[Music] all right thanks for joining me it looks like we're live now hopefully the connection is being established um i'm known for having really bad uh internet connections here in the mountains of west virginia but thanks for joining me today was a great day i finally got the opportunity to file a lawsuit against a private company a private employer for mandating the covid vaccine and you know one of these videos that i did on covet information youtube went ahead and yanked it while it was still live so hopefully they don't do that here but i wouldn't be surprised if they did but this is all this is all accurate information that i'm giving in fact i'm discussing here federal law so there's nothing that dr fauci should disagree with here in fact his private emails probably substantiate much of of what's in my lawsuit here but this is the lawsuit that we filed today again it's against a private employer this is a chicago company that is located in greenbrier county west virginia and they operate assisted living facilities all over the country including multiple facilities in west virginia and this particular facility is in greenbrier county west virginia so um chris suisse thanks for joining me um i i probably should have have uh sent you a copy of this first before i filed it but i just went ahead and and pulled the trigger on it and this is as far as i know this i think this is like the third lawsuit over the vaccine mandate against employers filed in this country the first one was in new mexico and that was a public employer and i believe the case is much easier to be made against a public employer because the government if it's your employer can violate your civil rights and you have a whole lot more room to to you know point to rights being violated with a public public employer is versus a private employer so the tricky part is even though we can show that there's a violation of federal law if you're mandating a vaccine that's not supposed to be mandated you know what can you do as against a private employer so there was a case that was filed in texas a few days ago and what i ended up doing was very much following that texas case which i think was very well done and that was filed in texas state court so i took a lot of the substance of that case which is mostly what you've seen so far and a lot of the other things that have been put out there but i put it in the context of a west virginia case so it's a state law based retaliatory discharge lawsuit so it's a it's it's a it's an employment lawsuit it's a retaliatory discharge employment lawsuit but here's how here's how it works and this could be different in different states again this was filed today and just to set the background my client works in a assisted living facility and they started to tell the employees just verbally all right we have a quote expectation that you need to get that you will be vaccinated vaccinated by june 1st and they wouldn't put it in writing so this particular client communicated in writing in verbally that you know she had researched this and based on the personal medical decision that she was making she was choosing not to get the vaccine because it was an unapproved vaccine that's supposed to be non-mandatory and so she forwarded this information to the hr department of the company that owned her assisted living facility and there a company called enlivens out of chicago so she forwards it to them and finally finally they put something in writing that says all right so if you're choosing not to get the vaccine then you're basically choosing to resign so they're they're just framing her termination as a resignation so this is the lawsuit that we filed again it's here pretty local to me greenberg county west virginia against an enlivened llc which operates the seasons place assisted living facility so my client was in fact fired on june 1st of of 2021 and this is the substance of the letter that they sent to her so hr in chicago the human resources director sends her a letter that says voluntary resignation due to personal choice to remain unvaccinated dear employee as you know leading authorities now instruct that vaccination is the most effective method to combat the spread of covid19 and minimize its impacts similarly our experience has shown that being unvaccinated puts at risk the safety and well-being and lives of our residents employees and visitors and has a significant impact on our daily business operations as such to best protect our residents employees and visitors enlivent determined that beginning june 1st 2021 all enlivened employees in your community must be vaccinated therefore due to your personal and this was bold in the original letter i didn't choose to bold this therefore due to your personal choice to remain unvaccinated contrary to the essential functions of your job and enlivens job requirements we are accepting your voluntary resignation effective june 1st 2021 so that is the letter that she got and i have as an exhibit to the lawsuit the actual letter and the funny thing is is just as you see there on the screen it's not even to her name directly it's just dear employees so it's sort of a template letter which tells me that they've done it to other people so they have facilities just all over the place and i'm sure there were other victims of andrew knuth human resources director other employees who were terminated and called as as and described as having voluntarily resigned so what does that mean that means then that you know they're being terminated and depending on what the state law is i mean they can't even go out and get unemployment or unemployment benefits because they have you know quit their job so it's just a real uh you know this is a lot of these employers have been saying this verbally or doing the whole expectation thing but really until andrew did this i hadn't seen any of them in the you know in west virginia anyways that who would actually put it in writing all right so you know what is what is the basis for this okay so a lot of this is is uh compiled by other lawyers and a lot of this came from the the texas lawsuit which is which was very very well written so i included a lot of that in here and obviously there was a lot of research that took place here but this goes through if you read the lawsuit it's in the in the description on the civil rights lawyer dot com on the in in my last post but this lays out the law you know if you're going to file another lawsuit or or explain to employers or people who want to know what the law is this lays out the law really well and the facts about what's going on here that these vaccines have not been approved by the fda and we can prove that so there's a lot of misinformation going on here these are really experimental vaccines and they've been in existence a very short period of time and what's happening here are these employers are having are being forced to be involved in these experiments so usually this would you know take two years or so to to take place but this has all happened in a very short period of time you know one of the things i've always directed people to is look at the emergency use authorization letter itself you know from pfizer i included it as an exhibit in this lawsuit but it says that people have to be advised that this is an emergency use authorization and that it's an investigational vaccine that's not licensed for any indication and that all promotional materials related to this vaccine have to clearly and conspicuously state that the product has not been approved or licensed by the fda but has been authorized for emergency use only so there's this fact sheet and the fact sheet has to be provided to providers that means who are giving you the vaccine and also to recipients and this is mandated by federal law and it has to warn recipients that if they have certain medical conditions or circumstances that they have to tell their vaccination providers which really should be medical providers before they're administered the vaccine for instance those with bleeding disorders those who are taking blood thinners those who are immunocompromised or taking medicine that compromises the immune system so when you have these employers that are mandating that it doesn't matter what your medical status your circumstances are you just have to do it but you look at the the pfizer information and it's saying that well well wait a second if you have certain medical conditions or circumstances you're taking certain medications then you need to talk to the to the vaccination providers first and then it goes outright and says that people getting the vaccine have to be warned that certain individuals should not get the vaccine and i didn't emphasize that that was in the fda's materials should not get the vaccine such as those who have had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient in the vaccine and if you look at the fact sheet it contains the ingredients that are in the vaccine so there are a lot of people out there who either should hesitate and talk to their medical provider before they get the vaccine according to the fda or who should not take it at all if they've had a severe allergic reaction to any of the ingredients and there are numerous ingredients in the vaccine the fda on their own website has stated the fda believes the terms and conditions of the emergency use authorization issued under section 564 preempts state or local law so what does this mean this means that that the state of west virginia can't uh you know no state law no state law could preempt this federal the food and drug act that says that emergency use vaccines can't be mandated and that's the basis of this lawsuit the entire basis of the lawsuit is is that there's a section of federal law that says all right you can get emergency authorization for a vaccine but there are certain requirements so let me skip ahead to that all right so the statute that authorizes emergency use authorization section 360 bbb3 okay so it it state it has several uh conditions let me find them here but yeah this is a fairly lengthy lawsuit all right here they are so one of the requirements is that people have to have the option to accept or refuse the administration of the product and what we have here is that the employers are the ones mandating it not the government so we'll have to see what the courts are going to do with that but here is the attack that i've taken to challenge it so west virginia law says that even though west virginia is an at-will employment state there is an exception and there's a west virginia case that lists the exception and the exception says that if there were if the employer fires the employee in retaliation for you know some public policy then let's see where is it all right the case is harless versus first national bank from 1978. so the rule that an employer has an absolute right to discharge an at-will employee must be tempered by the principle that where the employer's motivation for the discharge is to contravene some substantial public policy principle then the employer might be liable for damages occasioned by the discharge so harless versus first national bank so other states might be different so the basic rule usually is is that you can fire as a private employer you can fire somebody for any reason you want mostly but there are exceptions to that one exception is this harmless case an employer usually has an absolute right to discharge an at will employee but where the employer's motivation for the discharge is to violate some substantial public policy principle then the employer may be liable to the employee for damages so then the employee can sue if the employer's motivation for the discharge is to violate some substantial public policy principles so what is that what is a substantial public policy principle just looking at state law in west virginia the west virginia supreme court has said you know what public policies where they exist so here are the sources among others federal and state constitutions public statutes judicial decisions applicable principles of common law and then the prevailing concepts of the federal and state governments relating to and affecting safety health morals and general welfare of the people for whom the government is factually established so basically state and federal law state and federal law and legislative enactments legislative legislatively approved regulations and judicial opinions so clearly the federal law the food and drug act is going to fit within the areas of what the state supreme court is defined as as public policy then you also have to prove that it's a substantial public policy so clearly i think that could be could be met here and the case law itself actually says that inherent in the term substantial public policy is a concept that the policy will provide specific guidance to a reasonable person so if you google it you know can a private employer mandate the coveted vaccine you'll see that there's discussion all over the internet including between lawyers and between hr professor professionals and all these corporations discussing all the potential employment liability decisions about whether or not they're going to mandate the covid vaccine so there's been i mean there's been a a lot to to put any reasonable person on notice that there's a there's an issue here and what i've seen in some of these cases is you know it can't be something that's just a vague concept like all right clean water you know clean water is a public policy principle and i i pointed out some some discharge that the employer was engaging into in the public waters and they're polluting waters and they're violating this vague public policy principle so that's not what you can sue over you have to point to something specific and here we have very specific federal law 21 u.s code 360 bbb3 authorization for medical products for use in emergencies and that law states that where a medical product is unapproved then no one may be mandated to take it no one may be mandated mandated to take it so that's very specific federal law and therefore under west virginia law that is public policy and if that's a substantial public policy of which a reasonable person would know then you can't fire people for it so it you know that is the legal theory that that we're going with here um so it's it's the legal theory is pretty simple what's more complex is just the the whole uh the whole process of of vaccines and the emergency use and i'm not aware that any federal courts yet have ruled on on whether public employers can mandate can mandate a vaccine under emergency use i'm not sure going back to some of the factual parts of the lawsuit this is some good information the general stages of developing a vaccine under the fda's rules are this you have an exploratory stage you have a pre-clinical stage with animal testing you have clinical development with human trials you have regulatory review and approval you have manufacturing and you have quality control so the third stage is itself a three-phase process so during phase one small groups of people received the trial vaccine in phase two the clinical studies expanded and the vaccine is given to people who have characteristics such as age and physical health similar to those for whom the vaccine is intended and in phase 3 the vaccine is given to thousands of people and tested for efficacy and safety so phase three itself normally occurs over a course of years because because it can take years for the side effects of a new vaccine to manifest phase three must be followed by a period of regulatory review and approval during this stage data and outcomes are reviewed by peers and by the fda finally the manufacturer must demonstrate that the vaccine can be manufactured under conditions that assure adequate adequate quality control so that is a timeline that would normally take years and they've condensed it into just a matter of months so the individuals that are being given the vaccine really are the are the phase three i mean they are the experiment and despite the fact that there are certain health conditions or circumstances that might dictate that you not get the vaccine and that there are some situations such as allergic reactions to various things that are sufficient to to say in bold letters that are underlined that you should not get the vaccine it's being applied just across the board by employers and they think that they can get away with it they think that they can get away with it because they're not the government and so there's this question is yeah that's federal law but does it apply to private companies and states and i think it does i think it does so this is the same sort of strategy that they used in texas unfortunately texas has a similar retaliatory discharge state cause of action and west virginia fortunately has that as well so i looked at a way to get this into federal court and to make a federal claim but i just think it's likely that if i'd filed this in federal court we'd get before a federal judge and they might say yeah well federal law says that but it doesn't provide a private cause of action for an employee who was fired i just think that is the likely outcome of that unless you work for the federal government for instance well i don't know if the new mexico case was was federal or state correctional employees i think they were maybe state but federal law certainly says that this vaccine is unapproved and that it's supposed to be non-mandatory that really can't be disputed that is undisputed the question is is what can we do about it so fortunately again under west virginia law it says that retaliatory discharge actions can be filed if the discharge is in response to you know concerns about a violation of substantial public policy that's defined as really any state or federal law or regulation of which a reasonable person would be able to identify that's i'm paraphrasing there so although it wasn't intended to fit within these circumstances i think it fits i think it does fit within these circumstances so we have asked for for a preliminary injunction hearing to be held in an expedited manner and so we will ask for injunctive relief that would enjoin this company from terminating employees or for or from taking any negative action against employees for their choice to not take an unapproved non-mandatory vaccine i'll put up for you and we've also asked for the general money damages that come with a wrongful discharge including lost wages including and we've also asked for punitive damages and attorneys fees but we've also asked for a declaration from the court that private employers in in west virginia anyways cannot fire employees for based on their choice their voluntary choice not to take the coveted vaccine here is the letter that my client got so i read it to you but this is the actual one that she received from andrew this is a an exhibit in the lawsuit there's also another communication she got here i'll show you where is it all right so may 4th 2021 she actually the client advised the company that look covid19 vaccines are experimental she informed them all about section 360 bbb emergency use authorizations that they have to have the option to accept or refuse administration of the vaccine and she she did a great job of explaining all of this to the company but look at the response that she got so that was may 4th then may 7th here comes hr hi stephanie thank you for reaching out i just left you a voicemail to discuss again they're wanting to keep everything verbal they're not wanting to put anything in writing this is before they sent the the other letter i showed you i just left you a voicemail to discuss sherry is correct in her guidance enliven has a duty to provide a safe and healthy work environment for our vulnerable senior citizen residents and valued team members public health experts advise that vaccination is the most effective way to combat the spread of the deadly coven 19 virus and minimize its impacts to best protect our residents employees and visitors all enlivent employees must be vaccinated or have an approved accommodation if you have any questions or would like to discuss this further please don't hesitate to reach out to me best wishes nate mcbride senior human resources manager so this was their response to her concerns being conveyed to them that this is not supposed to be a mandatory vaccine so um as you can see they didn't respond to any of the the federal law aspect of what she informed them i'll also show you here before we finish the the eua letter itself so if you haven't read the eua letter where is it it's an exhibit to this lawsuit and you can you can read it this is from the federal government to pfizer this was the pfizer so from the fda may 10th this is their newest one when they approved it for for use of 16 year olds so may 10 2021 and this is the actual eua letter so in this letter it gives them various conditional um terms of of how they can use it and what they have to disclose when they when they when they do it and one of the requirements is is that they have to provide to the vaccination providers and recipients this fact sheet let me see all right here's where it says it so right here if you look at that first bullet point it says that all right pfizer cova 19 vaccine is authorized for emergency use with the following product specific information required to be made available to the vaccination providers and the recipients so the fact sheet for health care providers and the fact sheet for recipients and caregivers so i've also attached that document and these are things you're not hearing about in the news at all there's just this assumption that it's been approved by the fda when it hasn't been there are very specific disclosures that are that are required to be made so here's the fact sheet for recipients and caregivers and this is current as of may of 2021. so there's all sorts of there's also all sorts of information in here that you would think people would want to know i've specifically looked at this so what should you mention to your vaccination provider should be medical provider right what should we usually with these medicines it's they say you know ask your you know tell your doctor if you have blah blah blah blah and now we've replaced doctor with vaccination provider because we're talking about grocery stores and and pharmacies and and all that so you should mention your vaccination provider before you get the vaccine if you have any allergies if you have a fever if you have a bleeding disorder or on a blood thinner i mean that's not a lot of people in west virginia is it i mean one of the most obese heart disease ridden states where obesity really is the leading cause of death i mean i'm sure no one's on a blood thinner in west virginia do you think any of these pharmacies or any of these grocery stores or doctors do you think they're asking people they're checking to see what medications they're on no or whether they have allergies or whether they have a fever i've already told the story that my wife had a fever and the pharmacy when she went in to get her antibiotics tried to give her a vaccine while she was in there with a fever if you have a bleeding disorder i already went through that are immunocompromised like myself or on a medicine that affects your immune system which they try to give me and i don't take how many people are on a medication that affects their their immune system i mean it's got to be a lot of people i've taken it before if you're pregnant or plan to become pregnant now with our population loss in west virginia maybe that's not that many people whether you're breastfeeding whether you've received another cova 19 vaccine whether you've ever fainted in association with an injection all these things are required to be provided to to recipients so that they can tell you know their vaccination providers wait a second i have this specific circumstance where i take this specific medicine now it doesn't go on to say what what happens after that but now it says who should absolutely not get the pfizer covid19 vaccine you shouldn't get it if you've had a severe allergic reaction after a previous dose of the vaccine or if you've had a severe allergic reaction to any ingredient of the vaccine and here's the ingredients all right i'm not going to try to pronounce these things but you have all these different ingredients just look at this right here i can't really highlight it because it's a it's a scan but it has all these different ingredients and so how many how many people are allergic to some of these things i mean i guess i don't have any idea so again this is the fact sheet and none of these employers are discussing any of this all right so what are the risks of the vaccine so why tell people what the risks are if they don't have a choice not to take it difficulty breathing swelling of your face and throat a fast heartbeat bad rash dizziness weakness severe allergic reactions non-severe allergic reactions injection site pain and on and on and on and on and the fact is is that we don't even know what all the possible side effects are because usually this happens over a course of years and it can take a long time for according to what i've read for some of these side effects to show up so we don't even know the fda doesn't even know yet these are just the ones that they know about and the fact is is another thing that's being hidden from the public and that this might get this thing knocked but this is all public information is that there have been reported deaths that are way in excess of the usual vaccine deaths and i went over that as well in here let me see if i can find it all right here it is the vares database this is again this is in the lawsuit all right the vares database identifies serious covet 19 health concerns so this has been happening from 1990 all right so there were four thousand four hundred and thirty-four deaths reported and over twelve thousand six hundred and nineteen serious injuries reported into this database from covid19 vaccine vaccines from through may 10th of 2021 so presumably there's more now so how many deaths are there usually with vaccines by comparison from july 1st 1997 until december 31st of 2013 theirs received 666 adult death reports the flu vaccines are linked to 20 to 30 death reports a year according to dr peter peter mccullough and those 20 to 30 death reports come with considerably more vaccines administered so the covin vaccines already have reported over 4 000 deaths and that is a highly unusual i mean 70 times a normal threshold for pulling a drug from the market okay and this is really because they've been exempted from the usual approval process where all these studies are occurring but back to the point here is we're not we're not even arguing over the emergency use approval we're not arguing vaccines in general we're just arguing should a employer be allowed to mandate a vaccine or anything that according to federal law which preempts state law is has to be non-mandatory and is not approved by the fda i would argue no and that's what we've done in this lawsuit because public policy of the state which includes federal law and federal regulations are being violated even though it's an at-will state and you can usually discharge people people for whatever you want federal statutes can change that that's why enlivens couldn't fire an employee based on their skin color that's why they couldn't fire an employee based on their sex or based on their age because we have these federal statutes that say that you can't do that and that you know that um preempts the state law that says that we're an at-will that we're an at-will state and west virginia law has recognized that as apparently texas law has so hopefully we can get into court on this pretty quickly um sorry i haven't looked at any of the comments i'll go ahead and look at that now all right bob vaccines have been required in lots of places lots of times in the last 100 years well the differences which the whole point of the lawsuit is is that it's not an approved vaccine it's not an approved vaccine it's under an emergency use authorization that's the entire point i'm not arguing that employers cannot generally mandate approved vaccines i myself have been vaccinated by an employer when i worked at the department of justice they stuck me with all sorts of things including all sorts of bizarre hepatitis vaccines that later popped up in blood work where my doctor was like what in the hell have you been vaccinated with i mean i'm not an anti-vaxxer i i'm not arguing that vaccines can't be mandated it all has to do with these particular circumstances where this process has been rushed and they're effectively experimenting on human beings as we go which is fine if if if you if you consent to that but what we have is it being mandated so yeah you can quit your job you can go work somewhere else but what kind of a choice is that we don't allow that kind of a choice when it comes to skin color discrimination or sex discrimination absolutely not so why should it be allowed allowed under these circumstances uh tabby's daddy try being a master yeah well it it's uh you would think that they would try to retain employees at this point in time because all i'm hearing is that it's almost impossible to find employees mark stevens and this company is only i don't know in the last couple of years bought out this assisted living facility and my my great uncle actually lived in this facility it was a great facility but yeah bringing chicago values to west virginia that's how we ended up i believe where we are fred johnson our health and body is not within their jurisdiction well it it is now mike i'm allergic to everything well the see the the ironic thing is is that the the uh these some of these employers are are requiring you know absolute proof you know so if you're saying you're allergic to something they're going to be requesting that you bring a doctor's note and one of the other things i found in my research is that while employers generally can ask you if you are vaccinated or if you are not vaccinated they can't necessarily ask you why if you've not gotten vaccinated they can't necessarily ask you what the reason is and that is because that can elicit certain private health information about disabilities if an employer asks you to compromise your principles to work do you want to work for them well that's a good question but a lot of people don't you know don't have the choice uh lulu good question is the west virginia covent lottery legal is it not coercion at what point does the data stop this well it's not something i've looked into several people have asked me to but the all this lottery stuff i mean by definition a lottery is well some would some would call a lottery in general uh tax on stupidity but the reason it can be a tax on stupidity is because it is voluntary so the you know if the the fact that it's it's voluntary you know i don't know i don't know if that makes it legal i think that there are other reasons why that should be illegal having to do with state law but everything the west virginia governor has done for the past 14 months has been illegal in my opinion and i think anyone who is you know cares a shred about the state constitution or the federal constitution or separation of powers in general would have to agree with that pretty much everything the general the governor done has done is illegal all right bob again are you citing you're citing pharmacies recipients and health care providers however the suit pertains to employers none of those documents apply to the employers okay well let me try to explain it to you bob west virginia law as other states might say that you can't fire somebody if it's a violation of a public policy so public policy is defined under west virginia law and when i say you can't fire someone that means employers can't fire somebody if it's in violation of a public policy public policy is defined in west virginia among other things state and federal law so it is undisputed that federal law this federal law says that that people have to be given the choice the vaccine cannot be mandated so yeah that is directed at people it's directed at providers and recipients but is the employer employee who's being mandated to get the vaccine what do we call that person a recipient so that employee under federal law has the right to choose the right to refuse to take that vaccine the employer the private employer is taking away that right effectively now according to the employer yeah they have the choice to resign or they have they they they're voluntarily making the choice under their argument to resign but what kind of a choice is that again we don't allow that sort of a choice in other areas such as skin color discrimination chris williams 147 times the deaths of the flu vaccine bubba as nixon said if the president or the governor does it it's not illegal like federal employees can't even be asked if they got a shot well like i said federal federal employees or state employees even have a lot more leeway they have a lot more rights than than private employees so this is this is really the most difficult sort of case the way the hospitals do it is if you don't get the shot you're let go and that's that's what the texas case is is it's against you know 110 employees sued methodist hospital or whatever it's called in texas and that was the that was their policy there uh make a counteroffer if the other guy says now i'll get the shot if you bear liability yeah and that's the you know that i think there is you know there there is liability there if in my opinion if they're going to mandate the vaccine what if you do have side effects who's going to be responsible for that i don't i think all this stuff is going to have to be worked out in litigation we know who's not responsible and that is pfizer and johnson and johnson yeah lulu and the nuremberg code is mentioned in in the lawsuit in fact i'll i'll pull that up all right so this federal law reflects a fundamental public policy goal of striking a balance between giving people the option of having access to experimental medical products during public emergencies while also ensuring that no one's forced to accept these experimental medical products so there's a well-settled doctrine that medical experiments better known as clinical research may not be performed on human subjects without the express informed consent the right to avoid imposition of human experimentation is fundamental and has its roots in the nuremberg code of 1947 which is a medical ethics code based issued based on laws under which nazi criminals were judged for conducting horrible medical experiments on people during the second world war all right so the nuremberg code following world war ii said that we're not going to allow the experimentation on human beings to occur ever again and that's basically what's happening here so that goes into the public policy you know part of this debate so again i think this is the the best argument to sue private employers is to use this state law retaliatory discharge sort of claim or you know whatever sort of employee employer lawsuit means it exists in any of any of these respective states i don't i don't think we're going to be able to go into federal court and show that there's a federal cause of action against private employers now public employers if you can show that you've been deprived of a federal right then you can file a section 1983 lawsuit so like i said there's a lot more wiggle room there's a lot more for public employees all right so that's about as much as i want to talk about that tonight but again that is the lawsuit that we filed today against enliven chicago company we filed it here in west virginia so hopefully we can get that in court soon so i appreciate you watching and go to thecivilrightslawyer.com that's where i will put all of the updates in this litigation and um and i look look forward to litigating this we'll see we'll see what happens you