A U.S. District Court judge has again denied relief to a collection of Steamship Authority employees who had tried to gain an exemption to the ferry line’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
Eleven plaintiffs were seeking a preliminary injunction, but Judge Richard G. Stearns with the federal district court in Massachusetts denied the motion on Dec. 11, arguing that the Steamship was trying to protect the general public by ordering compliance with its mandate.
It’s the judge’s second time ruling against the 11 employees.
The group of employees first filed a 129-page lawsuit in Barnstable County Superior Court in February 2022, alleging the Steamship was infringing on their First Amendment rights. The case quickly moved to the U.S. District Court. Judge Stearns denied the workers’ request in March 2022, and it was appealed.
In October, a panel of three appellate judges ruled that the lower court partially erred when rejecting the Steamship Authority [SSA] workers’ claims that their rights were infringed upon; the judges sent the case back to Stearns.
In last week’s ruling, Stearns laid out several reasons for denying the injunction. The employees had argued that the Steamship granted an exemption to the vaccine to one employee for health reasons; their rights were infringed on when they were not granted a religious exemption. But the judge wrote in his filing that the Steamship’s efforts to protect the public were justified.
“Granting 11 indefinite religious exemptions creates a substantially higher risk of infection and transmission than granting one time-limited medical exemption,” he wrote.
The judge also argued that the Steamship tried other measures to stop the spread of the virus, like extensive cleaning, social distancing, and daily health screenings. But, the judge writes, “COVID-19 outbreaks on the authority’s vessels continued to occur.”
In previous comments to The Times, the plaintiffs’ attorney, Patrick K. Daubert, said they are seeking reinstatement for workers who were terminated for standing by their religious convictions in declining the vaccines.
None of the mainstream religions appear to
have any bans on vaccines. Of course, I understand
about “fringe” religions. I am a Pastafarian
after all. We are all entitled to our religious beliefs.
But if these people who refuse to get vaccinated are
that religiously sincere, they should really not be all
that worried about their futures. Their god will see them
through. Have faith, contribute a lot of money to your
church and it will all be fine.
In the meantime, thank you SSA for not putting the
non believers at risk. I’m pretty sure COVID is
dangerous, and I’m pretty sure the Flying Spaghetti
Monster will not save me if I get. My “god” is just a
made up blob of Pasta after all -I’m not gonna
depend on Him to save me.
Yes, Don. You will be the first to help escort to the camps those who follow the Nuremberg Code’s principles of informed consent.
John– as much as you think they are, the COVID
19 Vaccinations are not “experimental”.
All these people were quite informed about
the vaccine, and were free to choose not to
consent to it.
Your reference to “camps” is curious to me.
Could you explain a little bit more about these
camps? Do you know something the rest of us don’t ?
I an not a follower of “Q” , so I often find
myself in the spot of being ignorant as to what is
really going on .. So seriously, please explain
about the camps to me. If I am going to be
escorting people to them, I think it would
be helpful if I knew what they did and why.
Please go slowly and be thorough. I am pretty
slow on the uptake sometimes.
By the way, I did take part in the Lyme
vaccine experiment, and was appropriately
informed , as required by the Nuremberg
principles of informed consent.
Don: Perhaps you should get better “informed” with regard to the Nuremberg Code. But allow me to do a little homework on your behalf. Here is the text from the code addressing medical interventions. “This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to 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.” If losing one’s job and the ramifications of that doesn’t define “coercion” words have no more meaning. Were you informed by whomever put the mRNA transfections into your arm about all of the risk profiles? Did that person inform you with regard to the disastrous safety data – which Pfizer and Moderna both tried to keep from public scrutiny for 50 years until a judge order it released? I don’t believe for a moment that such “risk/reward” calculus was given to you – or anyone else, for that matter. The absence of such defines “fraud, [and] deceit.” And lastly, your constant ad hominem references to “Q” or “Orangeman” are rather tiresome and foolish.
John–I asked about the “camps”
According to a commenter below
it was a reference to the Nazi camps
of the Holocaust– Interesting…
Is that what you meant?
Certainly, to compare a steamship
policy about vaccinations to Nazi
concentration camps is an anti semitic
insult to the memory and suffering
of the Jewish people during the Holocaust.
It certainly belittles the horror of those
camps.
Imagine the reaction I would have gotten from
you know who if I had implied the
camps of the Holocaust and the slaughter
that went on there were only as bad as
being required to receive an approved
vaccine in order to have a specific job.
The Nuremberg code was written as
a ten point statement delimiting permissible
medical experimentation on human subjects.
When the RNA vaccines were being developed
and tested, all persons involved in the trials
were informed of the risks, as was I when
receiving the experimental Lyme vaccine.
At some point an “experiment” produces
results, and is no longer experimental.
Ater the various agencies of the trump
administration signed off and approved
the vaccine for widespread use ( of which
the orange one took credit for) the
Nuremberg code was no longer applicable.
After that,I did my own research and made
my own choice. I didn’t depend on anyone
telling me if it was “disastrous” or not. And
did not go down the rabbit holes
of conspiracy theories. By the way,
your constant references to
debunked conspiracy theories are rather
tiresome and foolish.
It is shocking to me that someone of my generation, the baby boomers, is this unfamiliar with what “the camps” means, as if they never listened to a Holocaust survivor, had a friend who talked about their family’s history in the camps, or even watched “Schindler’s List”. Is there anyone else who is this ignorant of recent Jewish history and culture while seemingly having so much to say about Israel and its history and culture and survival? The camps are Nazi concentration camps, the places where an actual genocide of Jews took place.
You obviously missed the point with Don’s comment.
I’m willing to bet he knows a fair bit about those camps, and was calling out John for his usual nonsense.
Jackie– Have you ever heard of the Japanese
internment camps during ww 2 ?
Or a refugee camp in say, Latvia ?
Only a Jew hating anti semitic would
ever go so low as to compare the horror
of Nazi concentration camps to getting
a vaccination to get a job.
Clearly, Mr Budris does not fall into
that category.
I would never have imagined someone could be
so callous to Holocaust survivors and their
descendants.
Hi Don, lest I get you dizzy with speed, I will go slowly for you. Jackie outlined the definition of “the camps” which language can’t adequately describe. The other meaning in the more proximate sense, are the isolation camps built in Australia, where some of those who did not take the transfections were detained against their wills. These camps were under construction in New Zealand, and RFPs to build them were in process in Canada. Perhaps it could be an employment opportunity for you should the building trades go slack on the island.
Makes sense. Less employees, less payroll and increased costs and inconvenience to the islanders!
They will be replaced, most likely by by by reasonable people.
Mike– getting COVID is pretty inconvenient.
Less disgruntled employees equal lower, payroll and costs.
They have inconvenienced Islanders with the cost of their frivolous lawsuit.
I wish them well in their next effort to combat medical science.
A woman has the right to her own body……..unless she works for the Steamship.
A woman has the right to say no.
If I want to drive a bus, I have
the right to refuse a pee test. And the bus
company has the right to not employ me.
SSA employees have the right to not pee in a cup, not to take the jab, not to work.
Do any of you understand the use of “”less”” and “”fewer?”” The grammar is awful.
I am so pleased that someone else this recognized the incorrect use of “less” and “fewer”. Thank you.
Her and I haven’t went there yet. I got scrod in Boston is the past plu perfect.
To quote from Judge Stearns’ order: “Limiting COVID-19 infection and transmission is of course a legitimate governmental interest,” — “And requiring all employees to be vaccinated, subject to limited exemptions, is rationally related to that interest.”
Let’s see now…if the SSA position is termed “legitimate” and “rational”…
what does that mean the judge thinks of those who have brought this suit?
Lawyering up is expensive. The SSA is incurring some hefty costs. Here’s a question the media hasn’t answered yet: Who is paying for the legal costs of those who are suing?
The SSA did not sue, they defended, They defended the people who vote for the people that operate the SSA.
“Who is paying for the legal costs of those who are suing?” My guess, people who want to do the Right thing. Certainly not the vast majority of Islanders.
Thank you to all the people who show consideration to others by vaccinating themselves and by wearing masks in public if they know they are ill. Thank you also to the organizations that have rules that protect us from getting sick from each other, especially organizations that have employees in direct contact with the public. Thank you.
There you go, Mary. The best comment on the thread.
Thank you.