Friends,
This article addresses the illegality of facemask mandates for employees with religious exemptions to vaccines required in the workplace. Over the past twelve years I’ve assisted over 1,000 employees nationally with workplace religious exemptions, and in the process, I’ve encountered a wide variety of facemask policies. On the least restrictive end of the spectrum were policies that required facemasks when a healthcare worker or patient was sick with coughing or sneezing, as those symptoms expel droplet particles large enough for a facemask to catch. At the other end of the restriction spectrum were policies requiring employees to wear a facemask at all times, in some cases from the moment they left their car upon arriving at work to the time they returned to their car immediately after work; and in at least one case, even while eating at the facility cafeteria—nurses were told they could only lift up their mask to put a bite of food in their mouths but that they must pull the mask back down over their mouth while chewing. I’m not kidding. I’ve actually worked with clients dealing with such policies. These are blatant, shameless (and, frankly, stupid) attempts to pressure employees into vaccinating so hospital administrators can meet their impossible “101% vaccination coverage” goals. I can only imagine what under-the-table bonuses had to be offered to inspire such psychotic behavior on the part of hospital administrators.
It bears pointing out that a formal legal analysis on facemasks is an exercise in absurdity since the science refuting the use of facemasks to filter viruses is perfectly clear. Formal analyses may nevertheless be necessary to fight such policies (if you have a potential need for one, please contact me here). Why such policies exist despite the obvious opposing science is a more complicated question.
My formal legal briefs on the law relating to facemasks run about 15 – 20 pages and argue multiple legal violations in these policies, but most of them stem from two simple facts:
I. Flu shots don’t work (for preventing flu, that is; they work incredibly well as an elite wealth-building tool). If we pretend that facemasks work, requiring facemasks for the small percentage of employees with religious exemptions is absurd when the majority of other employees, despite being vaccinated, have no protection and aren’t wearing facemasks. But they are a great way to punish employees who dare to think instead of following irrational orders.
II. Facemasks don’t work (for filtering viruses, that is; they work incredibly well as elite wealth-building and mass manipulation tools). Virus particles are on the nanometer level (billionths of a meter); the best healthcare worker facemasks filter particles down to only the micrometer level (millionths of a meter). Masks and viruses are an order of magnitude apart. Using facemasks to filter viruses is like using a fishing net to scoop up sand at the beach. You’ll get a few grains, but… This is grade school math. Doctors, however, must pass calculus to get into med school. Kinda makes you wonder, doesn’t it? To get into med school, you have to be smart. To be a doctor, you have to be obedient. [Quoting permitted with attribution.] Just ask any of the doctors who lost their licenses for speaking truth…
Friends, it really is this stupid. So, why does the insanity persist? Because the ongoing advancement of totalitarian control—which is what’s going on here—isn’t driven by facts; it’s driven by power. That power utilizes sophisticated psychology to manipulate our perceptions so that we perceive false narratives as true and truth as false and dangerous. Psychological manipulation is far more powerful than truth or facts because it controls the part of our psyches that decides what is true or factual: perception. It literally controls what appears logical and real to us with respect to specific targeted topics, in both sleeper and aware communities. (If you think you’re not manipulated, you just proved how powerful it is). One result is that we’re fighting a non-existent information war (there’s no lack of information, just a lack of ability to “see” it, and that’s a psychological issue) while our adversaries are fighting the real war, a psychology war, and with the only weapon that hides its own use (nobody sees their manipulation, including us). For an intro into how this works in both sleeper and aware communities, see Fear vs. Knowledge, and also Are the Masses Stupid? and Awake and Asleep: Not So Different. But don’t mistake officials’ assertions of erroneous science as incompetence on their part. Those assertions of erroneous biology are brilliant psychology that triggers highly specific and fully predictable behavior in both sleeper and aware communities, resulting in the ongoing advancement of control.
Moving on, here’s a quick overview of how the science of flu shots and facemasks supports a legal right to challenge mandatory facemask policies for employees with religious exemptions. But it’s important to understand that having the real science and law on your side isn’t necessarily enough. Power (profit and control), not truth, is what drives healthcare policies, and that same power has corrupted our legislatures and court systems, too. So, while having the real science and law maximizes your chance of success, it’s no guarantee of a proper outcome. Welcome to 21st Century America (and the world).
A. Applicable Law
This summary concerns Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination in several categories including religion. For purposes of this article, we’re assuming an employee has been granted a religious exemption to workplace vaccines, and that only exempt employees are required to wear facemasks. (For more about religious exemptions and Title VII, see Employee Exemptions Part I, Part II, and Part III.) In brief, Title VII applies to public and private employers with 15 or more employees. It requires employers to provide a “reasonable accommodation” to their employees’ religious beliefs and practices when an employee requests that (here, religious beliefs opposed to vaccines), unless the employer can show that doing so would cause the employer an “undue hardship.” It’s also unlawful for an employer to cause “a disparate impact” by treating an employee differently from others because of their religious beliefs and practices unless it’s a “business necessity.”
As to what specific conditions constitute a “reasonable accommodation,” an “undue hardship,” or a “business necessity,” we must research the ever-growing body of legal precedent on these points. Legal precedent, which comes from past court cases, provides legal points of reference we can use to argue that the proper application of law to a current situation requires the outcome we want. So, it’s not about what seems reasonable to us or about our understanding of the science; it’s about what the law says. (If health policies were driven by real science, vaccines would never have been mandated.) Forming an effective legal argument requires determining what precedent is relevant to the specific situation one is dealing with, and then formulating a persuasive legal argument supported by that precedent for how the law should be applied to a current specific situation to get a particular desired end-result. This requires legal training and experience due to the complexity of our legal systems.
On a more practical level, employers generally don’t care what their employees’ opinions of the law are, especially if the employer is following state or federal health agency directives. Often, getting an employer’s attention requires a letter from an attorney, as such letters convey a level of seriousness (one was willing to spend the money on an attorney) and imply the possibility of escalation—a lawsuit or other formal proceeding. Well drafted attorney letters will present enough information about the law to persuade the employer (or, more specifically, the employer’s attorney) that the employer’s policy is legally problematic and vulnerable to a legal challenge. Absent that, an employee’s opposition to an employer’s policy poses no significant threat and is likely to be rejected or ignored.
B. Summary of Legal Arguments
Bad science, in and of itself, doesn’t make a policy illegal. To have a legal argument, a legal right has to be violated. The reasons enumerated below explain why bad science results in a violation of federal Title VII laws. Specifically, as to employees with religious exemptions to vaccines, facemask policies based on faulty science do not provide the legally required “reasonable accommodation” to those employees’ religious beliefs and practices concerning vaccines, and they create an unlawful “disparate impact” by treating religiously exempt employees differently from other similarly situated employees. In violating Title VII laws in these ways, facemask policies also violate the employee’s free exercise rights in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as to religious freedom and raise concerns about Constitutional due process and equal protection.
Generally, Constitutional rights don’t apply to private entities, so private employers can argue that their employees don’t have Constitutional rights with them. However, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Title VII applies to private employers many years ago. As to other Constitutional concerns, an exception to this general rule arguably applies where employer-mandated vaccines are concerned, as private employers promoting vaccines are arguably “state actors.” For more about how this works, see Can Doctors Legally Refuse to Treat Unvaccinated Children?
1. Flu shots don’t work. There are many peer-reviewed, published medical studies showing that flu vaccines are largely ineffective, and at least one found that they don’t provide partial protection. Facemask policies presume that flu shots are effective when they require facemasks only for unvaccinated employees. Thus, facemask policies violate Title VII as noted above.
2. Flu shots aren’t safe. In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court declared vaccines were “unavoidably unsafe” (notably, 5 years after the NVICP began compensating flu shot injuries and deaths in 2006). The federal NVICP has paid out over $5 billion for vaccine injuries and deaths since late 1989, $149 million annually on average. But while the NVICP didn’t compensate flu vaccine injuries and deaths until 2006, over the entire 34-year duration of the program, flu shot injuries and deaths make up 63% of the total program payouts. Yet, the dollars paid out and number of compensated claims grossly understates the actual scope of the problem. Reports from FDA and DHHS, among other sources, estimate that over 99% of actually occurring vaccine adverse events never get reported, despite laws requiring healthcare professionals to report adverse events. (However, there appears to be no penalty for not reporting, so this is a toothless law).
Facemask policies presume that flu shots are safe and that there’s a net gain by requiring everyone in the workplace to get a flu shot when they place a restriction on only non-vaccinated employees. Since flu shots aren’t save and there isn’t a net benefit, facemask policies violate Title VII as noted above.
3. Facemasks don’t work. Influenza viruses are ubiquitous—they’re everywhere. When one person coughs or sneezes in an indoor workplace, germs get circulated throughout the entire building within a few hours by the central air system. Furthermore, germs don’t distinguish between vaccinated and unvaccinated employees, or between masked and unmasked employees (shocking, isn’t it?!). Germs on a doorknob don’t spontaneously jump off when the hand of a vaccinated or masked employee reaches for it (stay with me—I know this is complex science, but if you concentrate, surely you can get this). You don’t have to be sick to breathe flu viruses in and out, keeping them in circulation. For this reason alone, facemasks have no effect on the spread of influenza.
The CDC’s 2010 recommendation for healthcare worker facemasks during the swine flu “pandemic” was that healthcare professionals wear masks when the worker has “a fever and respiratory symptoms” and “when symptoms such as cough and sneezing are still present . . . during patient-care activities,” and “when entering the room of a patient with suspected or confirmed influenza.” The CDC explained that “a facemask, by design, does not filter or block very small particles in the air that may be transmitted by coughs, sneezes or certain medical procedures,” but that they “may be effective in blocking splashes and large-particle droplets.” Right there the CDC admitted that facemasks can’t stop the spread of swine flu, and impliedly suggested that stopping large droplet particles was better than nothing. (?) Clearly, even this past lenient policy was really about etiquette, not health. No one wants to be sneezed or coughed on, and a facemask policy for that purpose would be reasonable. But not to prevent the spread of the flu.
You see, the thread diameter of medical and non-medical face masks ranges from 55 µm (micrometers or millionths of a meter) to 440 µm, while SARS-CoV-2, for example, has a diameter of 60 nanometers (nm) to 140 nm—more than 1,000 times smaller. One study found that exhaled flu viruses are in the 400 – 600 nm range, roughly 100 times smaller. Viruses can easily pass through even the best facemasks. Reinforcing this rather obvious math are dozens of published medical studies over the past couple of decades proving both the ineffectiveness and potential harm of facemasks.
Facemask policies presume that facemasks effectively filter viruses. Since they don’t, these policies violate Title VII as noted above.
4. Facemask policies presume that non-vaccinated employees lack immunity to the flu virus. But this isn’t true. Non-vaccinated persons can acquire natural immunity, and without even developing symptoms. This occurs from an inapparent infection, also known as subclinical or asymptomatic infection. A March 2014 Lancet study revealed that three-fourths of people with seasonal and pandemic influenza had no symptoms at all, and that 97.3% of unvaccinated persons in the study did not get the flu despite not being vaccinated. Clearly, then, the assumption that non-vaccinated persons are necessarily not immune or even likely to be lacking immunity is scientifically unsound. As ever-present as flu viruses are, it’s likely that most people have natural immunity, and that only a small minority of people exposed to flu viruses get sick due to a weakened immune system due to low vitamin D levels, stress, other chronic illnesses, etc. Therefore, facemask policies violate Title VII as noted above.
III. Flaws in Common Counterarguments
Employers, hospital administrators in particular, have developed counterarguments that are easily refuted, such as:
A. Argument: “Infected employees can shed the influenza virus before symptoms manifest. Therefore, they need to wear a mask whether they have symptoms or not.”
Rebuttal: Since the only legitimate purpose for facemasks outside of the operating room (where they protect from splashing blood and other bodily fluids) is for etiquette reasons. So, the only reasonable time to require facemasks is when the worker or others near the worker have symptoms; and practically only for the sick person.
B. Argument: “Since masks are required for employees with both religious and medical exemptions, the policy is not discriminatory.”
Rebuttal: The unreasonable imposition of an unscientific mask policy on an employee with religious objections to vaccines does not become a “reasonable accommodation” or a “business necessity” simply because an employer imposes the same unscientific policy on other (medically exempt) employees.
Title VII requires each employee’s religious accommodation request to be assessed individually. If the policy is not a reasonable accommodation or a business necessity as to any one employee, it violates Title VII as to that employee, regardless of the application of the policy to other employees.
Conclusion:
Facemask policies make no sense scientifically. Yet, because of the benefits to controllers, were mandated for virtually everyone throughout the plandemic, and accepted by most due to the power of psychological manipulation, the ability of the elite to control the minds of the masses so that everyone believed masks were required for their protection. For more difficult for us to see, however, is that we, too, are manipulated. The only difference is that while manipulation prevents the masses from seeing facemask and other lies, we fail to find real solutions, evidenced by the fact that for decades, now, our ever-greater activism work has always been met, overall, by an advancing control system. Information alone can’t break one free from the manipulation we don’t even see, because it operates from a level of subconscious emotions that controls conscious level perception. Information operates on the conscious level, only. Our activism work is critical yet will remain, overall, ineffective, until we address the masses’ subconscious fear barrier that literally prevents them from being able to see the truth. The reason we’re not doing this is because of our own manipulation. Overcoming that requires that we first consider the possibility (the manipulation itself being invisible), and then taking steps to peel away layers of our own cognitive dissonance, which can only be seen once you’re free from them. This is one time that “seeing is believing” holds us back. Just like waking to the problem, waking to real solutions requires proactive exploration. No one ever said, “I’m tired of being asleep to vaccines, so I’m going to do some research and wake up.” Something clicked or got our attention, and we looked for ourselves. That’s what it takes to wake up to the problem. And that’s what it takes, again, to awaken to the solution. In both cases, it's a psychological process. Information is involved, but information alone isn’t enough.
In gratitude,
Alan Phillips, J.D.
Vaccine Rights Legal Expert
My heartfelt “thank you” to those who contribute and have contributed to help me keep these articles coming. They really do help! If you’re not one of them, please consider a one-time or small monthly donation to help. Any amount helps!
Have an exemption question? Contact Alan at vaccinerights.com. Some questions may be addressed in future articles (with anonymity).
More Exemption Articles: vaccinerights.com/articles, vaccinerights.substack.com/archive
Alan Phillips, J.D., is the nation’s leading vaccine rights legal expert, the only person who’s ever been a fulltime attorney with exemptions, who’s worked in about 70 different exemption contexts and sub-contexts with clients, attorneys, legislators, and activists nationally for over two decades. For exemption help, see vaccinerights.com.