ISSUE NO. 1: BODILY AUTONOMY
In direct denial of stated facts and international law, Gray TV refused to respect Dave’s bodily autonomy as well as his religious freedom by demanding he participate in what the FDA continued to designate an experimental medical trial.lit te
I made my living following the First Amendment, so let’s put it all out there with full disclosure, no hiding anything.
Why did I say no to the COVID shot when my 36-year professional career with WTVM was on the line? Why did I risk everything and get fired? It’s simple – it was the right thing to do.
My lawsuit is not based on the “safety and effectiveness” of the COVID shot. That will be for others to challenge. My suit is about the highhanded action of Gray, mandating that I take part in an experimental medical trial against my will or be fired. Forcing someone to participate in a medical experiment is evil. World War II pounded that into everyone’s consciousness. This is best characterized as bodily autonomy – the God-given right to choose what to do with our own bodies.
Research into the shot brought out disturbing facts. The Pfizer shot was tested using what’s been designated the “HEK-293 cell line” which originated from a child aborted in the Netherlands in 1972. In the courts of law, the principle of “fruit of the poisoned tree” is well established, which comes straight out of the Bible, “By their fruits you will know them” as stated in Matthew 7:16.
Evidence gathered by illicit means is not admissible in court because it is legally compromised. This translates out to the shot being morally compromised due to its derivation from an aborted child. The Roman Catholic Church took a stand on this in Dignitas Personae, published in 2005 by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith.
“[T]here is a duty to refuse to use such ‘biological material’ even when there is no close connection between the researcher and the actions of those who performed the artificial fertilization or the abortion…” That seems pretty clear-cut to me. I will not take part in this.
ISSUE NO. 2: RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATION
Gray at the outset stated they would be compliant with 1st Amendment rights of employees to religious exemption from the vaccine. But following Dave’s submission of the letter (well-ahead of deadline) for this exemption, they refused to accommodate him
When Gray TV sent out an e-mail mandating that all employees become “fully vaccinated” as a condition of remaining employed by the corporation, (1) they set up two opportunities to speak with doctors about COVID and the shots. Of course, both calls were set up for 4:00 in the afternoon, prime time for final preparation of my sportscasts during the football season.(2) Promised links to the recordings of the Zoom calls were never sent.
Gray also invited those who objected to fill out a medical or religious accommodation form. The law views religious rights as important, so important that they must be accommodated in the workplace unless they would cause the employer “undue hardship.” The two sides are supposed to get together and figure out a way to make it work for everyone. On the form, we were asked to explain the reasoning behind our stance and to propose an alternative to the order. I put together my letter and sent it on September 9, well ahead of the announced October 1 deadline. (3) As requested, I also outlined alternate procedures to cut down on the possibility of exposure to or transmission of COVID.
It took just two days for Gray to reject my request. The notice was sent to me on a Saturday that found me working 15 hours covering the Georgia-UAB game (the game where Stetson Bennett threw 5 TD passes and effectively became the starting QB, in case you’re interested, a fun game to cover). (4)
I actually found out about the rejection the next day, September 12, when I also found out that was I was considered a department head and that I had just three days to either agree to get the shot or clean out my office.
Gray’s employee handbook outlines how things are supposed to be handled, (5) saying, “Once a request is received, the Company will engage in an interactive dialogue with the employee to explore potential accommodations that could resolve the conflict between the employee’s religious beliefs and practices and one or more of the employee’s work requirements. Employees should suggest specific reasonable accommodations they believe will allow them to perform their job.”
I sent an email to HR with 11 questions about the shot, its ramifications, and what would happen if I didn’t get the shot. (6) I didn’t get any kind of reply. Then I got fired. So much for dialogue with corporate HRW.
ISSUE NO. 3: BREACH OF CONTRACT
Unable to find grounds for dismissal under Dave’s 3-year-contract (which could only be broken by “gross misconduct”), Gray’s fell back on claiming Dave had “refused to comply with company policy”.
Dave’s tenacious attempts to comply with company policy and safety measures were well-documented, as were Gray TV’s stonewalling and non-responsive HR department.
The second major part of the lawsuit is breach of contract. I was just starting the second year of a three-year written contract when I was fired. The ability to fire for cause was limited (7). They couldn’t get me for gross misconduct, so what they claimed was refusing to comply with lawful instructions, or as stated on the termination papers, “not complying with company policy.” (8)
But the instructions were not lawful. In fact, they were counter to U.S. statutes and international law. Federal law, specifically Title 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(I-III) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that “individuals to whom the product is administered are informed… of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.”
International law that applies includes the Nuremburg Code, which was in response to the medical experiments conducted by the Nazis on concentration camp prisoners, and Article 7 of the U.N. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.”
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved Pfizer’s COVID shot, to be marketed under the name “Comirnaty.” There was one catch. On the final page of the letter sent to Elisa Harkins, the Regulatory Strategy Director for Pfizer, the FDA required continuation of the Emergency Use Authorization protocols. The problem was, the FDA-approved Comirnaty wasn’t available anywhere in the USA — only the BioNTech version licensed under the EUA was around. The two shots are similar, but not identical. Comirnaty went through multiple approval processes that BioNTech hasn’t.
In other words, it was still a medical experiment, which meant that it could not be legally mandated. Due to this, any claim related to refusal to “follow instructions” is doubly invalid.