On October 7, an organization called United KP Freedom Alliance and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California over the Kaiser Permanente mandate that all of its 200,000 employees across the country get vaccinated with the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. These plaintiffs appear to represent a group of Kaiser Permanente physicians, nurses, and supporting staff concerned with the underlying implications of these mandates The group challenges the mandate for numerous reasons, including the fact that over 99.8% of all those who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 survive. Moreover, the plaintiffs argue those that do survive—which is the vast majority go on to develop robust natural immunity. The plaintiffs posit that natural immunity is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, yet TrialSite can attest that that data isn’t clear as of yet. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that the COVID-19 vaccines are not that effective against powerful mutant strains such as Delta, which the U.S. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) acknowledges it is a real problem. In fact, the CDC has recognized that the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission of the novel coronavirus but rather now help reduce death and serious disease leading to hospitalization. Consequently, as Bill Gates recently admitted, vaccines are more of a therapy than an actual vaccine.
However, the plaintiffs note in their legal matter that the CDC changed the definition of “vaccine” just a couple of months ago to perhaps position the current reality to reflect the intended goals. The plaintiffs point out that “the CDC changed its definition of ‘vaccine’ from “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease” to “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce protection to a specific disease.”
Core Plaintiff Logic
Underlying the plaintiff’s position is the following logic. That the CDC has acknowledged that the vaccine affords only “protection” against the Delta variant and that the jabs fail to stop transmission of the Delta variant the goal of “immunity” against the disease becomes unattainable.
Thus, the plaintiffs argue a fallacious argument powers the public health mandate as several studies now evidence significant vector dynamics with the vaccinated. They are transmitting the disease. The plaintiffs of course bring their supporting studies into the case.
The other underpinning to the plaintiff’s legal claim are the higher incidence of adverse event-related injury and death associated with the COVID-19 vaccines. So much so that the plaintiffs argue that they “pose a significant health risk to recipients, who are, by definition, healthy when they receive the COVID-19 vaccines.”
The plaintiff’s one-two legal argument against mandates consists of 1) the vaccines do not prevent the infection or transmission of SARS-CoV-2 while 2) they lead to a significant amount of adverse events and deaths.
Who are the Plaintiffs?
Who are the plaintiffs in this case? TrialSite did some probing in the legal documents and provided a summary herein. One aggregate plaintiff is United KP Freedom Alliance, an unincorporated association representing members of the health system.
What follows are some of the plaintiffs, their credentials and training.
|Le-Lan Jorgensen||Nurse Anesthetist||Employee for eighteen years. She applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s vaccine mandate due to her sincerely held religious beliefs, which was provisionally granted, and she is now compelled to be tested for COVID-19 weekly. She is not a member of a union.|
|Laura Yvanovich||Support staff||She has worked for Kaiser Permanente for thirty-three years. She holds sincere religious beliefs that her body is a temple of God, and that submitting to vaccination or to testing violates her obligation to keep her body holy. She applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s mandate to get vaccinated or tested; her exemption request was granted with regard to the vaccination but denied with regard to testing. She was terminated for failing to provide proof of vaccination or to submit to biweekly testing for COVID-19. She has not, to her knowledge, been infected with SARS-CoV-2. She is not a member of a union|
|Robin Drummond||Support staff||She has been an employee for approximately twenty-two years and has worked 100% remotely for approximately fifteen years. She holds a sincere personal belief that medical decisions are to be made by her and her alone as a personal healthcare decision. She also sincerely believes that her natural immunity acquired through her infection and recovery from COVID-19 protects her. She applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s vaccine mandate based upon her natural immunity, which was denied, and she has been placed on unpaid administrative leave because she did not provide proof of vaccination. A PCR test and an antibody test have confirmed that she has previously had and recovered from COVID-19. She is not a member of a union.|
|Tracey Ford||Support staff||An employee of KP for five years. She works 100% remotely. She applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s vaccine mandate based upon her sincerely held religious beliefs, which was provisionally granted, and she is now compelled to provide biweekly tests for SARS-CoV-2. She is not a member of a union.|
|Natalie Ogle||Support staff||She has worked for Kaiser Permanente for approximately five years. She works 100% remotely. She sincerely holds the religious belief that conscience should govern her actions, and anything else is an affront to human dignity as she understands the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and that cooperating with the use of aborted fetal cells in the creation and testing of the vaccines would be a grave moral evil. She applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s vaccine mandate based upon these sincerely held religious beliefs, which was denied, and she has been placed on unpaid administrative leave because she did not provide proof of vaccination. She is not a member of a union.|
|Nathan Leavitt||Web Developer||He has worked for Kaiser Permanente for more than fifteen years. He works 100% remotely. He holds sincere religious beliefs that the use of aborted fetuses in vaccines violates God’s plan for human life; that human life is a gift that must be protected; and that God granted free will to human beings and any affront to free will violates that gift from God. He has applied for an exemption to Kaiser’s vaccine, which was denied. He was placed on unpaid administrative leave because he did not provide proof of vaccination.|
The Nexus of Mass Vaccination
The plaintiffs argue that Kaiser, one of America’s largest integrated health systems, has been “heavily involved in setting healthcare policy both locally and nationally, particularly with regard o COVID. They argue that Kaiser has been at the table with the federal government developing and implementing the actual mass vaccination policies they are countering. In fact, they declare “Kaiser is, in fact, acting jointly with, and for and on behalf of, both the State of California and the Federal Government.”
The plaintiff argues this implicates a level of bias that must be addressed by the courts. They argue Kaiser inappropriately served as a driver of the vaccination policy—a role traditionally left to public authorities.
The Cause of Action
∙ The plaintiffs allege the following causes of action:
∙ Violation of 14th Amendment (Substantive Due Process Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983)
∙ Violation of 14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983)
∙ Violation of Religious Liberty Under the First and Fourteenth Amendments Pursuant to 42 USC § 1983
∙ Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by Individual Plaintiffs under Cal. Constitution
∙ Invasion of Privacy
∙ Public Disclosure of Private Facts
∙ Breach of Security for Computerized Personal Information
∙ Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
The plaintiffs call for a number of actions to address Declaratory Relief.
While TrialSite isn’t a media for legal news, we will report when biomedical and health-related research opens up broader political, socioeconomic, and of course health-related issues lawsuits become potentially important.