So is AA now discriminating against employees who don't consent to injections?

re-pilot

Member
Aug 15, 2007
83
10
Per recent reports, AA will now force nonvaccinated employees to use sick time rather than pandemic leave, but not those that consented to the vaccine injection? Really? If so, it sounds like they just opened themselves up for some significant litigation that I'm sure Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would love to address with any interested parties.

Noteworthy is AA's ( apparently incorrect) rationale that because the "vaccines" are now approved (none of the 3 in the US are) they can now discriminate against those that have chosen not to consent to receiving any of the injections. The sad irony of this all is the reality that many of those testing positive ARE "fully vaccinated", and then causing "non-vaccinated" to be forced on quarantine due to close contact.

Interested parties would benefit from viewing an interview or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the subject to see how the 3 current injections in the US are still actually only under EUA (which cannot be forced) and an injection that supposedly has received FDA approval is not even available in the US. See: https://www.brighteon.com/7bc6967a-ac24-4710-a116-88574d0f7ecf

Those smart enough to have received any of the experimental injections due to health-related concerns (e.g. over 13,000 deaths reported on VAERS to date tied to the injections plus 10s of 1000s more reported adverse events) and/or religious conscience reasons (due to all current injections tied to use of aborted fetal tissue/organs in development/testing) need to be prepared to stand up against false narratives and false facts being used to push people to do something against their desire to keep benefits and likely soon their jobs.
 
Last edited:

lineguy43

Veteran
Jun 21, 2007
615
402
Per recent reports, AA will now force nonvaccinated employees to use sick time rather than pandemic leave, but not those that consented to the vaccine injection? Really? If so, it sounds like they just opened themselves up for some significant litigation that I'm sure Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would love to address with any interested parties.

Noteworthy is AA's ( apparently incorrect) rationale that because the "vaccines" are now approved (none of the 3 in the US are) they can now discriminate against those that have chosen not to consent to receiving any of the injections. The sad irony of this all is the reality that many of those testing positive ARE "fully vaccinated", and then causing "non-vaccinated" to be forced on quarantine due to close contact.

Interested parties would benefit from viewing an interview or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on the subject to see how the 3 current injections in the US are still actually only under EUA (which cannot be forced) and an injection that supposedly has received FDA approval is not even available in the US. See: https://www.brighteon.com/7bc6967a-ac24-4710-a116-88574d0f7ecf

Those smart enough to have received any of the experimental injections due to health-related concerns (e.g. over 13,000 deaths reported on VAERS to date tied to the injections plus 10s of 1000s more reported adverse events) and/or religious conscience reasons (due to all current injections tied to use of aborted fetal tissue/organs in development/testing) need to be prepared to stand up against false narratives and false facts being used to push people to do something against their desire to keep benefits and likely soon their jobs.

Robert Kennedy is a true anti vaxxer. I am not an anti vaxxer but I did and do have issues with how this vaccine is being forced on people who are not anti vaxxers but have legitimate concerns that are being dismissed by the media and liberals. Even medical people are refusing this vaccine because they have questions and are losing their jobs over it. It would be one thing if this vaccine was getting us out of this mess but it isn't. The delta variant proved it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: swamt

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,468
9,261
Not that I agree with it, but....

1) It's not discriminatory for a Company to put conditions on who gets to use a particular form of paid leave or benefit.
2) It's not discriminatory if you have the ability to meet the conditions for said benefit

I'm a religious conservative, pro-life, a COVID survivor, anti-mandate, and yes, I'm vaccinated BY CHOICE.

It should be a personal decision to decide whether or not you want to take this, much like the decision to get/not-get a flu shot.

Unfortunately, those who are at-will employees vs. covered under a CBA are increasingly going to have no choice in the matter. We've already seen one airline move that way, and I suspect it's a matter of time before more go that direction.

To the extent that they can, many companies are going to "incentivize" people to get vaccinated, be it negative or positive incentives...

It's a sad day when people have to decide between their seniority and their convictions.
 
Last edited:

Kev3188

Veteran
Oct 5, 2003
18,387
9,407
Right in the middle.
Not that I agree with it, but....

1) It's not discriminatory for a Company to put conditions on who gets to use a particular form of paid leave or benefit.
2) It's not discriminatory if you have the ability to meet the conditions for said benefit

I'm a religious conservative, pro-life, a COVID survivor, anti-mandate, and yes, I'm vaccinated BY CHOICE.

It should be a personal decision to decide whether or not you want to take this, much like the decision to get/not-get a flu shot.

Unfortunately, those who are at-will employees vs. covered under a CBA are increasingly going to have no choice in the matter. We've already seen one airline move that way, and I suspect it's a matter of time before more go that direction.

To the extent that they can, many companies are going to "incentivize" people to get vaccinated, be it negative or positive incentives...

It's a sad day when people have to decide between their seniority and their convictions.
That's just it; take out all the white noise, and it is ABSOLUTELY down to employee choice. Whether at UA, DL, or (now) AA, the employee controls what happens next. They might not like the options on the menu, but they get to pick.

As for "convictions," my guess is 90% of my unvaxxed coworkers aren't willing to invest $2400/yr. in theirs. There'll be hot air in the break rooms, but they'll get vaxxed and be done with it.
 
OP
R

re-pilot

Member
Aug 15, 2007
83
10
Not that I agree with it, but....

1) It's not discriminatory for a Company to put conditions on who gets to use a particular form of paid leave or benefit.
2) It's not discriminatory if you have the ability to meet the conditions for said benefit

I'm a religious conservative, pro-life, a COVID survivor, anti-mandate, and yes, I'm vaccinated BY CHOICE.

It should be a personal decision to decide whether or not you want to take this, much like the decision to get/not-get a flu shot.

Unfortunately, those who are at-will employees vs. covered under a CBA are increasingly going to have no choice in the matter. We've already seen one airline move that way, and I suspect it's a matter of time before more go that direction.

To the extent that they can, many companies are going to "incentivize" people to get vaccinated, be it negative or positive incentives...

It's a sad day when people have to decide between their seniority and their convictions.
I"m not a lawyer, but it's not discriminatory to withhold a benefit because someone chooses not to consent because of deeply held religious beliefs, or valid health concerns that would be backed up by a physician?
 
OP
R

re-pilot

Member
Aug 15, 2007
83
10
Robert Kennedy is a true anti vaxxer. I am not an anti vaxxer but I did and do have issues with how this vaccine is being forced on people who are not anti vaxxers but have legitimate concerns that are being dismissed by the media and liberals. Even medical people are refusing this vaccine because they have questions and are losing their jobs over it. It would be one thing if this vaccine was getting us out of this mess but it isn't. The delta variant proved it.
The video link with RFK Jr. was posted as a great explanation regarding the false information being promoted that any of the current US-available "vaccines" have been approved. They have not. The only "vaccine" the FDA approved was for a brand-name "vaccine" currently not available in the US. The current three in the US are still under EUA (which insidiously still shields them from being sued when people die or are harmed from them), so the logic AA is giving for discriminating benefit access doesn't hold up--opening themselves up for likely valid litigation.

I've only come across RFK Jr. by-way-of his posts since the "pandemic"--despite extensive efforts by MSM and government agencies to suppress his public comment and attempts at public debate. I certainly don't agree with him on many issues, but what I can tell is that he is not an "anti-vaxxer", but more accurately and anti-unsafe-vaxxer. He's also had successful litigation against Monsanto/Bayer. I would welcome his legal advice for consideration any day.
 
  • Like
Reactions: flyinawa

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,468
9,261
I"m not a lawyer, but it's not discriminatory to withhold a benefit because someone chooses not to consent because of deeply held religious beliefs, or valid health concerns that would be backed up by a physician?
I'm not a lawyer either, but I have watched decisions like this for the past 35 years...

Medical concerns can be considered, but are no guarantees. Some people might get a short-term exception (e.g. someone undergoing certain treatments, or a woman with a high risk pregnancy or is breast feeding might get a temporary reprieve, but not a permanent exemption),

Religious protections under the Civil Rights Act likely don't apply here. If you're a Christian Scientist or Dutch Reformed, perhaps, but for anyone else its pretty easy for an employer to prove that allowing non-vaccinated employees presents a substantial burden to other employees, just like they have done with employees who have tried to claim that being forced to work on Saturday or Sunday violates their faith.
 
Last edited:

1AA

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
6,017
4,277
www.usaviation.com
Too bad the vaccine now is useless. You need a booster. Then another booster for every mutated variant. When will it stop? How many employees going to say no more shots. The vaccine doesn't really prevent you from infection because of the ever growing variants. It's still emergency use for at least a couple more years. No liability for emergency use. I can go on and on but we are all smart enough to get the information we need to make a case against or for a shot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: signals

eolesen

Veteran
Jul 23, 2003
15,468
9,261
Nah, it's not useless. The mRNA versions don't seem to provide lasting protection. I haven't heard anyone saying the Janssen/J&J is having the same problems the Pfizer or Moderna are in terms of the vaccinated getting sick.

USDOL has already said injury from mandated vaccinations would be counted as workers comp, so that is liability.
 

1AA

Veteran
Aug 20, 2002
6,017
4,277
www.usaviation.com
Nah, it's not useless. The mRNA versions don't seem to provide lasting protection. I haven't heard anyone saying the Janssen/J&J is having the same problems the Pfizer or Moderna are in terms of the vaccinated getting sick.

USDOL has already said injury from mandated vaccinations would be counted as workers comp, so that is liability.
No company will cover the liability from the vaccine taken as a condition of employment or continued employment past their employment years. In other words who will be liable after you retire should a health issue arise? Employment is not permanent unlike the vaccine stays with you until your last breath. It's not like you can remove the vaccine from your body when you leave a company. All the vaccines are questionable at this point.

 

Latest posts