Michael Yoder's New, VERY INTERESTING Complaint Makes it 5 Cases Challenging the Federal Employee Vaxx Mandate

As reported by Under Cover DC, attorney Michael Yoder (who filed the first complaint against the EO on 9-23) filed another complaint on October 24 (Church v. Biden, Case 1:21-cv-02815) in which he makes shocking allegations about the Safer Federal Workforce Task Force's handling of the Mandate. 

Of particular interest, the complaint alleges:

B.    THE TASK FORCE’S SCHEME TO CIRCUMVENT THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND DEPRIVE PLAINTIFF’S OF THEIR FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

 

50.                  Since the day President Biden issued the Vaccine Mandate, hundreds of thousands of federal government employees have been in complete disarray. Federal employees with serious, life-threatening conditions and others with sincerely held religious beliefs, such as Plaintiffs, have frantically sought guidance on how to obtain reasonable accommodations.

51.                  Due to the rapidly approaching deadline and Defendants’ full awareness that Plaintiffs have the fundamental right to engage in the free exercise of religion, Defendants concocted a scheme that imposes a “deadline” to submit religious exemption requests to help “evaluate the scope” of how many federal employees have sincerely held religious beliefs prohibiting compliance with the vaccine requirement. After determining the scope, the Task Force instructed the agencies to “collect information” through a questionnaire calculated to elicit information the agencies can then use as the basis for denying a respondent’s exemption request.

52.                  Video Footage from an October 8, 2021 Task Force Zoom call¹⁴ involving nearly 200 high-level officials from various agencies reveals Samuel Berger, a former Senior Advisor in

¹³ The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 (excluding the Government Accountability Office). Id. at § 3.

¹⁴ Samuel Berger, COVID-19 Guidance Zoom Meeting, SAFER FEDERAL WORKFORCE TASK FORCE (Oct. 8, 2021);

see Exhibit 5.

the Obama Administration and the former Vice President of Democracy for John Podesta’s Center for American Progress (“CAP”) discussing the methodical approach each agency is to take when dealing with religious exemptions.

53.                  The Task Force advised each agency¹⁵ to establish a deadline which the agencies are not to enforce – because there is no deadline imposed on the fundamental right to freely exercise religion – but rather, to use as a “forcing function” that will induce all or nearly all federal employees with sincerely held religious beliefs to submit their requests.

54.                  Once all or nearly all federal employees have submitted their religious exemption requests, the agencies, individually or in conjunction with the Task Force, can then “evaluate the scope” of how many federal employees wish to exercise their fundamental right to freely exercise their religion.

55.              The Task Force then directed the agencies to refrain from issuing any decisions, because “once you grant an exemption to an individual in a job category, it is very hard to say that you’re not going to grant [an exemption] to a similarly situated person.”

56.              The Task Force further instructed the agencies to “take their time” and the agencies “should not feel rushed that they have to take steps immediately” because it is important to “collect information” on federal employees, such as Plaintiffs, whose sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from complying with the vaccine requirement.

57.              To collect this information, the Task Force advised it provided the agencies with a religious exemption form with questions that are intended to elicit information from federal employees seeking religious exemptions. The Task Force directed the agencies to “work bearing

¹⁵ The term “agency” means an Executive agency as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 105 (excluding the Government Accountability Office). See Exec. Order No. 14043 at § 3. It does not include the White House (“WH”), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”), the National Institute of Health (“NIH”).

 

in mind that a fair bit of thought went into the range of questions and the kind of information that [the questions] would provide.” The Task Force then gives the agencies authority to refuse to provide accommodations under whatever circumstances each agency so chooses.

58.              Rather than advising the agencies under what circumstances the refusal to provide an accommodation would constitute a violation of federal law or deprivation of fundamental rights, the Task Force merely emphasized how important it is for the agencies to “figure[e] it out as quickly as possible . . . because [the agencies are] not going to run an accommodation in those places–and that’s totally fine.”

59.              As a result, Defendants have either failed to implement a process by which     Plaintiffs and other federal employees are able to submit religious exemptions or implemented a process for Plaintiffs to provide information to Defendants to which they are not entitled in violation of current EEOC Guidance, federal statutory law, and Plaintiffs’ fundamental First Amendment right to engage in the free exercise of religion.