COVID Shot Religious Objection Lawsuit Revived for Employee Fired by Federal Reserve

A New York Federal Court of Appeals has revived a portion of a lawsuit against the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Two Federal Reserve Bank employees,  Jennifer Diaz and Lori Gardner-Alfred, had sued the bank, alleging that they were illegally fired for claiming they had religious objections to the COVID-19 shots. The 2^nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals determined that Jeanette Diaz’s religious beliefs were, “at best” challenged by the New York Fed’s evidence and sent the case back to the U.S. District court.¹

In the original case heard by U.S. District Judge Lewis Linman, the court found that plaintiffs, Diaz and Lori Gardner-Alfred failed to prove that their religious beliefs against vaccination were “sincere.” The two long-time employees had applied for a religious exemption to the COVID shot mandate citing that their religious beliefs prevented them from taking the controversial shot. Their religious exemptions were denied and they were subsequently fired from the Federal Reserve.²

Plaintiff Claims Employer Violated Religious Freedoms

Plaintiffs sued their employer claiming that the Federal Reserve’s actions violated their religious freedoms guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, New York State’s Human Rights Law, and New York City’s Human Rights Law. The District Court granted The Federal Reserve’s motion for summary judgment on all claims.^{3 4}

A summary judgment motion is brought when one party alleges that a trial is not necessary as the other side has no valid claims or defenses for the judge or jury to consider. That party argues that they are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law due to there being “no genuine issues as to any material fact”.⁵

The District Court claimed that the Federal reserve’s mandatory vaccination policy did not conflict with Diaz’s religious beliefs and that there was no genuine dispute of fact regarding Gardner-Alfred’s religious objection to the COVID shot. Plaintiffs were also penalized with discovery sanctions for failing to complete all discovery obligations and for violating court orders.⁶

Appellate Court Finds There is a Genuine Dispute About Material Fact

The Appellate Court agreed with the lower court on Gardner-Alfred’s claims. The court, however, found that there were genuine disputes as to material facts defeating the Federal Reserve’s summary judgment motion against Diaz. The Appellate Court merely looked at whether there was sufficient evidence to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the plaintiff’s religious beliefs conflicted with the Federal Reserve’s vaccination policy in order to overcome the motion for summary judgment.⁷

The court looked at Diaz’s claims that certain vaccines violated her religious beliefs because they are derived from human cell lines from abortion. Diaz admitted that vaccines that were not derived from aborted fetal cells would be acceptable to her if recommended by her doctor. Diaz objected to the COVID-19 shot because they were contradictory to the prohibition on murder included as the Fifth Commandment in the Ten Commandments of the Bible.⁸

Jury, Not Judge, Decides Credibility of Religious Objection

The court pointed out that Diaz also had secular concerns about the safety of ingredients in the COVID shot. The Federal Reserve argued that Diaz’s secular concerns call into question the sincerity of her religious objections to the shot. In presenting evidence of Diaz’s secular concerns about the COVID biological, the court highlighted that she received numerous newsletters from “anti-vaccination” sources that opposed the COVID shots on secular grounds.

In addition, the court noted that Diaz may have taken medication in the past without investigating whether the medication was derived from aborted fetal cells, calling into question whether religion was the true basis for her objection to the shot. Further complicating her case is that the court record contains evidence that the COVID shots do not contain any aborted fetal cell lines.⁹

The Appellate Court found that the summary judgment motion as to Diaz must be defeated because all of the evidence could lead a reasonable jury to give credibility to Diaz’s claims that her objection to the COVID shots were religious in nature and therefore violated her rights. It is the jury’s decision as to whether Diaz’s religious objections are sincere in nature, not the courts on a summary judgement motion.¹⁰

The Appellate Court wrote:

Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence of Diaz’s potentially inconsistent behavior is, at best, impeachment evidence that a jury could rely on to discredit Diaz’s testimony, but it is not, in and of itself, sufficient to support a grant of summary judgment, because at this stage of the proceedings, “the court ‘may not make credibility determinations or weigh the evidence.”¹¹

As to whether Diaz’s claim that the Federal Reserve’s COVID-19 vaccination policy violated her religious beliefs in light of the fact that mRNA COVID shots do not contain aborted fetal cell lines, the court refused to make a distinction between vaccines that contain aborted fetal cell lines and vaccines that used aborted fetal cell lines in their development. The court found that a reasonable jury could come to the conclusion that one’s religious objections could include vaccines that contain aborted fetal cell lines, as well as ones that used them in their development.¹²

The Appellate Court pointed out that the district court erred in finding that Diaz’s objections to the shot were based on a mistaken belief that that the mRNA shots contained aborted fetal cell lines, because, “courts are not permitted to ask whether a particular belief is appropriate or true.” A court may not examine whether a plaintiff’s religious belief is objectively valid, it may merely determine whether it is sincerely held.¹³

The unanimous 3-0 court decision remanded Diaz’s claims back to the U.S. District Court.¹⁴

If you would like to receive an e-mail notice of the most recent articles published in The Vaccine Reaction each week, click here.