Title VII Defense to Covid-19 Vaccines
OVERVIEW OF TITLE VII REQUESTS FOR ACCOMMODATION — OPT OUT OF COVID-19 DRUG MANDATES IN WORKPLACE
This Summary Guidance is provided as a courtesy and is not intended to provide legal advice to any person or entity. The information provided herein should not be used except in conjunction with individualized advice of legal counsel familiar with the user’s specific situation. This is a fluid and rapidly changing area of the law, and, therefore, the accuracy of the information contained herein should always be verified by independent research.
TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
Title VII of The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is broad. One of the objectives of the Civil Rights Act is protect people against discrimination in the workplace based on a person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) is responsible for enforcing federal law such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. It is a violation of federal law to discriminate against a job applicant or employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, transgender status, and sexual orientation), national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information.
Most employers with at least 15 employees are covered by EEOC laws (20 employees in age discrimination cases). Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered.
The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.
OBJECTIONS ARE MANY. CONSIDERATIONS OF HEALTH CANNOT BE EXCLUDED FROM A RELIGIOUS WORLD VIEW WHICH ENCOMPASSES AND INFORMS ALL OF YOUR DECISIONS.
There are countless reasons people are objecting to adenoviral and mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, the most obvious of which is the overall survival rate for COVID-19 which has been consistently over 99% according to John Hopkins University. It is also undisputed that the vaccinated are contracting and spreading COVID-19 shortly after receiving the vaccination (efficacy begins to wane as early as 4 months after injection and continues to diminish thereafter). Vaccine efficacy lasting less than a year is typically viewed as an epic failure but is now being characterized as “breakthrough” cases coupled with the need for additional booster shots that seem to never end while the adverse reactions and death toll mounts.
Most people do not understand that mRNA & DNA technology utilized for COVID-19 drugs is nothing like that which has been used for traditional vaccines. It is a new and experimental technology that delivers the SARS-2 covid-19 virus into the body through mRNA which is responsible for transcribing DNA which makes up the human genome (who you are). The adverse effects (not always immediate) have proven to be injurious and sometimes fatal, and the evidence is mounting.
A groundbreaking preprint paper by the prestigious Oxford University Clinical Research Group, published Aug. 10 in The Lancet, includes alarming findings that confirmed vaccinated individuals who later contracted covid-19 carry 251 times the viral load in their nostrils compared to the unvaccinated individuals who contracted covid-19 before the vaccines had become available. The conclusion being drawn by many scientists is that the vaccinated seem to be super spreaders who have forced mutation as a result of mass vaccination which accelerated the inevitable mutation of the virus exponentially.
Sweden was widely criticized for protecting the elderly and most vulnerable without shutting down and destroying the economy and schools, destroying businesses and preventing the education of the children, also causing serious and irreparable psychological harm in the process.
The Great Barington Declaration was an effort to disclose the fact that “shut downs” have no scientific basis for managing a virus and appear to be politically motivated. The effort to disclose the truth at whatever cost, after having been banned and censored by all of social media, was spearheaded by (1) Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations., (2) Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases, and (3) Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations.
The Declaration was signed by countless Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners along with concerned citizens in over 44 countries, totaling 860,000 to date.
Despite all the compelling reasons to avoid COVID-19 drugs, the religious objection is paramount for those who value the sanctity of life (from beginning to end) as well as the human genome created by God Himself, which is so complex that man has merely scratched the surface over the past 50 years.
COVID-19 drug manufacturers Pfizer, Moderna, and Johnson & Johnson utilize an aborted fetal cell line for testing, efficacy and/or the manufacture of COVID-19 drugs. They also utilize these fetal cell lines to make an artificial human cell that will be injected into your body. Unlike an ordinary human cell, these artificial cells never die (sort of like cancer cells) which makes them dangerous, which is objectionable on religious grounds for people who believe it is their responsibility to be good stewards with their bodies as mandated in the scriptures. Injecting man-made cells into the body violates sincerely held religious beliefs that prohibit tampering with the human genome, DNA, mRNA, and any other aspect of God’s intelligent design and creation. The mRNA from a lab sends instructions into your body to manufacture covid-19 protein spikes, weaponizing your body, which is deemed as “playing God” by many people who object to gene therapy, gene serums, and gene manipulation on religious grounds.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act provides relief by requiring the employer to provide reasonable accommodate to any employee whose sincerely held religious belief prevents them from accepting a COVID-19 drug for these reasons.
There are numerous other religious objections that prevent people from receiving covid-19 drugs. The scriptures teach that a Christian’s body is inhabited by the Holy Spirit. It is the temple of the Holy Spirit according to Christian doctrine. Tampering with mRNA and DNA (the complex and specific coding of your body) to instruct the body to weaponize itself by creating covid-19 spiked proteins is viewed as viewed by many as interfering with God’s design, the human genome, DNA, mRNA, all very complex and all created by God Himself.
Experimenting with DNA, mRNA or any other aspect of what makes a human “human” is viewed as immoral and unethical by many Christians and highly qualified doctors and scientists who adhere to a code of ethics that prevent them from engaging in gene manipulation. This included injecting a man-made synthetic human cell call MRC-5 into your body. MRC-5 is a diploid cell culture line composed of fibroblasts, originally developed from the lung tissue of a 14-week-old aborted Caucasian male fetus. You may not be aware of this because they it has been banned and censored by social media platforms who do not allow any dissent to the covid drug agenda which is hell-bent on injecting every living, breathing human being. They are now after your children. Christians are also obliged to care for their bodies through proper nutrition and healthy living. The scriptures teach that Christians are to be good stewards of their bodies which are a gift. The body is inhabited by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit .
PROTECTING YOURSELF – EMPLOYMENT
-Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits private and government employers from discriminating against their employees on the basis of religion, among other things. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.
-Title VII entitles an employee to request exemptions from the employer’s directives that would violate the employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
– Employers imposing vaccination mandates must recognize legitimate requests from their employees to be exempted from such vaccination programs based upon the objecting employee’s sincerely held religious beliefs, unless to do so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. What constitutes an undue hardship may depend on the work setting at issue.
– Religious accommodation requests should be in writing and clearly articulate the religious basis for the accommodation request. Religious accommodation requests should avoid asserting non-religious objections to the vaccines or the vaccination program, such as health, medical, or political objections.
– It is inappropriate for an employer to demand that an employee support their religious accommodation request with statements from the employee’s church or clergy.
– Conduct of an employee that appears to be inconsistent with the religious beliefs underlying the employee’s religious objection to the COVID-19 vaccines may undermine the employee’s religious accommodation request. E.g., the employee asserts a religious objection to a COVID-19 vaccine on the ground that his body is the “temple of the Holy Spirit” but ingests other medications, foods, or substances with potentially harmful effects.
– Employers who grant religious accommodations might be able to require unvaccinated employees to wear masks, socially distance, undergo COVID-19 testing, telework, or be reassigned. EEOC, What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws – Technical Assistance Questions and Answers (updated May 28, 2021), https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-ada-rehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws.
PROTECTING YOURSELF – STUDENTS
– Generally speaking, mandatory student vaccination programs are not unconstitutional and do not violate the religious free exercise rights of either the students or the students’ parents.
– Students may be entitled to a religious exemption from a mandatory student vaccination program if:
– the school voluntarily offers religious exemptions;
– there is a state statute providing students with religious exemptions; or
– the student vaccination program provides non-religious exemptions to students, but not religious exemptions.
PROTECTING YOURSELF – CHURCHES
– Although the fluidity of the COVID-19 pandemic and related government restrictions has resulted in an evolving legal landscape over the last 18 months, the Supreme Court has established that government mandates that treat church gatherings worse than similar non-religious activities are unconstitutional. Legal challenges based on disparate treatment of churches and comparable secular activities have been successful in the COVID-19 context (and other contexts). Thus, churches may want to consider challenging any vaccination requirements that treat church gatherings less favorably than similar non-religious activities.
– Some churches are receiving questions from their members about supporting a member’s religious objection to an employer or school vaccine mandate. Under the law generally, religious objectors cannot be required to provide supporting statements from clergy, and thus such a letter is not a necessary component of an accommodation request. Nonetheless, such a letter can be helpful in some circumstances.
– Clergy should exercise care when asked to provide a letter in support of someone’s religious objections to COVID-19 vaccines. As discussed elsewhere in this Summary, a religious accommodation request must be based on religious concerns, not medical, health, cultural, or political concerns. The pastor or priest should ensure that the church member has a bona fide religious objection to the vaccine. In addition, unless the clergy statement will, in fact, support the objector’s religious beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccines, such a statement may actually harm the objector’s request. (Under the law, it is the objector’s personal religious beliefs that are at issue, which is why employers are legally not permitted to inquire whether church doctrine supports the objector’s religious belief. Nonetheless, if the objector voluntarily includes a clergy letter in support of her accommodation request, the letter may harm the objector’s position if it contradicts or only equivocally supports her stated religious belief.)
– Because every religious objector’s case is different, it is not possible to provide clergy with specific advice on how best to handle individual requests without knowing the specific facts of each case. However, clergy and churches may obtain the advice of a religious liberty attorney on letters supporting specific religious accommodation requests, and other matters pertaining to protection of the church’s religious liberty.
PROTECTING YOURSELF – U.S. MILITARY
– The U.S. military recognizes that service members have the right to observe the tenets of their religion. DoD Instruction 1300.17—Religious Liberty in the Military Services.
– Active-duty service members have the right to request a religious accommodation from a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination program established and administered by the U.S. military.
– Section 3 of DoD Instruction 1300.17 sets forth the procedures for service members requesting religious accommodations, how such requests are reviewed, factors for consideration, and appeal processes.
– An active-duty service member facing a general or special court martial will be appointed military counsel, at no cost to the service member. However, a service member also has the right, at the service member’s expense, to hire civilian legal counsel of the service member’s own choosing. 10 U.S.C. § 838(b)(2), (3) and (4).
********************************************************************************************************
ADDITIONAL PROTECTION UNDER STATE LAW: Please be aware that each state generally has state law that may equal or supersede federal law by way of protection against religious discrimination in the work place. It is important to identify your applicable state law and provide it to your employer as additional grounds to protect you against employer discrimination based on your religious beliefs.
********************************************************************************************************
PROTECTING YOURSELF – CALIFORNIA STATE LAW
CALIFORNIA GOVT. CODE
TITLE 2. GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA [8000 – 22980]
DIVISION 3. EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT [11000 – 15986]
PART 2.8. DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING [12900 – 12999]
CHAPTER 3. Findings and Declarations of Policy [12920 – 12923]
It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.
It is recognized that the practice of denying employment opportunity and discriminating in the terms of employment for these reasons foments domestic strife and unrest, deprives the state of the fullest utilization of its capacities for development and advancement, and substantially and adversely affects the interests of employees, employers, and the public in general.
Further, the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, ancestry, familial status, source of income, disability, veteran or military status, or genetic information in housing accommodations is declared to be against public policy.
It is the purpose of this part to provide effective remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory practices. This part shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the state for the protection of the welfare, health, and peace of the people of this state.
Section 12921. It is hereby declared as the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and veteran status.
WARNING – EMPLOYER PROVIDED FORMS
You should only use the employer provided form to identify yourself and the fact that you are submitting a Title VII religious accommodation request pertaining to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate. You may write “See Attached” in the rest of the fields of the employer provided form and then attach it to the Title VII Religious Accommodation form you obtain here. That is sufficient to satisfy your Title VII request under federal law whether your employer agrees or not.
However, your employer may ask you certain questions AFTER submission of your Title VII request, but only if they have an objective reason to question the sincerity of your belief (i.e., your advocating abortion or presenting yourself in a contradictory way to your sincerely held beliefs on social media or elsewhere). However, they must otherwise presume your request is sincere and based on your religious beliefs and cannot require you to do anything more to SUBMIT your request.
Even after submitting your request, the line of questioning from the employer is limited. Your employer cannot ask for a letter from your pastor or priest, whether you attend church or where you attend, or who your religious leader is. It is sufficient to state your religion as “Christian” or “Judaism” or any other religion that applies.
WARNING – EMPLOYER REQUESTED MEETINGS
You should politely decline an employer’s request for an in-person meeting and instead reply in writing as follows:
****************************************************************************************************
Thank you for the invitation to meet in person regarding my Title VII request. I am eager to cooperate by answering all your questions in writing but I am not interested in a deposition style meeting in person. This is not part of the Title VII process outlined under federal law nor is it required.
A Title VII request for accommodation requires the employer to presume the sincerity and religious origin of the request unless the employer is aware of objective facts that suggest otherwise. Then and only then, may the employer ask probative questions about the Title VII request.
My lengthy Title VII request outlines in great detail the sincerity and religious origin of my beliefs, far in excess of what is required under federal law. I also provided the applicable case law and the official EEOC statement pertaining to covid-19 vaccine mandates in the workplace. I also used the employer mandated Title VII request form which asked a series of unlawful questions that appeared to be a fishing expedition to gather information intended to thwart my request rather than facilitate it.
If you have objective facts that justify further inquiry about the sincerity or religious origin of my beliefs please share them in writing so I may provide you with a written response.
Please understand that I will not waive or compromise my rights under the United States Constitution as codified under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The fundamental rights and procedures for a Title VII request are affirmed and enforced by the EEOC and federal courts when an employer fails to follow procedure and/or wrongfully denies a Title VII claim. Please follow federal law and procedure for my Title VII request.
I look forward to receiving an approval of my Title VII request by way of providing reasonable accommodation as required by law. I am also eager to cooperate by answering any additional questions you may have by way of a written response, so long as those questions are lawful and justified, as required under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
FILLABLE PDF TITLE VII RELIGIOUS REQUEST FORM
IMPORTANT NOTES:
Your belief must be sincere and religious in origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
It does not matter how new your belief is (that was one of the unlawful questions discovered in an employer’s Title VII template).
It does not matter whether you have vaccinated in the past, especially if you were and child or not aware that such vaccines may have utilized aborted fetal cell lines, or your religious beliefs have changed or evolved over the years, which is not uncommon.
You may have known of these things but decided afterward that it was wrong and unethical to capitalize on aborted baby parts, no matter how new the belief or tenuous the connection may be to the vaccine.
If you have not lived out your sincerely held religious beliefs with perfection this also does not disqualify you from raising a Title VII request for accommodation. Nobody lives out their beliefs with perfection and your sincerely held beliefs cannot be invalidated for failure to live them out with perfection.
Your HR Director will need to be informed of case law ruling the same if they try to raise this objection to your request.
The template is free! You may submit this on your own by simply filling in the fields to identify yourself, your employer, and provide a signature.
Obtain proof your request has been received by documenting the person who received it and the day and time received, particularly if there is a deadline.
If you missed the deadline do not presume you’ve forfeited your rights under federal law. Many employers are changing their deadlines with little or inadequate notice.
PLEASE SHARE THIS WEBSITE AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE TO HELP OTHERS KNOW AND ASSERT THEIR RIGHTS UNDER FEDERAL LAW. EMPLOYERS HAVE BEEN UNDERHANDED, PREDATORY, AND REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE LAW. THE HELL-BENT DESIRE TO STICK YOU WITH A COVID DRUG THAT DOES NOT PROVIDE IMMUNITY OR PROTECTION FROM GETTING COVID-19 WHICH HAS A SURVIVAL RATE OF 99.8% ACCORDING TO THE CDC AND JOHN HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SHOULD BE ALARMING AND GOOD CAUSE TO AVOID IT AT ALL COSTS UNDER A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS.