Vaccine Mandate Employee Letter Example

Vaccine Mandate Employee Letter Example

Summary

The following is an example of a COVID-19 exemption letter written for employees who wish to avoid compulsory vaccination. These COVID injections are required increasingly by employers despite the considerable documented harm they cause. The injections have only an Emergency Use Authorization. The shots have not been studied or approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Clinical trials are not scheduled to end until 2023.

Healthful Diet and Lifestyle, Environmental Toxins, And Multiple Chemical Sensitivities - June 14, 2021

Form for Employees Whose Employers Are Requiring COVID-19 Injections - 2021

2021.8.12. Tasha Ranks on Tik Tok: Never Decline The Injection, Never Quit - Tell The Employer You Are Awaiting The Conclusion Of The Clinical Trials In 2023 So That You Can Exercise Informed Consent! (*)

2021.6.14.

The following was posted by the commenter FurnitureFireSale in the ZeroHedge article,

Vast Majority Of Democrats Support Employers Forcing Workers To Get COVID Jab, New Poll Finds (*) (comments)

Vaccine Mandate Employee Letter Example

No authorship claim or copyright asserted...this letter just came to me in a bottle, and I have no idea who might have penned it, nor can I possibly vouch for it, and what you fine folks do with it is entirely in your own hands, as the Gentlemen of the Bar remind me, I can proffer no legal advice in the matter, and do not do so here...

Dear Boss,

Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law.

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3) [*] This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/) [*]. 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. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Secondly, 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 USC §12112(a).)

Third, 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. (https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/faqs#vaccine). The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html)

With Regards,

Employee of the Year

Employee Letter Version Two (from For Our Rights)

Dear Boss,

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. (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/issue-brief/key-questions-about-covid-19-vaccine-mandates/)

Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; 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 medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment 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 possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.

At the outset, consider the “problem” being “solved” by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren’t they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and “very rare.” 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. This doesn’t even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?

First, federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the “option to accept or refuse administration” of the Covid-19 vaccine. (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/360bbb-3 ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/ ). 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. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 F.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).

Second, 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 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their 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 ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/questions-and-answers-enforcement-guidance-disability-related-inquiries-and-medical). 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 the 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.

Third, 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. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/vaers.html )

Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long 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.” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/141/250)

With Regards,

Employee of the Year

Author Unknown

2021.9.12. Dr. Fleming Religious, Medical, and Constitutional Exemption (*)

Crrow777Radio Episode 275:

Statement of Declination for Offer of Influenza Vaccination Product 1 and 2.

Another comment from the ZeroHedge article cited above:

Neo2021

These have to be about the dumbest employers. The smart attorneys need to be recruited and will have a field day.

1.The vaccine is not a vaccine. Rather, it is a gene modifying experimental procedure not officially approved. You cannot sue the manufacturer. The literature that is supposed to be discussed with patients but is not in violation of Federal law (informed consent) states that the injection only "may" protect you and that you can still acquire or transmit covid.

2. Over 7000 deaths in the U.S. and tens of thousands of permanent injuries. Only 1% of adverse affects are reported to VAERS. Therefore, the true number could be 100x that which is officially reported.

3. The CDC was caught inflating covid numbers by 1600%. The PCR test according to the inventor Kari Mullis who suddenly died before the "pandemic" said it was only a lab tool and not diagnostic quality.

4. The CDC approved a 40 cycle threshold which amplies by 1,000,000,000 (1 trillion) times dead viral and bacterial fragments and gives results that are over 95% false positive.

5. Now they have reduced the PCR test to 28 CT to make it look like covid cases have dropped. CDC website says masks will not protect from viruses and offers NO peer rated studies for any of its claims. CDC website says the most common cold virus is a corona type virus and can cause a positive covid test and to check with your doctor.

6. A vaccine is only to be used after it has been tested for 7-10 years with virtually no injury or death and has to offer better results and safety than existing treatment. Fail. Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are nearly 100% effective and are forbidden to be used by the CDC.

7. The survival rate for a 70 year old from covid is over 99% and better than any flu. For kids the survival rate is 99.9997%.

8. Your doctor has comitted a felony by not informing you of all the risks and benefits. These employers are in violation of the Nuremberg Code and numerous crimes if they force you to get a vax. Sue the crap out of them.

2021.6.11. CDC To Hold "Emergency Meeting" After 100s Suffer Heart Inflammation Following COVID Vaccines (6/11/2021, ZeroHedge) (*) (comments)

Article Comments (highlighting the doublethink):

LetThemEatRand: "The chances of dying from COVID for the young are almost impossible to measure they are so small" - doesn't matter. Any risk is too much. You must wear a mask and stay home and be vaccinated when we're ready for that. "The chances of dying from the COVID vaccine are unknown and documented cases of serious side effects are growing." - it's a tiny risk, doesn't outweigh the benefit of the vaccine.

absalom_hicks: "Population decimated by rare blood clots" • "Extremely rare side effects devastate many" • "Benefits far outweigh risks as die off causes labor shortages" • "Scientists explain how lab created viruses evolve naturally" • "New variants cause only mild symptoms in vaccinated travelers" • "Annual vaccination necessary for return to new normal, CEO of CALPERS says." Headlines in a mentally ill society.

fackbankz: If any other product killed 5000 people and injured 200,000, it would be pulled, not pushed. There is no such thing as "mild" myocarditis, especially in juveniles. If they live, they will have a lifetime of heart problems and will likely never be able to enjoy fun activities like sports or sex. I'm only saying this to inoculate you against the incoming PR blitz of, "Oh, it's just a few mild cases of heart inflammation." We must avenge this crime against humanity. My hope is that it is done through courts and due process, but if ends up just being heads on pikes, so be it.

endofdays: No amount of coercion or threats will ever convince me to go under this needle. This is the hill I die on.

paranoid.dragon: but didn’t the government and media tell us ad nauseum how “safe” the vaccines are??..... So apparently they consider myocarditis as “safe”, and previously they whitewashed blood clots in the brain as “safe” ..... so now i’m curious to know what their threshold for “not safe” would be.... When it comes to their Holy Grail Idol vaccines, I’m not sure they would consider any side effect as unsafe, including death. It makes it clear how truly unstable these Pro-Vaxxers are.... Basically they are willing to perform vaccine blood sacrifices, kinda like how the pagan Myans butchered countless children on top of their pyramids to please their gods.... And somehow those questioning vaccine safety out of concern for personal health are anti-science??? puh-Leeeeze. these Pro-Vaxxer Vaxx-Addict Cultists are insane.

2021.7.29.GAB: Important: Download COVID Vaccine Religious Exemption Documents Here (*)

Notes / To Do

Need to upload employee letter that R shared with me via Messages, screenshots from Instagram.

Main Page

Spiritual Autobiography

Criminal Aerosol Spray Operations - AKA "Chemtrails"

Cultural Criticism

Electrical Sensitivity, Human Health, And Environmental Illness

Electrical Sensitivity - Personal Symptoms And Reflections

Financial

Healthful Diet And Lifestyle, Environmental Toxins, And Multiple Chemical Sensitivities

Heart Chakra Opening - Signs And Symptoms