A federal judge ruled today that Boston Medical Center had no way to safely accommodate a neonatal intensive care nurse's profession of faith against both Covid-19 shots and face masks and so had the right to fire her for refusing to get vaccinated.
In her ruling, US District Court Judge Julia Kobick agreed with the hospital to dismiss former nurse Allison Cyr's suit because "the undisputed evidence establishes that accommodating Cyr's vaccine exemption request would have imposed an undue hardship on BMC," given that she worked caring for premature and extremely ill newborns.
In sum, the undisputed facts show that allowing Cyr to continue working as a NICU nurse while unvaccinated would have jeopardized the health of BMC's staff and patients, and risked damaging BMC's reputation of providing safe medical care. On this record, no reasonable jury could conclude that BMC could have accommodated Cyr's request for an exemption from its Immunization Policy without incurring these significant costs that, taken together, amount to undue hardship.
Kobick's decision comes less than a week after another judge in Boston federal court dismissed a similar suit by an endoscopy nurse at BMC, who was represented by the same attorney.
In July, 2021, BMC informed workers it would require them to get vaccinated against the deadly virus, after its experts concluded that possible alternatives - masking, periodic testing and social distancing - just were not as effective as shots. On Sept. 12, 2021, Cyr asked for a religious exemption. Kobick wrote:
In support of her request, she submitted a personal statement and a letter drafted by Pastor David Hall, who heads the California-based True Hope Ministry. In his letter, Hall stated that he was writing to affirm Cyr's view that "[t]aking a covid test or vaccine, or wearing any sort of face covering or shield, is an affront to a Christian believer's sincerely held religious beliefs." As to vaccines, he elaborated:
[A]s believers, we know that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit. God has created us with an immune system and we object to the intrusion of any medical intervention designed to modify God's design of the immune system. Further, the substances in the vaccine are possibly harmful to the human body, and we are called to protect the body and not participate in an unnecessary medical intervention, especially one that is incurred under coercion or duress. We are called to honor the LORD in all we do.
Cyr expressed similar religious objections in her personal statement, as well as more general concerns regarding the vaccine's safety, effectiveness, and possible impact on fertility.
BMC rejected Cyr's request on Sept. 30, saying providing a NICU nurse with an exemption would prove an "undue hardship" on the hospital. The hospital gave her until Oct. 15 to show proof of vaccination; when she did not, she was fired.
Kobick concluded that BMC proved it could not reasonably meet Cyr's request, not when it had treated 3,000 people with Covid symptoms before vaccines were released - 200 of whom died - and had several hundred of its own employees fall ill.
Based on these experiences, as well as the CDC's recommendations, BMC determined that any increased risk of COVID-19 transmission would impede its ability to maintain adequate staffing, negatively impact its reputation of providing safe healthcare to patients, and increase its exposure to liability related to the risk of staff-to-patient COVID-19 transmission. ... Based on the same considerations, BMC concluded that mandating vaccination would reduce transmission of COVID-19, and that alternatives to vaccination—including social distancing, masking, and periodic testing—would be insufficient.xxx Based on these undisputed facts, BMC has demonstrated that permitting Cyr to continue working while unvaccinated would have resulted "in substantial increased costs" in relation to its business as a healthcare provider. As a NICU nurse, Cyr provided direct care to newborn babies, many of whom were in critical condition. (Cyr testifying at her deposition: "I took care of sick premature babies, or just sick babies in general"). Cyr worked in-person, and she interacted with babies and other healthcare workers throughout her shift. Had Cyr been permitted to continue working while unvaccinated, BMC would have faced the increased risk of her contracting COVID-19 and transmitting it to BMC's patients and staff members, thereby jeopardizing their safety. ... Permitting Cyr to work unvaccinated would have also increased the risk of staffing shortages, which would have harmed BMC's ability to provide critical medical care to its patients.
And as another federal judge did last week in the case of another BMC nurse, Kobick rejected the argument that the hospital should not even be allowed to make the "undue hardship" argument because that would only apply if the vaccines worked, which is a matter "in dispute."
The flaw in this argument is that such evidence is not in dispute. The First Circuit explained over three years ago that “COVID-19 vaccines protect against infection,” lower the risk of adverse consequences in the case of infection, and "reduc[e] a person's risk of transmitting
COVID-19 to others." Mills, 16 F.4th at 32-33. And it has made clear that when "the record demonstrates that [an employer] relied on the objective, scientific information available to [it], with particular attention to the views of public health authorities," a court will find that the employer "acted reasonably when it determined that vaccinated employees are less likely to transmit COVID-19 than unvaccinated employees." Rodrique, 2025 WL 227489, at *4 (quotations marks omitted). The record here demonstrates precisely that.To be sure, the vaccines' efficacy, including the magnitude and duration of their protective effects, may still be the subject of debate and study within the scientific community. But ongoing scientific debate regarding the extent of the vaccines' protective effects does not raise a genuine dispute as to whether the vaccines mitigate the risk of an individual contracting and transmitting COVID-19.
Attachment | Size |
---|---|
![]() | 198.16 KB |
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
Comments
Even crazier than most
By mg
Wed, 01/22/2025 - 6:11pm
This is the first one I've read that objects to even taking a Covid test!
Also, "God has created us with an immune system and we object to the intrusion of any medical intervention designed to modify God's design of the immune system" - anyone working in a NICU should know that newborns do not yet have adequately functional immune systems.
Maybe they believe….
By Lee
Wed, 01/22/2025 - 7:59pm
…. it’s God’s will that the newborns not have fully functioning immune systems? They are already born, after all, and therefore perhaps not deserving of protection. Unlike “unborn children” who must be protected at all costs.
Now this goes to the Supreme Court
By jmeltzer
Wed, 01/22/2025 - 6:40pm
and the Court rules, 6-3, to ban vaccines altogether.
SCOTUS is about to reverse themselves on Chevron again
By tachometer
Wed, 01/22/2025 - 7:00pm
Once RFK jr gets the HHS position SCOTUS will probably play Pontius Pilate and defer the decision to him.
/s
One thing
By Ac
Wed, 01/22/2025 - 7:56pm
About adding the masks to this lawsuit shows how ridiculous it is. Prior to COVID if we declined the flu shot we wore a mask throughout flu season. So this neonatal nurse doesn’t want a vaccine and perhaps declined the flu in the past..there was no way this person did not wear a mask prior to the pandemic. One thing I am thankful for is that hospitals continue to require the initial vaccination and now flu shots, it has weeded out a lot of trash.
How can one be a nurse ...
By SwirlyGrrl
Thu, 01/23/2025 - 10:15am
And deny that masks work?
I mean, surgeons have worn them for over a century to prevent infecting and being infected by patients.
Does this woman even wash her hands? Ewww!
Add comment