Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine? You May Not Receive Unemployment Benefits | |
Oldcrow64 "There's shadows in life, babe" User ID: 44888894 United States 08/05/2021 02:51 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Should not hold up in a real court, but I haven't seen one of those in a long time. Greetings from Camp Bader-Ginsberg. Weather is fine, wish you were here. Up the Voltage! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79123872 United States 08/05/2021 02:55 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 77968607 United States 08/05/2021 03:09 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 79103049 United States 08/05/2021 03:11 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 73877086 United States 08/05/2021 04:43 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | the winning intensifies ... Quoting: Anonymous Coward 80445198 Fired For Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine? You May Not Receive Unemployment Benefits As companies across the country including Facebook, Walmart, Google, Uber and Disney begin to mandate Covid-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment, workers who are fired for refusing to do so might not receive unemployment benefits, according to WUSA. The reason? In most states, if a person is fired with cause for violating company policy - such as mandatory vaccinations - they are not entitled to unemployment benefits and payments. "Even something as simple as a dress code that says you have to wear a tie, and that's the company's policy, and you say, 'I don't believe in wearing a tie, so I'm not going to do it.' That's insubordination," says John T. Harrington, Principal at The Employment Law Group. "It's misconduct, and it would likely disqualify you from receiving unemployment benefits." Harrington said there are only two exemptions to a vaccination requirement - medical or religious. In both cases, however, exemptions are determined on a case-by-case basis with employers. Just because one employee is granted a religious exemption, it doesn't mean that will extend to anyone else. less than 50% [link to www.zerohedge.com (secure)] Federal law states that no one can mandate/require an individual to take an unlicensed (experimental drug). That is stated in the exact same law that allows the FDA to authorize emergency use of an unlicensed drug. There is also a whole list of requirements that have to be met prior to administering an unlicensed drug by whomever is administering it to the individual that it us being offered to. Here isntheblink to the law taken from an article by Cornell Law [link to www.law.cornell.edu (secure)] |