Trout House Comics snapped the bouquet somebody put in ol' Edgar's hand in honor of his birthday today. We were going to ask if the flowers were a bit too cheery, but it turns out Poe loved flowers.

Mary Ellen captured some muskrat love in Millennium Park along the Charles River yesterday. A bit upstream, she spotted an eagle doing a celebratory eagle dance before chowing down on that deer carcass on the ice.

A cameraman for WCVB's "Chronicle" show may have had legitimate religious reasons to reject Covid-19 vaccinations, but the cost of providing separate accommodations for him to keep working meant the station had the right to fire him, because employers have the right to listen to federal public-health officials offering "objective medical evidence" in a pandemic and they didn't have to wait for a court to conclude vaccines were reducing the spread of the disease, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.

In its ruling, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit upheld a district court judge's ruling tossing George Rodrique's wrongful-termination suit against Hearst Communications, which owns Channel 5, although for different reasons than the lower-court judge.

Rodrique had initially claimed the station violated his rights to religious freedom because he had come to believe the vaccines were derived from aborted babies and his body was a temple for which he should not be forced to inject substances not found in nature. In his ruling, US District Court Judge Richard Stearns said Rodrique had failed to show religious discrimination, that his objections to Covid-19 shots were not based on any religious tenets, but on simple personal preference, so case dismissed.

Rodrique appealed. In its ruling, the appeals court granted that Rodrique had legitimate religious reasons to object to the shots, but that it didn't matter because Hearst proved accommodating Rodrique would have been a costly venture - and that it didn't have to wait for a court case for an expert to declare on the stand that the vaccines would help stem the pandemic tide rather than relying on allegedly untrue opinion from the CDC and the state Department of Public Health.

At issue was how WCVB initially tried to protect its staffers from the pandemic while still covering the news. Before vaccines became available, WCVB purchased a number of extra vehicles so that reporters and camera operators could travel to news scenes separately. As vaccines came in, the station tried to reduce the number of vehicles by allowing vaccinated employees to once again ride together in a single vehicle. In its summary of the case, the court wrote:

[B]ut because Rodrique was unvaccinated, his team was excluded. It cost WCVB-TV over $7,000 for Rodrique to maintain his own vehicle from May 2021 to November 2021, including over $2,000 in fuel.

Then Hearst required its employees to get vaccinated or get fired.

In response to Hearst's shift in policy, Rodrique initially sought assistance in obtaining a medical exemption from his doctor, but he was unsuccessful. He then submitted a request to Hearst for a religious exemption. On his exemption form, he explained that, although he did not subscribe to any particular organized religion, he had sincerely held religious beliefs that were "an amalgamation of many ideologies and spiritual practices," and that these beliefs prohibited him from receiving the vaccine. Rodrique identified two specific reasons why obtaining the vaccine would violate his religious beliefs: the COVID-19 vaccine was developed "utilizing fetal cell lines from aborted babies," in contravention of his religious opposition to abortion, and the vaccine would require introducing "chemicals into [his] body" in contravention of "the biblical maxim of 'my body is my temple[;] do nothing to cause its destruction.'"

WCVB fired Rodrique on Nov. 19, 2021. He sued Hearst in 2022.

In his appeal, brought by attorney Ilya Feoktistov, Rodrique argued another angle: That Hearst was relying on a bunch of public-health experts to spout their own "inadmissible lay opinion," and that the vaccine was useless in reducing the spread of the virus and that only experts testifying in court could provide the proof Hearst needed. Therefore, there's no "undue hardship" to allowing him to practice his religious beliefs on the job and not get vaccinated, his appeal argued.

Nope, the appeals court answered, although in more legalistic terms.

Rodrique contends that Hearst has not proffered admissible evidence showing that the vaccine actually protects against the transmission of COVID-19. As Rodrique frames the issue, if the vaccine does not reduce the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission -- as opposed to merely mitigating symptoms, for example -- then Hearst suffers no undue hardship by granting him an exemption. And in Rodrique's view, only expert testimony can support this conclusion. ... Rodrique argues, however, that Hearst needed to do more than rely on objective medical evidence, including public health guidance. In Rodrique's view, each employer should be required to prove to a factfinder in every similar Title VII litigation that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus. But Rodrique points to no authority suggesting that this is what [the religious freedom provision] requires. ...

The record is replete with undisputed evidence that Hearst reasonably relied on objective medical evidence, including public health guidance from the federal government and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, when it set its vaccine policy. For example, Hansen [Hearst's head of HR] explained in her declaration in support of summary judgment ("Hansen Declaration") that the Committee paid attention to CDC guidance, including its "different quarantine and testing requirements based on vaccination status," and concluded "that vaccination proved to be one of the best protective measures against the spread of COVID-19 and would keep [HTV's] workforce healthy and safe while allowing [HTV's] stations to continue operating." In turn, the relevant CDC guidance in the second half of 2021 explained that "a growing body of evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people are less likely to have asymptomatic infection or transmit [COVID-19] to others." CDC, Interim Public Health Recommendations for Fully Vaccinated People (July 21, 2021). Hearst similarly stated in its responses to Rodrique's interrogatories that it concluded the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmission because of "publicly available findings and updates from the CDC and other government agencies," and that Hearst "had communications with the Massachusetts Government concerning its plans for keeping its employees safe during the COVID-19 pandemic." And company communications implementing the vaccine requirement pointed out that it was "in keeping with the overwhelming opinion of the medical science community," that the company had defined "fully vaccinated" to align with the CDC's definition, and that the company's leadership was "monitor[ing] guidance from all applicable public health authorities." It was reasonable for Hearst to rely on these sources to conclude that the vaccine reduces the likelihood of transmitting the virus, and therefore that exempting employees from the vaccination requirement would pose a threat to the health of others.

The court continued:

Moreover, Rodrique's undue hardship argument fails because no medical evidence in the summary judgment record contradicts Hearst's conclusion that vaccinated people are less likely to infect others. Rodrique himself introduced into the record a Los Angeles County web page stating that "[v]accinating not only protects you, but may also protect your family, friends, and those in our community most vulnerable to severe disease from COVID-19." He also submitted an academic journal publication that found "[v]accination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance." There is nothing in the record to the contrary.

Thus, we conclude that there is no genuine dispute of material fact related to Hearst's undue hardship defense. To be clear, our holding is a narrow one. It arises from the unique posture of this case, where Rodrique has staked his undue hardship argument on his claim that Hearst has not presented competent evidence that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit COVID-19. Because Rodrique has not challenged Hearst's evidence that accommodating his exemption request would be a substantial burden if the vaccine does reduce the likelihood of transmitting the virus, Hearst is entitled to summary judgment on Rodrique's religious discrimination claims.

A federal judge has ruled Boston Medical Center had the right to fire an endoscopy nurse - who could interact with 80 patients on a typical day - for refusing to get Covid-19 vaccinations.

Kathleen Anastos, who is Catholic, said her October, 2021 firing violated her First Amendment religious rights, because she could not in good conscience take shots - which she claimed didn't work, anyway - derived from aborted babies. Sure, the Pope himself issued a statement saying Catholics could and should get the shots, but, she asked, what does he know? As US District Court Judge Myong Joun write in his decision earlier this month, "she did not believe that was the 'Catholic Church’s statement' based on her interpretation of Catholic teaching."

But Joun said the hospital proved there was no way it could provide "reasonable accommodations" for a nurse who got into the personal space of dozens of endoscopy and colonocpy patients a day. The hospital's right to do everything it could to protect the lives of its patients and other hospitals included the right to follow CDC guidance and issue an order giving employees the choice between getting shots or getting fired, Joun wrote. He noted that the hospital had to shut its endoscopy unit entirely three times as staffers fell sick with Covid-19.

Here, BMC has established that granting Ms. Anastos' accommodation would have resulted in undue hardship for the hospital. Ms. Anastos' work as an RN placed her in a particularly risky position to spread infection, as she was in-person and in close contact with vulnerable patients, their families, and other BMC staff. Allowing her to remain unvaccinated would have increased the risk of spreading COVID-19 throughout the hospital and beyond. See Antredu v. Massachusetts Department of Youth Services F. Supp. 3d 1, 5 (concluding that accommodating plaintiff's request to remain unvaccinated is an undue hardship due as their close proximity to patients and staff placed clients and colleagues at a higher risk of COVID-19). Furthermore, increased risk of transmission "would impair the hospital's ability to provide adequate care to patients, increase the chance of legal liability, and taint the reputation of the hospital." Therefore, if BMC allowed the accommodation, such accommodation would impede the BMC's ability to provide a safe environment for their already vulnerable patients, and negatively impact its reputation. Thus, BMC has established that granting Ms. Anastos' accommodation would have resulted in an undue hardship for the hospital.

Anastos's lawyer yesterday asked the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to overturn Joun's ruling.

Mary Ellen witnessed quite the scene yesterday at the Cow Island Pond stretch of the Charles River off Rivermoor Street in West Roxbury, after rushing over on reports coyotes chased down a deer onto the ice - only to scattered, possibly after one of them also up and died. And that left the newly deceased deer available as some fresh buffet for some scavenger birds, including, yes, the noble bald eagle (who was joined by a mate:

I was told that yesterday afternoon at CIP coyotes chased down a deer This is the carcass. Ravens, crows and eagles also got a snack. There is also a dead coyote (I believe - it's far) on the ice. Must have been like Wild Kingdom.

She reports this morning that the coyote carcass so far remains untouched. But for how long?

Buffet video (caveat: it shows birds munching on the newly dead deer):

A Suffolk Superior Court judge today sentenced Dwight "Dog Bite" Watson to life, but with the possibility of parole after 18 years, after he admitted stabbing Urvin Gerald, 58, in the parking lot of the Mount Horeb Lodge on Harvard Street in Dorchester on July 16, 2022.

Watson, 58, pleaded guilty to second-degree murder yesterday; had he gone to trial for first-degree murder, he would have faced life without the chance of parole if found guilty.

According to the Suffolk County District Attorney's office, Watson, a regular at the lodge, and Gerald got into a fight around 1 a.m. Lodge security separated the two and escorted Watson out.

About 30 minutes later, Gerald exited the rear of the lodge. In the parking area, Watson suddenly appeared and stabbed Gerald in the neck, and then fled. The stabbing was caught on surveillance video.

Investigators soon learned that Watson had fled the state. On January 27, 2023, Watson was arrested by U.S. Marshals in Ohio. Watson was returned to Boston by members of the Boston Police fugitive unit.

Prosecutors read two victim impact statements from Gerald’s family members, who attended today’s sentencing.

“The senseless act of violence that took Urvin’s life has caused an unimaginable emotional hardship. Since that day, the world no longer feels whole. The repercussions extend far beyond the immediate tragedy. Our grief is constant, and we are left to navigate a life without the man who was our anchor,” Gerald’s wife said in a statement.

Ari Ofsevit was running along the Charles in Cambridge yesterday when he noticed an eagle walking on the ice and nd asked a guy with a camera if he'd taken a photo.

The Boston Licensing Board next week considers an application by a local restaurant operator to re-open Little Steve's Pizzeria at 1114 Boylston St. - and with just the sort of late-night hours that used to bring in customers before it was shut to make way for a pot shop that then never opened.

Koushik Babu Koganti's food serving license requests a 3 a.m. closing time at his incarnation of the restaurant formerly owned by Gabi Essber. Koganti owns the Boston Halal chain.

The licensing board will consider Koganti's request as part of Wednesday hearings, which begin at 10 a.m.

In 2021, the Zoning Board of Appeal approved a three-story marijuana dispensary in the space, which had been Little Steve's since the late 1960s.

The Boston Landmarks Commission recently designated the Jewelers' Building at Washington and Bromfield streets as the city's newest official landmark.

The building - originally two separate structures erected in 1897 and 1904 - is, according to a commission report:

A commanding example of large-scale, steel-frame commercial architecture built at the turn of the 20th century in Boston’s Financial District. It is notable for its use of thin-skinned terra cotta cladding with unusually vibrant sculptural ornament, and its harmonious interpretation of Beaux Arts, Spanish Renaissance, and Classical Revival styles. It is also notable as the work of two prolific architectural firms, Winslow & Wetherell and Arthur
Bowditch, as well as one of the foremost building contractors in the nation in the late 19th and 20th centuries, George A. Fuller & Co. Largely intact, the property retains integrity of location, setting, design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.

Designation means that any potential changes to the building's exterior would have to be reviewed by the commission first.

The commission first began studying whether to designate the building as an official landmark in 1986.

Boston firefighters responded to 74 Prescott St. in East Boston for what turned into a two-alarm fire shortly after 5 p.m. on Thursday.

The Boston Fire Department reports the fire displaced 20 people, two cats and a bird. No reports of injuries.

Mayor Wu's office today announced a $35-million grant from the soon-to-be-decimated Environmental Protection Agency that will let BPS buy 125 30-sat battery-powered school buses.

The new buses will bring Boston closer to its goal of ferrying kids to and from school entirely in electric buses by 2030, and is part of an overall $735-milion EPA grant program aimed at replacing vehicles powered directly by fossil fuels.

Boston currently has 40 battery-powered buses, paid for in part through a separate $20-million grant and $6 million in funding from the state, the Massachusetts Clean Energy Center and Eversource.

In addition to reducing the amount of diesel particulates Bostonians have to breath in, the electric engines are more efficient than the diesel ones they replace.

A concerned resident files a 311 complaint about a Cybertruck owner who keeps parking in a resident-only space without a resident parking permit - using the old ticket-on-the-windshield trick:

Habitual offender no residential sticker. Please be aware he puts an old ticket on the windshield to avoid new tickets

WBUR looks at the work of a band of researchers dedicated to preserving and even expanding the shrinking eelgrass beds off the Massachusetts coast - which help shelter young fish and even reduce the impact of coastal storms, but which are threatened by warming seas and a flood of nitrogen and other harmful substances from land.

City Councilor Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown) said yesterday the city should expand its side-street speed-hump program to the city's main thoroughfares - and lower the citywide speed limit - to reduce the number of pedestrians sent to the grave by impatient speeders.

Flynn pointed to several pedestrian deaths over the past couple of years, including a young child outside the Children's Museum last year and a pedestrian killed in Andrew Square on Sunday - as proof the city needs to do more to contain its wild-in-the-street motorists.

In calling for a formal hearing on pedestrian safety, he also pointed to L Street in South Boston - and his parents Ray and Kathy:

"My parents tell me almost every day of them walking up to the South Boston public library from their home five or six blocks and when they're in the middle of an intersection walking up L Street, a car would go right by them, just missing two elderly people," he said. "We also see that happening when young families are in the crosswalk, little kids, people are just so impatient that they have to go 30 miles an hour up L Street and take people's lives in jeopardy."

Flynn called for a hearing at which to consider steps that would include reducing the citywide speed limit to 20 m.p.h. from the current 25, expansion of the city's "safety surge" speed-hump program from side streets to main streets and bus lanes and installation of "rapid flash beacon" pedestrian-crossing lights, raised crosswalks and pedestrian islands in the wider roads.

Referring to the four-year-old killed by the driver of a pickup outside the Children's Museum, he said it's good the city put a speed hump on Sleeper Street, but that it should also install them on Congress Street - along with a raised crosswalk right at the museum.

Flynn said he's talked to the Boston Fire Department and that it would have no problems with putting speed bumps or raised crosswalks on major streets - city officials had cited BFD concerns in the past about extending the "safety surge" traffic-calming projects to thoroughfares.

Flynn cautioned he is not calling for "road diets" all across the city, such as the one on Centre Street in West Roxbury, planned to reduce driver speeds and pedestrian menace in part by reducing two travel lanes to one by adding dedicated bike lanes a center turn lane, along with restriped crosswalks and re-timed signals to slow traffic down.

"One size does not fit all" and each road would need its own specific measures, he said.

He added, though, "to be clear for the wiseguys on social media," he actually did once support a "road diet" plan, and in his district, even, on Day Boulevard. He did not specify which wiseguys on social media he was addressing. He and mayoral aide Segun Idowu recently restarted their Twitter war, but the mutual flaming was over the mayor's proposed property-tax changes, not anything to do with road safety.

Watch Flynn request a hearing on the issue:

The Boston Licensing Board today approved plans by the Burger King at 944 Bennington St. in East Boston's Orient Heights to keep its grills on and its oil hot 24 hours a day to serve deliveries to people who need sustenance whenever, especially people working or landing early in the morning at nearby Logan Airport.

Under the plans approved by the board, the restaurant would continue to close its dining room at 10 p.m., but would keep flinging burgers and fries to delivery drivers until the dining room re-opens the next morning.

At a hearing yesterday, the location's franchisee said he hopes to begin non-stop burger making after a re-do of the restaurant planned for this June.

At the hearing, Conor Newman of the city's Office of Neighborhood Services, said people were supportive of the idea at a meeting of the Orient Heights Neighborhood Council, and recognized that because of "the proximity to the airport, people need options later than the rest of the city."

The Boston Licensing Board today approved a 2 a.m. closing time for Day & Night Cereal Bar at 6 Tremont St. in Brighton, which will be changing its name to Sweet & Comfy and beefing up its current menu of cereal-drizzled desserts with sandwiches.

Owner Louis Elveus (right, with new logo) had originally requested a 3 a.m. closing time, but agreed to 2 a.m. after meeting with nearby residents who said 3 a.m. was just a step too far for the sleepy area. Elveus's block currently has a Chinese restaurant open until 1:30 a.m.

Elveus said he expected much of his business after 10 p.m. to come in the form of pickups by delivery drivers, in particular ones catering to the sweet-toothed hard-munching students of nearby Boston College.

The board asked Elveus to supply a written plan detailing how he will keep the Uber Eats and Door Dash drivers from double parking, saying that while the Boston Transportation Department has yet to focus on that as an issue in Oak Square in particular, they want to head off issues.

At a hearing yesterday, Elveus said Oak Square streets are pretty deserted in the early morning, but that in any case, the street is wide enough so that somebody could briefly double park, put their flashers on and rush in for an order without jamming up traffic.

Board members were not pleased with that answer. "You have to have a plan for these third-party pickups," board Chairwoman Kathleen Joyce said. "It's a pretty wide street but we don t want to encourage people to be putting their hazards on and running in. Just because it's being done [npw] doesn't mean we're going to permit going forward."

You may have noticed the site's wicked slow. Despite the liberal application of mallets everywhere, I still don't know why, so I'm playing with just turning things off to see if that can help point to a solution. So I've turned off the comment thumb's up thingee for now. Apologies!

Boston Police report arresting a Dorchester man they say stole, or tried to steal, from a series of Dorchester businesses - and the local fire union's headquarters - over the past month.

Between Dec. 1 and Jan. 5, police say, Derek Ford, 39, broke into various businesses and Florian Hall, mainly to grab money out of their cash registered, but in at least two cases, from ATMs.

Addresses include 9 Stoughton St. in Uphams Corner, 3 Neponset Ave., 55 Hallett St., 282 and 301 Adams St. and 251 Bowdoin St.

Ford was scheduled for arraignment today in Dorchester Municipal Court on two counts of breaking and entering in the nighttime and possession of burglarious tools. Police say detectives are continuing to investigate Ford and that he will likely face additional charges.

Innocent, etc.

The City Council today unanimously approved a $110-million fund to help finance new housing in the city through low-cost loans for new housing that meets certain city criteria for affordable units, the use of minority- and women-owned subcontractors and climate resiliency.

The measure now goes to Mayor Wu for her signature, which it will likely get since she proposed a version of the measure last year.

Under the proposal, as loans, with rates between 4% and 6%, are repaid, new loans would go out for additional projects.

Projects would have to have already been approved by the BPDA and zoning board and set aside at least 20% of their units as affordable - compared to the 17% normally required for new developments, according to Councilor Brian Worrell (Dorchester), who also proposed a version of the fund.

Developers would also get priority if their construction workforce matches the city's overall resident diversity, if they have a track record of hiring Boston residents, if their projects are particularly climate resilient, have community support and include ground-floor space for particular types of community ventures, such as day-care facilities, pharmacies and grocery stores.

The first project to benefit could be a currently stalled mixed-income building as part of the massive re-build of the Bunker Hill housing development in Charlestown.

Councilors approved the measure unanimously, but only after a contentious debate on a proposal by Councilor Julia Mejia (at large) to put off a vote for a week so she could hold a hearing to get more details on the proposal.

Mejia cautioned her fellow councilors should not try to make her out as an opponent, when she fully supports more housing, she just wants to get answers on questions such as how to ensure developers really do hire Boston residents. Referring specifically to Bunker Hill, she declared: "Charlestown knows I go hard for them. I don't want to be gaslit."

But Worrell said his committee had already held five public hearings on the proposal. And Councilor Gabriela Coletta Zapata (Charlestown, East Boston, North End) said Bunker Hill residents have waited more than long enough for progress on their project.

The current Bunker Hill buildings, the units in which will be replaced as new housing is built, "have outlived their purpose," residents have been engaged in efforts to get new housing for ten years even as they continue to live with cockroaches and broken stoves and it's time to get moving. "They deserve dignified housing and what they are living in right now is not dignified."

In the end, the council voted 7-2-1 against delaying a vote to allow another hearing. Councilors Erin Murphy (at large) and Ed Flynn (South Boston, South End, Chinatown, Downtown) voted for a delay - Flynn in part over outrage the city doesn't want to use the new fund to buy new elevators at the Ruth Barkley apartments in the South End. Mejia voted "present."