by Michael Kane
UPDATE – Listen to KANE vs DE BLASIO court hearing from 11-10-21 at following link –
Today in the second circuit federal court of appeals the attorney defending the NYC DOE was forced to admit NYC acted unconstitutionally in key aspects of their religious exemption to vaccination process. This means it is highly likely that some form of injunction will be issued to NYC DOE employees who had their religious exemptions to vaccination denied and are now on unpaid leave.
The judges have not yet ruled so it is not certain the injunction will be granted. However when the attorney for NYC has to admit in open court their actions were unconstitutional that is not a good day for the city. The cases argued today in court were KANE vs DE BLASIO as well as KEIL vs NYC.
This is a good sign, but we still have a long road ahead in court. Please donate to our case to ensure it is well funded and successful by clicking HERE
12 thoughts on “Good Day for TEACHERS FOR CHOICE in Court!”
This is productive! Nice work! What about the teachers who submitted RE – were denied and had to decide to get Vaxed or loose their only income? Will there be a way to get out RE for the second dose or was it only good for people who had the ability to leave their job?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t think such people will benefit from this case.
Courts like to see conviction in sincere beliefs – meaning those willing to lose their job, lose their pay, take the consequences yet still hold true to their sincere beliefs. People who give-in the courts usually view as lacking sincerity from the beginning.
I do not agree with this outlook, but it is how the courts usually view these situations.
I am not speaking for Michael, but as a teacher of Government and History I would say that a precedent is a precedent. Even if they compelled you to take the first shot, the same argument is there in regards to the second. I would advise you to get as many teachers who do not want to take that second shot on board now because if this fails they will certainly be compelled to take that second shot. I would say the same to those who are hoping the boosters would not be mandated,
It is worth a shot (no pun intended) but judges do not like helping people who have caved to pressure. I’ve seen it multiple times in our cases and others. Our attorney Michael Sussman refused to represent anyone who caved to pressure in cases of in-school covid testing. He would only represent those who refused completely and were placed on unpaid leave.
And the covid testing case had no “sincerely held religious beliefs” standard that religious exemptions have. If your religious beliefs are truly sincere, the courts feel you would not cave to the pressure of getting vaccinated under any circumstances.
I do not agree with that.
However that is what the courts have shown time and again.
Hopefully it also applies to those of us who, after having our REs denied, couldn’t afford to remain on unpaid leave and were forced to resign in order to accept new employment.
Very good, interesting point.
I will send this to our attorneys now. Thank you for bringing this to our attention. – mk
Hello Michael. Great work. If you can also mention to the attorneys the few people with one-off scenarios. In my case, I was on child care leave and supposed to return to work late October. I was denied my RE and was not granted a hearing with an arbitrator when I appealed. Declined again. I then extended my child care leave since that was an option for me, but obviously no pay or benefits. Thoughts? Thank you so much.
I had to apply for a medical leave once they denied my religious right. I’m still on LWOP but I requested time off to make sure I use my Bank Days as we wait for the next administration to see if they will continue with this lawsuits.
Michael, you wrote “Our attorney Michael Sussman refused to represent anyone who caved to pressure in cases of in-school covid testing.” So your lawyer refused to represent anyone who even took a covid test at school because they were forced to? I just wanted to make sure that I read that correctly. What does the test for covid have to do with the vaccine? Isn’t part of your legal challenge to have the testing option available as an alternative to vaccination?
I’m sorry I was unclear.
We have sued the NYC DOE in the past over forced covid testing, that is when Michael Sussman represented us. I was just making a comparison between an old case of ours – BUENO vs NYC DOE – which was about testing, and the current litigation over vaccination.
Yes, you are correct, currently we want a testing option.
Thank you for responding. I was confused because i thought you meant that your current lawyer refused to represent anybody that was tested for covid and seeking a religious exemption/accommodation for the vaccine. Thank you for clearing that up.
Michael Sussman is not currently our lead attorney. He is serving as an advisor on KANE vs DE BLASIO and Sujata Gibson is the lead.