Tag: mandatory vaccination

Federal Court Rules For Woman Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

Kaiser Permanente wrongly fired an employee who declined to receive a COVID-19 vaccine because she gave proper notice to the company of her religious objection to COVID-19 vaccination, a federal appeals court has ruled.

Mimi Weiss, who worked for Kaiser Permanente’s The Permanente Medical Group for 20 years before being fired, “plausibly alleged that she provided notice of her religious conflict with the mandate in her initial request for a religious exemption,” Circuit Judge Danielle Forrest wrote on July 24 for a unanimous panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Weiss was working fully remotely, or off-site, in August 2021 as a senior managerial consultant when Kaiser Permanente imposed a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Weiss, a Christian Jew, within weeks filed for a religious exemption, and Kaiser Permanente initially approved the request.

In September 2021, though, Kaiser Permanente said employees had submitted religious accommodation requests with identical language. Expressing concern that some of the requests were not legitimate, the company asked employees to file fresh requests using their own words. Officials then asked Weiss new questions, including, “What else besides the COVID-19 vaccine do you refuse to put in your body as a result of your religious belief?”

Weiss said she would not provide private information. Kaiser Permanente placed her on unpaid leave. Then it fired her for not complying with the mandate, prompting a lawsuit by Weiss.

A federal judge in 2024 ruled against her, concluding that Weiss had not provided Kaiser Permanente with sufficient notice of the conflict between receiving a vaccine and her beliefs.

The Ninth Circuit ruling overturns that decision, pointing to a previous opinion in which the appeals court said that to provide notice, an employee must only give “enough information about [her] religious needs to permit the employer to understand the existence of a conflict,” and that requiring any more details “would permit an employer to delve into the religious practices of an employee in order to determine whether religion mandates the employee’s adherence.”

Applying that framework to the current case means that Weiss did give adequate notice, the panel said, because she identified herself as a Christian Jew, listed specific doctrines that she said barred her from receiving a COVID-19 vaccine, and outlined her belief that she should not “introduce foreign substances” into her “body temple” that would “change how [her] Creator designed it.”

In a split 2-1 decision, the panel also said that Weiss has shown sufficient evidence to bring forth allegations that Kaiser Permanente violated her right to privacy.

Kaiser Permanente did not return a request for comment by publication time.

“I never imagined my faith would end up costing me my job,” Weiss said in a statement.

“I wasn’t asking Kaiser for special treatment, just the freedom to live according to my conscience. After 20 years of service, I didn’t think that was too much to ask.

“I’m grateful the court recognized that religious employees should not have to give up their beliefs or their privacy to keep their jobs.”

Keep reading

Sen. Mike Lee Files Bill to Defund Schools that Ban Religious Vaccine Exemptions: ‘We Don’t Worship Fauci’

A bill that would block federal tax dollars from schools that refuse to allow religious exemptions for vaccinations has been introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), who argued that educational institutions “need to learn we don’t all worship Fauci.”

The proposed legislation, dubbed the Guaranteeing Religious Accommodation in Childhood Education (GRACE) Act, is cosponsored by Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) and was introduced in the House by Rep. Greg Steube (R-FL). It is endorsed by over fifty organizations, including Children’s Health Defense, Moms for Liberty, and the Autism Action Network. 

Not only would the bill defund schools that do not allow religious vaccine exemptions, but it would also prevent institutions from requiring documentation from students or parents in order to justify receiving such an exemption. 

The Democrat-led states of California and New York both removed their religious freedom exemptions in recent years, impacting thousands of families who are now blocked from attending the schools their tax dollars pay for. 

“Schools are discriminating against religious kids and targeting their families over vaccine exemptions,” Lee said in a statement to Breitbart News. “Keeping a kindergartner out of class over a vaccine is cruel – and it’s unconstitutional when the reason is their family’s religion.”

“The GRACE Act will keep federal tax dollars out of schools that refuse religious exemptions for vaccines, and will outlaw targeting families to prove their beliefs,” the senator added. “These schools need to learn we don’t all worship Fauci.”

Dr. Anthony Fauci, the controversial former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director, infamously argued that the government must “use lockdowns to get people vaccinated.”

Tuberville told Breitbart News in a statement, “This is a free country and parents have every right to make personal decisions about what vaccines they choose to give their children.”

“Last time I checked, parents are in charge of a child’s healthcare decisions, not the federal government,” the lawmaker continued. “Taxpayer funded K-12 schools have no right to turn students away at the door because of their vaccination status — especially if they have a religious exemption. The GRACE Act is an incredibly important bill that protects religious liberty and puts parents back in charge.”

Steube concurred, and added that “Freedom of speech and religion is the most sacred right guaranteed under our Constitution.”

Lee has shown his support for medical freedom on multiple previous occasions, including when he fought against the Biden administration’s COVID mandates, and more recently cosponsoring the End the Vaccine Carveout Act with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) to remove special liability protections that shield Big Pharma from civil claims when customers are harmed by their products. 

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Against Amish Families in Religious Exemption Case — Will Supreme Court Have the Last Word?

A federal court last week ruled against a group of Amish parents who sought religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements for their children — a ruling that legal experts suggest may lead to a U.S. Supreme Court showdown that could determine the future of religious exemptions nationwide.

In its ruling in Miller v. McDonald, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said New York State’s law eliminating religious exemptions from school vaccination requirements is “neutral and generally applicable,” doesn’t discriminate against specific religious practices and furthers the state’s interest in protecting the public from disease.

The plaintiffs, a group of parents and representatives of Amish schools in New York, sued New York’s Department of Health and Department of Education in 2023, alleging the state’s law barring religious exemptions violates the U.S. Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause under the First and 14th Amendments.

The parents face $118,000 in fines for noncompliance with the state’s vaccination requirements.

Last week’s decision was the second time the 2nd Circuit ruled against the plaintiffs. The same court previously dismissed the suit in 2024, upholding a decision by another federal court earlier that year.

In December 2025, the Supreme Court sent the case back to the 2nd Circuit, asking it to review constitutional questions arising out of a separate ruling, Mahmoud v. Taylor, in 2024. In that case, the Supreme Court found that parents have the right to request an exemption for their children from LGBTQ curriculum on religious grounds.

According to The Washington Post, last week’s ruling in Miller v. McDonald may “set the stage for a potential Supreme Court battle over vaccine mandates,” citing legal experts who suggested the court is likely to accept the case for review on constitutional grounds and in light of the Mahmoud v. Taylor decision.

Lawrence Gostin, a Georgetown University professor of health law and an outspoken vaccine proponent, told the Post he expects the Supreme Court to “reverse the appellate court’s decision” if it chooses to review the case.

A review could result in a ruling that would “allow religious vaccine exemptions nationwide,” the Post reported.

The Post reported last month that the Supreme Court has signaled that it “may be open to a constitutional claim based on the lack of a religious exemption for vaccine mandates in New York.”

A Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Amish plaintiffs would be “the anti-vaccine movement’s biggest win,” the Post wrote.

Keep reading

The Last Nurse Standing

There are court cases that arrive dressed as employment disputes but carry the weight of an era. Adams et al. v. Mass General Brigham is one of them.

On paper, it is a federal discrimination case in Boston involving three remaining plaintiffs, Tyler Adams, Michelle Orfanos, and Jamie Steverman, against Mass General Brigham, the most powerful hospital system in Massachusetts. In reality, it is a post-pandemic reckoning over institutional power, religious liberty, scientific certainty, workplace coercion, and who gets to write the official history of the mandate years.

Mass General Brigham is not some minor regional employer. It is the largest private employer in Massachusetts, a Harvard-affiliated medical empire with tens of thousands of employees and annual revenue measured in the tens of billions. Its own public materials describe the system as having 82,000 employees and $23 billion in annual revenue, while its CEO profile states that Anne Klibanski leads an 85,000-employee system with $22 billion in revenue and $2.7 billion in annual research funding.

In June 2021, MGB announced that all 80,000 employees would be required to receive a COVID-19 vaccine once the FDA granted approval to one of the vaccines. “The evidence of COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness is overwhelming,” Klibanski said in the announcement. Employees, MGB stated, would be able to request medical and religious exemptions.

That promise, that exemptions existed, is where the story begins.

More than 2,400 employees sought exemptions. MGB granted only 234. In a 2023 federal order, Judge F. Dennis Saylor wrote that MGB had “effectively made a determination that some level of risk, eventually involving 234 unvaccinated individuals out of approximately 93,600 employees… was tolerable.”

For the plaintiffs, that fact is not incidental. It is central. Their argument is not that MGB granted no exemptions. Their argument is that MGB granted some exemptions while allegedly denying others through a secretive, discriminatory, and uneven process that favored certain religions and disfavored others.

The most vivid remaining face of that fight is Michelle Orfanos, a registered nurse who had worked for MGB since 2012. According to her state-court complaint, Orfanos worked throughout the pandemic unvaccinated, including as a homecare nurse and as a volunteer in the Boston COVID field hospital. She says she had received religious exemptions to flu vaccines for years, only to have her COVID religious exemption denied in 2021, resulting in her termination.

Then came the second firing.

Keep reading

Europe’s Highest Court Rules Against Military Member in COVID Vaccine Mandate Case

A military officer failed to convince Europe’s highest court that Italy’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate for military members discriminated against military members because the mandate didn’t also apply to civilian employees.

The officer, identified by the initials B.G., served in Italy’s Army Engineer Corps. He was suspended without pay in January 2022 for refusing to comply with the mandate.

Earlier this month, the European Court of Justice ruled that opposition to vaccine mandates based on policy disagreement, rather than sincerely held belief, is not protected under European Union (EU) anti-discrimination law.

B.G. challenged his suspension, arguing that regular COVID-19 tests were an acceptable alternative to compulsory vaccination and that workers in other sectors were given this choice.

Italy’s Constitutional Court ruled against him, finding that the military vaccine mandate was an appropriate measure for military personnel.

On appeal, Italy’s Council of State, the country’s highest administrative appeals court, asked the European Court of Justice to clarify several legal questions.

The European Court of Justice found that B.G. did not demonstrate a sincerely held religious, spiritual or philosophical belief protected under EU law.

“Judges found BG was not expressing a protected religious, philosophical or spiritual belief but challenging Italy’s public health policy,” Courthouse News reported. His objections “focused on vaccine effectiveness, possible side effects, testing as an alternative and the way the mandate was implemented.”

In its ruling, the European Court of Justice wrote that B.G. “does not seek to oppose the compulsory vaccination at issue in the main proceedings on the basis of his own beliefs, but to challenge, as such, the choices made by the Italian authorities in the field of public health.”

Those objections “constitute opinions” on public health, and as such, are not protected. Aside from sincerely held beliefs, EU law also protects against discrimination based on age, disability or sexual orientation.

Dutch attorney Meike Terhorst called the ruling “unfortunate and disappointing,” as the legal protection of personal beliefs in the EU “appears to be an empty shell.”

Keep reading

Court-Martial: Military Records Board Fails Service Member Amid Ongoing COVID-19 Shot Mandate Fallout

The Board of Corrections for Military Records once again failed another service member. This systemic failure highlights a troubling trend of neglect and indifference toward those who have stood firm in their convictions and have been retaliated against for it.

Who will right the wrongs this time? War Secretary Pete Hegseth? Under Secretary of War for Personnel and Readiness Anthony Tata? Secretary of the Air Force Troy Meink? Anyone?

The bigger question of the day: Why are service members still experiencing negative impacts on their careers due to the military’s now-rescinded 2021 COVID-19 shot mandate? This mandate was rescinded in January 2023 and was later declared “unlawful as implemented” across all departments of the military in May 2025.

The Gateway Pundit spoke to Davis Younts, legal counsel for Major Matt Murphy, who he feels was “railroaded” toward Administrative Separation as a result of his 2021 religious objections to the shot. The retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel and former Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer said his client, a U.S. Space Force officer at the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) in Virginia, had the integrity to do what was right, yet after all these years, it has cost his career.

On June 11, 2026, Murphy was mainly accused of “failing to attend a physical training (PT) session for which he had already faced administrative punishment, despite documented evidence indicating that his attendance was not necessary,” Younts shared. “Coincidentally, the individuals overseeing him were the same ones who attempted to remove him during the COVID pandemic.”

“They’ve made remarks regarding COVID and his religious beliefs, and I firmly believe he is being targeted for issues like missing a PT session, which no officer would typically receive a career-ending Letter of Reprimand for,” he added.

For Younts, this situation raises significant alarms about retaliation. It also brings into question whether the Department of War is genuinely committed to supporting service members who have been coerced, mistreated, and retaliated against regarding the shot.

Murphy admitted to The Gateway Pundit that this journey has been one of the toughest multi-front battles of his 15-year career. In 2020, he and his wife moved to New York to pursue a PhD at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT) as part of an Air Force Institute of Technology-Civilian Institution program. In 2021, pregnant with their second child, the family was confronting the draconian measures enforced in the Empire State.

Murphy was barred from the RIT campus due to the institute’s shot mandate policies, which ultimately led to his disenrollment. All the while, he was also engaged in a separate struggle with the Department of the Air Force. With a second child on the way, it was almost too much to bear.

Amid the turmoil and stress, and after the birth of their third child, what mattered most to Murphy was finding “time for peace and quality time with my family during these precious years,” he confessed.

Keep reading

New York Governor Signs Bills To Preserve Mandatory Vaccines

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has signed legislation to preserve vaccine requirements for children.

Hochul, on May 15, signed two bills that decouple New York’s vaccine requirements from the federal government, after the Trump administration rolled back recommendations for hepatitis B and other vaccines.

“When public health comes under attack by an anti-science administration, New York fights back,” Hochul, a Democrat, said in a statement.

She added that the legislation “protects access to lifesaving vaccines for New Yorkers of all ages.”

One bill, Assembly Bill 10711, removes language about vaccines needing to be approved by federal regulators. Instead, it says that children must receive vaccines against measles, hepatitis B, and other diseases “in accordance with regulations issued by the commissioner of health of New York.”

Assembly Bill 10710, the other piece of legislation, requires health insurers to cover vaccines recommended by New York’s health commissioner, even if the shots are not recommended by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

New York has, in the past, only mandated vaccines approved and recommended by federal health agencies.

“Vaccines remain one of the greatest public health tools in history, protecting individuals, families, and entire communities from serious and preventable diseases,” New York Health Commissioner Dr. James McDonald said in a statement.

“At a time when misinformation is undermining confidence in science, this legislation reinforces New York State’s commitment to following trusted medical guidance and keeping New Yorkers healthy.”

The Trump administration has narrowed its recommendations for vaccines against several diseases, including COVID-19, hepatitis B, and rotavirus.

The biggest changes came after President Donald Trump issued an order directing officials to review recommendations from other countries and update U.S. recommendations as appropriate in light of the results of the review.

A federal judge in mid-March blocked the updates, concluding that officials did not follow proper procedure when altering the vaccine recommendations.

The Trump administration has appealed.

New York Democratic lawmakers who authored or voted for the bills Hochul signed hailed the development.

“In an era where federal health officials are undermining scientific integrity and sowing skepticism about lifesaving vaccines, New York is making the conscious choice to champion our medical professionals and reaffirm this state’s commitment to the evidence-based practices that have safeguarded communities for generations,” New York Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins said in a statement.

Children’s Health Defense, an organization founded by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., was among the groups that opposed the legislation.

Michael Kane, director of advocacy for Children’s Health Defense, told The Epoch Times previously that one of the bills would enable the state to require experimental vaccines, as it removed language stating that vaccines needed federal approval.

“It would also allow for foreign entities to determine what vaccines our children must take,” Kane said.

Keep reading

Harvard-Trained MD Says ‘Coercive’ Vaccine Push Shattered Trust and Has Harris Voters Questioning the Experts

During an exclusive interview with The Western Journal this week, Dr. Monique Yohanan said Americans have a right to question the country’s vaccine schedule and must learn to advocate for themselves in medical settings.

Yohanan, who is director of the Center for Better Health at Independent Women, has an impeccable academic resume.

She received her medical degree from the Dartmouth/Brown Program and a Master of Public Health from Johns Hopkins. She did her residency in internal medicine at Harvard and a fellowship in geriatrics at Stanford.

In addition, Yohanan has held faculty appointments while maintaining active licensure and board certification in internal medicine.

Her CV, however, clashes with mainstream media narratives regarding vaccine skepticism. Those who pose questions about vaccinations are typically tagged as uneducated, misinformed, and are told to “trust the science.”

So why would someone with over 20 years of experience in clinical medicine, technology, and health policy speak out like this? Because she believes vaccination has become so politicized and deified that it’s harming patients.

“I feel like there’s a lot of dismissal of MAHA [Make America Healthy Again],” she said. “There’s a lot of dismissal of people who have questions about vaccines. There are people, historically, who framed the vaccine schedule as ‘You’re pro vaccine if you agree to every single vaccine, and that’s that.’ If you get all 27 shots and you shut your mouth and don’t say a word, then you’re a good person.’”

“And God forbid, you might say, ‘Well, I’m OK with my kid getting the shot for measles or for whooping cough, but do I really need the shot for hepatitis B?’”

Yohanan said that in California, “if you don’t get the shot for hepatitis B, your kid can’t go to public school.” And she’s correct. The state doesn’t even allow for religious or personal belief exemptions.

“That’s not a public health policy. To me, that is very coercive,” she added. “With COVID, what we had is so much, to me, of an overstatement of confidence that people started questioning everything, and so that’s where I come from, is that people are willing to have a more nuanced discussion.”

Yohanan also highlighted how California doctors are financially incentivized by Medicaid to get as many people vaccinated as possible.

Keep reading

Connecticut Democrats Move Bills To Force Vaccines On Unwilling Residents

he supermajority Democratic legislature of Connecticut has passed a radical “vaccine standards” bill in an apparent display of power directed at President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

“This legislation ensures that our state immunization standards are grounded in the consensus professional judgment of the nation’s leading medical and public health practitioners, not the ideological agenda of the Trump regime,” State Senate President Martin Looney, D-New Haven, and State Senate Majority Leader Bob Duff, D-Norwalk, said Thursday following passage of HB 5044, “An Act Establishing Connecticut Vaccine Standards.”

The fiercely debated bill now heads to Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont for signature.

While Democrats are insisting the bill does not mandate any vaccines — but will simply ensure all Connecticut residents have access to them — State Sen. Rob Sampson, R-Cheshire, called it out Thursday as an “anti-freedom vaccine mandate.”

“They’re trying to actually send a message to Connecticut residents, particularly Connecticut residents that value freedom: gun owners, homeschoolers, people concerned about religious freedom,” he explained on Newsmax. “And they’re sending a message to them that they’re just not welcome in our state, and that’s why we keep seeing these bills one after another, just empowering the government and basically making a threat to people that value liberty.”

Pushing Vaccines

According to Bill Track 50’s “AI Summary” of the legislation, its key provisions include expanding the power of the unelected commissioner of public health to “establish the standard of care for immunization for residents of this state;” requiring “health insurance policies to cover immunizations within the established standard of care;” updating “regulations for nursing homes to ensure residents are protected by adequate immunization against respiratory viral diseases;” establishing that “religious freedom protections do not apply to certain vaccine requirements;” and introducing a “’standing order’ provision allowing the commissioner to authorize medical interventions, including vaccinations, during public health emergencies.”

Additionally, the bill will expand the state’s power to buy and distribute vaccines, a provision that is apparently based on Democrats’ fears that the Trump administration will not make vaccines available to those Americans who want them.

Keep reading

Application Denied: Another Dive into the Failures of Military Bureaucracy and COVID-19 Mandate Relief

On September 23, 2021, an active-duty Air Force officer who has served for 18 years submitted a request for a religious accommodation for the COVID-19 shot mandate. Four and a half years later, there is still derogatory paperwork in his personnel file, leaving him ineligible or significantly disadvantaged for all career advancement and more.

This story provides an update on developments from September 2025 and March 2026, reinforcing J.M. Phelps’ assertion that the Board of Correction of Military Records (BCMR) is “ineffective” and frequently highlights the widespread “bureaucratic malfeasance” within the military institution, providing little more than a “half measure” to service members, as in the case of Air Force Captain Anthony Monteleone.

Furthermore, concerning Air Force BCMR (AFBCMR), the situation underscores how their decisions are a direct affront to the goals of President Donald Trump and Department of War (DOW) Pete Hegseth to restore the military.

Case in point: On April 3, 2026, AFBCMR issued a “finding” that flatly denied any relief whatsoever to Capt. Monteleone. Given the overwhelming mountain of evidence reviewed by J.M. Phelps and provided to the Board, one can only conclude that the Board continues to undermine the efforts of President Trump and his appointees within the Department of War. This bureaucratic obstruction appears aimed at continuing the denial of mandated relief to those who suffered under the military’s unlawfully enforced COVID-19 shot mandate, which was rescinded in January 2023.

Mr. Richard Anderson, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Manpower and Reserves, representing the AFBCMR and operating under the full delegated authority of the Secretary of the Air Force, stated that when it comes to Capt. Monteleone’s case, “the [AFBCMR] determined there was insufficient evidence of error or injustice. Accordingly, your application is denied.”

Sadly, for the author of this article, Mr. Anderson’s statement brings to mind the idiom, “If I had a dollar for every time I heard that.”

The Board’s stated reasoning behind this decision was that, although the entire mandate was ruled unlawful, the guidance from Undersecretary of War for Personnel and Readiness, Anthony Tata, to the branch BCMRs did not specifically state that all [emphasis mine] service members harmed by the entire COVID-19 mandate must be granted relief. Instead, in their interpretation [emphasis mine], his guidance indicates that only those punished for solely refusing the order to take the shot itself were eligible for remediation under the guidance.

Keep reading