陪审团授予因拒绝接种 COVID-19 疫苗而被解雇的 BlueCross BlueShield 科学家 687,000 美元
Jury Awards $687,000 To BlueCross BlueShield Scientist Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/jury-awards-687000-bluecross-blueshield-scientist-fired-refusing-covid-19-vaccine

一位名叫 Tanja Benton 的研究科学家因拒绝接种 COVID-19 疫苗而被解雇,在田纳西州起诉 BlueCross BlueShield 后获得了总计 687,000 美元的赔偿。 她在那里工作了 16 年,然后于 2021 年 11 月被解雇。诉讼称,本顿因宗教反对堕胎而反对接种疫苗,她认为疫苗的开发涉及流产的胎儿细胞系。 当她无法遵守强制疫苗接种政策时,她失去了工作。 据报道,尽管她的职位在疫情期间变得偏远,但 BlueCross BlueShield 声称仍然需要一些面对面的客户互动,没有任何住宿空间。 尽管如此,陪审团发现该公司未能提供“过度困难”的证据,从而侵犯了本顿根据《民权法》第七章实践信仰的权利。 这一裁决与本顿指控违反田纳西州人权法的时间不谋而合。 对此,BlueCross BlueShield 表达了对这一决定的失望,同时维持了对疫苗要求的立场。 他们的声明表明,他们在遵守法律的同时提供了合理的住宿选择。 不过,本顿的法律代表没有对审判结果发表评论。 美国平等就业机会委员会(EEOC)批准本顿对其前雇主提起诉讼。 BlueCross BlueShield 质疑本顿真诚的宗教信仰的合法性,并对某些疫苗中使用流产胎儿细胞系的说法提出异议。 最终,陪审团站在了本顿一边。

相关文章

原文

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

A federal jury has awarded $687,000 to a research scientist who was fired from BlueCross BlueShield in Tennessee for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Tanja Benton, who had worked 16 years at the firm when she was fired, was awarded $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensation, and $500,000 in punitive damages, according to a document made public by the federal court in eastern Tennessee on June 30.

Company officials told Ms. Benton in August of 2021 that she would need to be “fully vaccinated” to keep her position, according to her lawsuit. Ms. Benton refused, saying aborted fetal cell lines were involved in the development of the COVID-19 vaccines and she could not “in good conscience consume the vaccine, which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”

BlueCross BlueShield said her position involved “regular external public-facing interactions” so she couldn’t keep it. Ms. Benton said her position became fully remote in 2020 but BlueCross BlueShield said it would have involved some in-person interaction with clients.

Ms. Benton was told to pursue other positions within the company and applied for two. But she was fired on Nov. 4, 2021, and told five days later that, “Unfortunately, all positions require the vax now,” according to an email entered in the case.

Her lawsuit charged that BlueCross BlueShield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which says an employer may not “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” because of that person’s religion. Employers can disregard religious exemption requests if they can prove accommodating them would create undue hardship.

BlueCross BlueShield “cannot prove that allowing Plaintiff to continue her employment as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist without being vaccinated for COVID-19 constitutes an undue hardship,” the suit stated. The company “also cannot show that it made any good-faith efforts to accommodate plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”

BlueCross BlueShield was also accused of violating the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which bars discrimination by employers at the state level.

“We’re disappointed by the decision,” Dalya Qualls White, chief communications officer for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”

A lawyer representing Ms. Benton did not respond to a request for comment.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, presented with the case, cleared Ms. Benton to sue her former employer.

Company lawyers had argued the firm would be unduly burdened by providing Ms. Benton an indefinite exception despite her role as a “public-facing employee.” The lawyers said she could not have continued working remotely indefinitely.

The company also asserted that Ms. Benton did not hold a sincerely held religious belief and “denies that the COVID-19 vaccine was derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which is verifiably false,” according to the company’s filing.

Johnson & Johnson used cells derived from an aborted fetus in the design, production, and testing of its COVID-19 vaccine. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines also utilized the cells in early testing. The companies have said the final products do not contain aborted fetal cells.

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com