vaccine

Attorney Richard C. Chambers, Jr. Scores Huge Win in COVID Religious Discrimination Claim

NOTES BETWEEN PRINTED EDITIONS

Attorney Richard C. Chambers, Jr. Scores Huge Win in COVID Religious Discrimination Claim

High Court Reverses Prior Magistrate Judge’s Decisions

JAN. 16, 2025 – In a case that has instantly drawn attention nor just throughout Massachusetts but across the United States, local attorney Atty. Richard C. Chambers, Jr scored a “huge win” this past week when the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit agreed with the Lynnfield, Mass. attorney’s argument in defense of his client who was terminated for not taking the COVID “vaccine.”

In a 20-page decision, the court reversed a prior ruling in which a magistrate judge had denied Atty. Chambers’ client Regina M.Thornton’s  request for relief what what she termed an illegal firing due to her refusal on deeply held religious grounds to take the COVID “vaccination.”

In making the decision, the high court detailed the process of termination and the details of the religious exemption request timely filed by Ms. Thornton. Despite extensive, comprehensive details of her faith, of her belief about the origins of the “vaccine,” and the belief that taking a substance which was believed to be created in part using materials from aborted babies, the lower court had denied Thornton, siding with the company who fired her, Ipsen Biopharmeceuticals, Inc.

Ms. Thornton maintained that taking the abortion-created vaccine would be tantamount to supporting the killing of the unborn, amongst other reasons linked to her faith and her bible.

A read through Case: 23-1595, document 00118236420 reveals that the prior decision to dismiss Ms. Thornton’s case against Ipsen included outright dismissal of any consideration for religious exception, nor an understanding, comprehension, or desire to even consider and understand the complexities and defenses of an individual caught between adhering to one’s faith, vs. being forced by a company or a government to take by coercion a drug which is abhorrent to the intended recipient on many levels.

From the court documents: Thornton was employed by Ipsen as Associate Director – Patient Safety. In September 2021, Ipsen implemented a policy requiring its employees to receive COVID-19 vaccinations. Citing her
religious beliefs, Thornton submitted a request for an exemption
from the vaccination requirement, which Ipsen denied. After
Thornton did not comply with the vaccination requirement, Ipsen
terminated her employment.

“On September 7, 2021, Ipsen implemented a policy requiring its employees to become “fully vaccinated” against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. Pursuant to the terms of the vaccination policy, employees would be “considered fully
vaccinated for COVID-19 two weeks after [the employee] ha[d] received the second dose in a two-dose series (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) or two weeks after they ha[d] received a single-dose vaccine (Johnson and Johnson/Janssen).” Those who failed to provide timely proof of vaccination were subject to termination for cause.

“The policy, however, provided a procedure by which employees could request a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement. To do so, an employee needed to submit an accommodation request form accompanied by “a written statement describing [their] sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance and how it conflict[ed] with . . . receiving the COVID-19 vaccination.” Ipsen reviewed all such “requests on a case-by-case basis.”

“Thornton, who at the time was employed by Ipsen as Associate Director – Patient Safety, sought a religious exemption from the vaccination requirement on October 26, 2021. In her accommodation request form, she stated the following:

“[B]eing a very private person, this process that requires me to divulge my sincerely held beliefs and personal medical information makes me extremely uncomfortable. Receiving a vaccine (including the [COVID-19] vaccine) goes against my personal, private and sincerely held religious beliefs.

“Therefore, I am requesting a reasonable accommodation based on my religious convictions. My long standing beliefs are sincerely held and firmly established in my faith, the Holy Bible and my awareness that what God has created is perfect.

“On November 2, 2021, Ipsen denied Thornton’s request.

“Even though the vaccination policy did not provide for an internal appeal process, Thornton still tried to appeal the denial by submitting a letter to Ipsen on  November 5, 2021. Therein, she elaborated further:
I have never had to defend my faith and it is difficult for me to put into words my sincerely held religious beliefs that I hold in my heart and soul. I demonstrate my sincerely held religious beliefs not only in how I think, but in how I live my life every day. God requires me to follow His Word and His Teachings so that I may live in Grace and have eternal salvation. In practicing my faith, which requires me to keep my body and soul pure to God’s standard as He created, I follow God’s word by . . . [p]raying to God. . . . God does not make mistakes and I am created in His image and defying what He has created is a sin and morally wrong. . . .

“I have not received a vaccine in at least twenty years. Through much prayer and listening to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it would violate my sincerely held religious beliefs and jeopardize my soul and eternal salvation to go against God by defiling my perfectly created body that He created in His image by receiving the vaccine. This is the way I choose to interpret God’s Word; the messages I have received from God; and is my own personal translation of His teachings.

Ipsen made no decision regarding this letter, nor did Thornton comply with the vaccination requirement. As a result, Ipsen terminated Thornton’s employment on November 10, 2021.”

With the extensive, detailed reply from the United States court of Appeals for the First District, Thornton’s is expected to be granted a fully jury trial in this matters as she fights against unlawful termination by Ipsen.

 

One Reply to “Attorney Richard C. Chambers, Jr. Scores Huge Win in COVID Religious Discrimination Claim

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *