ruling “confirms that individual school districts do not have the authority to impose vaccination requirements in excess of statewide requirements.” [6]

“We are very pleased with the ruling, as it ensures that Los Angeles Unified School District cannot force children out of the classroom due to their Covid-19 vaccination status,” she stated. [6]

Reaction from the LAUSD:

The district, in its own statement, noted that the district bumped its timeline for implementing any student vaccination mandate to align with the state’s mandate and that any such requirement won’t take effect before full approval of a vaccine by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and no sooner than July 1, 2023. [6]

“Accordingly, the District’s alignment with the Governor’s student vaccine mandate has allowed Los Angeles Unified students to enroll and attend in-person instruction,” the district said. “Los Angeles Unified will continue to take measures to ensure the health and safety of its students, employees and school community.” [6]

Reaction from Supporters:

Following the Judge’s ruling in favor of the child’s father, parents Tweeted about the results of the hearing.  Suzanne Bird @Skylar1 reminded parents, that they could, “now file for damages from illegal vaccine mandates.” [5]

The news was celebrated online by the activist group “Let Them Breathe”: 

Ruling against LAUSD vax mandate follows Let Them Breathe win against SDUSD vax mandate. We expect to prevail against Granada Hills & New West Charter schools. Schools like Willows & Mirman should immediately end mandates. Kids have a right education & we will uphold that right! [3]

Reopen California added

“HUGE NEWS: A judge ruled this morning that LASchools’ student Covid vaccine mandate was illegal, blocking LAUSD from sending kids to independent study for not getting the Covid vaccine,” Reopen California tweeted. [3]

“Even though LAUSD delayed their mandate to align with the state timeline, they still intended on excluding kids from in-person instruction if they did not get the Covid vaccine,” [3]

Los Angeles Daily News: [6]

A judge has struck down the Los Angeles Unified School District’s COVID-19 student vaccination mandate, finding that only the state can force students in California to get the vaccine to attend school in person. [6]

In a decision issued Tuesday, July 5, L.A. Superior Court Judge Mitchell Beckloff dealt a blow to the nation’s second-largest school district when he determined that the LAUSD school board’s authority is “great, but not unlimited,” and sided with the father of a 12-year-old student who last fall sued the district over its student vaccination mandate. [6]

While the decision marks a major win for opponents of vaccine mandates, it has no immediate bearing on families in LAUSD. The school board had already voted in May to delay its vaccine mandate for students – which requires students 12 and older to get the COVID-19 shot – for at least one school year to align with the state’s timeline for implementing its own mandate. [6]

The district’s vaccination mandate for employees remains in effect. [6]

Nevertheless, the judge’s ruling this week was received as an encouraging sign to those who have been pushing back on COVID-19-related school mandates. [6]

Beckloff’s ruling also comes after LAUSD recently ended its weekly COVID-19 testing program of all students and staff on campus. At this point, only students or staff on campus will be required to test based on need, such as if they’re experiencing symptoms or are exposed to an infected person. [6]


Further Research

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



Judge rules against San Diego Unified in vaccine mandate lawsuit -Dec 20221

source: CBS 8 San Diego

OSHA Vaccine Mandate Supreme Court Ruling -Jan 2022

source: the John Birch Society

Parents vs LAUSD vaccine mandate have their day in court (Dec 2021)

source: FOX 11 Los Angeles

Back to All Cases


Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Pilot Mandate Case

Re: the Legality for KLM (Dutch Royal Airlines) to mandate Corona injections against the will & consent of its employees


Back to All Cases

Facts of the Case

  • Dates: April 26, 2022 (filed)
  • Location: Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  • Court: Amsterdam Civil Court
  • Case #: 9827224 KK EXPL 22-246
  • Plaintiff: VNV (Dutch Pilot’s Union)
  • Plaintiff’s Lawyer: A. Stege
  • Defendant: KLM Airlines
  • Defendant’s Lawyers: J.M. van Slooten & T.O. Boot
  • Trial Type: Expedited
  • Judge:
  • Status: Ongoing
  • Verdict: for the Plaintiff (June 2, 2022)

*updated June 5, 2022



The core of the dispute is whether KLM is allowed to ask new pilots whether they have been vaccinated against corona and, if their answer is negative or non-existent, to exclude the new pilot from the recruitment procedure. [1]

On 10 March 2022, a candidate pilot sent an e-mail to VNV (the Pilot Union) with the title ‘vaccination requirement for future KLM pilots’. In this email, the candidate pilot informed VNV that KLM is asking about the vaccination status of the candidates, and that the candidate pilot feels forced to get the vaccinations to secure himself a job, which he is very upset about and causes him mental complaints. [1]

Subsequent correspondence between the parties shows, among other things, that KLM takes the position that the agreements made between VNV and KLM only apply to KLM employees and not to prospective employees, and that KLM (even before corona) set as an assumption requirement that an applicant for the position of pilot must be employable at all destinations of the KLM network. Furthermore, KLM did not comply with VNV’s request to confirm that it would refrain from inquiring into the corona vaccination status of candidate pilots. [1]

VNV is a trade union that promotes the interests of pilots employed by KLM. It also promotes the interests of members who are candidates for employment with, for instance, KLM. [1]

KLM currently employs more than 3,000 pilots. These can be divided into the categories of captain, first officer and second officer. There are also differences within these positions, namely which pilot may fly which type of aircraft (e.g. Boeing 737 or Airbus A330). Retraining to another aircraft type generally takes 3 months. [1]


During the corona pandemic KLM did not take on new pilots for some time. Now there are about 50 vacancies again and KLM has started to approach future pilots again. The Flight Crew Recruitment Coordinator with focus on Flight Operations, Ms. [name 9] , is responsible for the recruitment of cockpit personnel together with the Pilot Recruitment Manager. She stated the following about the “let’s connect” interviews with these potential pilots: [1]

These conversations were intended, after the influx of new pilots had stopped for a long time, to reconnect with the waiting list candidates and inform them of the fact that KLM expects the influx of new pilots again. Matters such as notice period, validity of licences/medical examinations, availability, what a candidate had done during the Corona period etc. were discussed. It was also discussed that one should be able to fly the entire network of KLM. In most of the interviews, the candidates immediately indicated themselves that they were fully vaccinated. In one interview, the question was actually asked whether a candidate was fully vaccinated. No candidate indicated that they were not fully vaccinated or unwilling to do so. There were no candidates who did not want to answer the question asked. [1]

In the event that a candidate had indicated that he or she was not fully vaccinated or prepared to be vaccinated, or did not want to answer the question whether the candidate had been fully vaccinated, this would have been a reason not to offer the candidate concerned an appointment as a pilot with KLM because the candidate would not be able to fly to every destination. This is in accordance with KLM’s always applicable policy. In such a case, we do not record anything about this and the candidate is simply removed from the waiting list. However, this has not been an issue. [1]

Nothing is recorded and/or registered regarding the vaccination status of candidates. [1]


During the corona pandemic the number of pilots with a travel restriction has so far increased by 30% to 800. A travel restriction means that a pilot is not allowed to fly to a destination or, for example, not at night. The (medical) travel restrictions are administered through the company doctor, KLM Health Services (KHS). [1]

Pilots who cannot fly to a destination where corona restrictions apply because they have not been vaccinated or do not (wish to) undergo testing may apply for such a travel restriction through KHS. KLM then only sees during the planning that there is a restriction and not whether the pilot has been vaccinated or not. [1]

KLM does not require its current pilots to have a corona vaccination. [1]

KLM Vademecum Vliegend Personeel (Guide to Flight Personnel) policy on vaccinations:

Crew are vaccinated against yellow fever, typhoid fever, diphtheria, tetanus & poliomyelitis (DTP) and hepatitis A at KLM Health Services free of charge. It is not allowed to fly within 24 hours after a vaccination. For cockpit crew there is the possibility to get the vaccinations on the day of the medical examination. There are countries that make certain vaccinations mandatory. Crew must carry the vaccination booklet with them every flight. [1]

A protocol to the collective bargaining agreement contains agreements on coronary restrictions:

f. KLM and the VNV will closely monitor developments regarding corona, corona testing and the corona vaccine. Both testing and vaccination will be on a voluntary basis only. If this is to the detriment of the total deployability of the KLM flying corps and/or the ability to carry out the KLM network, KLM and the VNV will consult each other. [1]

Message from the Global Aviation Advocacy Coalition

This is an international alliance of thousands of pilots, including the Dutch Aviation Collective supported by 17,000 doctors and medical scientists. [2]

The coalition warns that the side effects of corona vaccinations lead to dangerous situations. The Dutch Aviation Collective with 1400 members has also joined the action. Chairman and experienced pilot Mark Juch: [2]

“A number of colleagues have reported to us with vaccine damage, such as heart problems. When something like that happens in flight, it’s very dangerous. It’s just a matter of time before it goes wrong”. [2]

Coalition participants regularly receive reports of pilots suffering vaccine damage, including heart problems, blood clots, and neurological and hearing disorders, they say in their statement. Pilots working for KLM have also reported vaccine damage. According to the cry for help, affected pilots are not supported or taken seriously. They often lose their medical certification, which means they can no longer fly. The unions do not stand up for these pilots enough or simply do not know, as many incidents are deliberately kept quiet. [2]

Our Flight Safety Manual states that you may not use medical drugs or undergo medical procedures whose effects on your functioning during your work are uncertain,” says pilot Mark Juch. [2]

“That certainly applies to the corona vaccines, which have a temporary approval and are actually still in the experimental phase. The motto in aviation has always been: safety above all else. We have very strict medical examinations. If there is something wrong with you, you are grounded. But now all of a sudden that doesn’t apply anymore?” [2]



This case  challenged the notion whether or not a company may force a novel medical procedure onto its employees or risk termination.


Plaintiff’s Argument

VNV claimed by way of a judgment, as far as possible provisionally enforceable:

  • prohibit KLM with immediate effect from inquiring in any way into and/or using information from candidate pilots about their anti-corona vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they have indicated that they are not vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this prohibition; [1]
  • To order KLM to unconditionally reinstate the applications of those candidates they have rejected because they have not confirmed to be vaccinated against corona within 2 days after service of this judgment and to inform them within that term, and to disregard the vaccination status completely in the further application process; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay a penalty of €100,000 for each violation of this order; [1]
  • To order KLM to pay the costs of the proceedings. [1]


Defendant’s Argument

  • KLM argues that it is entitled to ask whether pilots can be deployed to all destinations. … if it does not do so, its business operations will be in serious trouble. KLM cannot afford to hire candidates who have limited employability due to the lack of corona vaccination. [1]
  • Furthermore, asking about deployability is not a violation of the fundamental rights of candidate pilots since there is no question of any kind of vaccination compulsion. As an employer, KLM is entitled to impose employability requirements in its hiring policy in order to assess whether a candidate is suitable. The candidate is free to decide whether to agree to those requirements. A candidate pilot can simply take up employment with another airline, even if the candidate has undergone training at the KFA. KLM respects that pilots who were already employed before Covid are questioning this new vaccine but that should not apply to new pilots. [1]
  • Moreover, according to KLM there is no unequal treatment of candidate pilots and pilots. All candidate pilots are treated equally and candidate pilots are not equal to pilots that are already employed by KLM. [1]


Relevant Prior Judgements/ Cases

…More information is needed…



In a summons dated 26 April 2022, VNV demanded a provision. This summons was not issued because KLM indicated that it would appear voluntarily, which it did. [1]

The oral hearing took place on 19 May 2022. Appearing for VNV were [name 1] , [name 2] , [name 3] and [name 4] , accompanied by the authorized representative. For KLM, [name 5] , [name 6] , [name 7] and [name 8] , also accompanied by the agents, appeared. KLM and VNV brought (further) documents into the proceedings beforehand. At the hearing the parties explained their positions and answered questions from the Subdistrict Court. [1]

After further debate, judgment was requested and a date for judgment was set. [1]



The Subdistrict Court:

Prohibits KLM with immediate effect from inquiring into and/or using information of candidates for vacancies for the position of airline pilot about their COVID-19 vaccination status and/or from rejecting candidates because they indicate that they have not been vaccinated and/or do not wish to take the vaccination, on pain of a penalty payment of €100,000 per violation; [1]

The Court’s Reasoning:

KLM argued that it only asks whether the pilots are fully deployable, of which, according to KLM, a vaccination against corona is a part. Quite apart from the fact that KLM asks directly about vaccination status, by asking about full deployability KLM is in fact also asking about vaccination status. By terminating the job application with immediate effect if the answer to the question of whether the candidate pilot has been vaccinated or wishes to be vaccinated is not forthcoming or is negative, KLM may be putting candidate pilots under pressure to (still) vaccinate. After all, without vaccination there is no job at KLM, for which the candidate pilots have all been trained. [1]

  • It is ruled that asking for and demanding a corona vaccination constitutes an unjustified infringement of the fundamental rights of the candidate pilots, in particular it violates the privacy of Article 8 of the ECHR. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • By requiring vaccination against corona, KLM infringes the privacy (Article 8 ECHR) of the candidate pilots. After all, the decision whether or not to be vaccinated is something that belongs pre-eminently to this private sphere. Requiring candidate pilots to have been vaccinated and to answer the question about vaccination status in the affirmative therefore constitutes a breach of this privacy. KLM thus leaves candidate pilots who wish to take up employment with KLM no choice in the matter. [1]
  • Such a breach may be justified under certain circumstances. … “In answering the question of whether such an infringement is justified, it must be examined whether the infringing act serves a legitimate purpose and whether it is an appropriate means of achieving that purpose (the necessity criterion); furthermore, it must be examined whether the infringement of the employee’s privacy is proportionate to the employer’s interest in achieving the intended purpose (the proportionality criterion), and whether the employer could reasonably achieve that purpose in a less intrusive manner (the subsidiarity criterion).” (ECLI:NL:HR:2007:BA5802, [party] ) [1]
  • In brief, the purpose that KLM wishes to achieve by requiring candidate pilots to undergo a corona vaccination is that KLM, with due observance of the CAO agreements and taking into account the travel restrictions of the pilots already in service, can continue to manage the planning of the pilots. For the time being, the Subdistrict Court is of the opinion that this could be regarded as a legitimate objective. That objective could possibly also be achieved with the measure applied by KLM, namely by requiring the future pilots to be vaccinated. However, this measure does not prevent the prospective pilots from being subject to a travel restriction at some point after entering service. This may be for an entirely different (medical) reason or because the corona measures change, but also a pilot’s view of corona vaccinations may change after they enter service and the pilot may still forgo new necessary vaccinations against corona. Even if the remedy is suitable to achieve KLM’s intended purpose, which has in no way become plausible in this dispute, in the preliminary opinion it has not become sufficiently plausible that the remedy is proportionate, nor has it become plausible that the subsidiarity requirement has been met. To this end, the following is considered. [1]
  • It is evident that the interests of the candidate pilots in the present case are substantial, since they involve a violation of their personal privacy. KLM’s interest in arranging its schedule in accordance with the collective labour agreement and in organising its business operations in the best possible way is also present, but does not carry as much weight as these rights of the candidate pilots. This is all the more true since VNV has argued that there are alternatives to which the candidate pilots and many of the pilots already employed by KLM are willing to participate, such as (PCR) tests, which would also achieve the objective of effective planning. VNV also adequately explained during the hearing that the way in which KLM has currently defined the travel restrictions for existing pilots can also be improved considerably in consultation with VNV, which would make it possible to solve the identified planning problem. In view of the foregoing KLM has insufficiently substantiated that, if it takes on a few candidate pilots who have not been vaccinated, it will encounter such problems in a staff of over 3,000 pilots that it will no longer be able to complete the planning. In addition, as already considered above, the vaccination requirement does not mean that candidate pilots will not still be subject to a travel restriction because of corona in the future, both because the pilots may change their minds after they enter service or there may be reasons not to take possible future vaccinations after all, and because future measures are uncertain. [1]

  • The foregoing leads to the conclusion that for the time being it has become insufficiently plausible for the Court to rule on the merits that the measure taken by KLM is proportionate and that the purpose intended by KLM cannot be achieved in another manner. KLM therefore unjustly infringed upon the rights of the candidate pilots. This means that VNV’s claim to – in brief – prohibit KLM from asking candidate pilots about their vaccination status is allowable, as well as the penalty payment claimed in that respect. [1]

  • In view of the foregoing, VNV’s other claims regarding the AVG and the WMK need not be discussed. [1]

  • The claim to order KLM to still approach the rejected candidates will be dismissed. KLM has argued that it did not reject any candidate because he did not have or did not want to take the corona vaccinations, which VNV has not disputed (stating reasons). Accordingly, VNV has no interest in this part of its claims. [1]

  • KLM should be ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings as the party largely found against. [1]



…More information is needed…


Further Research

Court Documents:
In the news:



Pilot cardiac arrest in cockpit, vaccine cited

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Court Hearing on KLM Court Jab Mandate Case -May 25, 2022 (Dutch)

source: Odysee/Potkaars Podcast

Pilot reports on Heart Attack on Plane after Jab -Apr 19, 2022

source: Pilot Bob Snow

USMC pilot forced out over Covid Jab, says they’re “guinea pigs” -May 26 2022

source: Odysee/AlsionMorrow

Pilot Vaccine Victim -Nov 2 2021

source: shortXXvids

PIlot Suing Over Vaccine Mandates -Jan 14 2022

source: Real America’s Voice

US Freedom Flyers – Pilots Fight Vaccine Mandates

source: Odysee/CitizenDave

Qantas Pilot on Jab Mandate –Sept 2021

source: Humanity’s Vault

Airline Employees Fight Back Against Mandates -Oct 2021

source: TomWoodsTV



  1. The Court Ruling
  2. Pilots’ emergency cry: vaccinations make flying unsafe (in Dutch)



Discrimination, Employment, KLM, Mandate, Netherlands, Pilot, Recruitment, Side Effects, Union, Vaccine, VNV 

Back to All Cases