A research scientist, Tanja Benton, won a $687,000 award after being fired by BlueCross BlueShield in Tennessee for refusing their COVID-19 vaccine mandate. She had worked there for 16 years but declined vaccination due to religious beliefs involving aborted fetal cell lines used in vaccine development. Despite previously working remotely, the company insisted her role required face-to-face interactions. Benton sued, arguing her firing violated civil rights laws protecting religious beliefs and accusing the company of not accommodating her beliefs adequately. The court sided with her, highlighting a significant legal battle over vaccine mandates and religious freedoms in the workplace.
Zachary Stieber from the Epoch Times reported that a federal jury awarded $687,000 to a research scientist who was fired from BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee after refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine demand.
Tanja Benton, who had worked at the firm for 16 years before being fired, was given $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensation, and $500,000 in punitive damages, according to a document made public by a federal court in eastern Tennessee on June 30.
According to Ms. Benton’s claim, company executives informed her in August 2021 that she would need to be “fully vaccinated” to preserve her position. Ms. Benton declined, claiming that aborted fetal cell lines were utilized in the creation of the COVID-19 vaccinations and that she could not “in good conscience consume the vaccine,” which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”
BlueCross BlueShield stated that her position required “regular external public-facing interactions,” hence she could not keep it. Ms. Benton stated that her employment became completely remote in 2020, although BlueCross BlueShield stated that it will still require some in-person engagement with clients.
Ms. Benton was told to look into other roles inside the company and applied for two. However, she was sacked on November 4, 2021, and told five days later, “Unfortunately, all positions require the vax now,” according to an email filed in the court.
Her lawsuit claimed that BlueCross BlueShield violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which states that an employer cannot “discharge any individual, or otherwise discriminate against any individual concerning his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment” based on that person’s religion. Employers can deny religious exemption requests if they can demonstrate that accepting them would cause excessive hardship.
The company “cannot prove that allowing Plaintiff to continue her employment as a Bio Statistical Research Scientist without being vaccinated for COVID-19 constitutes an undue hardship,” according to the complaint. The corporation “also cannot show that it made any good-faith efforts to accommodate plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs.”
BlueCross BlueShield was also accused of breaching the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination by employers at the state level.
“We’re disappointed by the decision,” Dalya Qualls White, chief communications officer for BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee, told The Epoch Times in an email.
“We believe our vaccine requirement was the best decision for our employees and members, and we believe our accommodation to the requirement complied with the law. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with our company.”
A lawyer for Ms. Benton did not return a request for comment.
The case was filed to the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which approved Ms. Benton to sue her former employer.
Company lawyers had claimed that giving Ms. Benton an extended exception would place an undue burden on the firm, notwithstanding her role as a “public-facing employee.” The lawyers claimed she could not have worked remotely indefinitely.
The business also claimed that Ms. Benton did not have a genuine religious belief and “denies that the COVID-19 vaccine was derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which is verifiably false,” according to the lawsuit.
Johnson & Johnson used cells from an aborted fetus to design, manufacture, and test their COVID-19 vaccine. In early testing, the cells were also used for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines. The firms have said that the finished products do not contain aborted fetal cells.
Last year, GreatGameIndia reported that Greg Piccirilli, the lawyer representing three teachers fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, announced they would receive full reinstatement and back pay.
