Lawsuit? Vaccine news from SMART

[hbur2]

Hello everyone,

Let me preface this by saying I do not want to talk about getting the vaccine. I"ve made up my mind and I will not be getting it.

That being said I was curious to see if any other SMART scholars felt the same way.

I am tossing around the idea of talking to a lawyer about the fact that when we took this scholarship, getting a vaccine was not a stipulation of disbursement. Because I would not have taken the money if it was offered to me today with that stipulation I feel I am entitled to re-negotiate the terms of our engagement. I am interested in starting a class action lawsuit against them to either re-negotiate the terms (no vaccine for SMART scholars who fall in this boat) or not having to pay back the scholarship/stipend due to this new stipulation.

If I have to get the vaccine I will not be completing my Phase 2 commitment. I am hoping to find some like minded scholars who can help make something happen and change this unfortunate outcome of ours.

I look forward to hearing from all of you soon.

[Jakey]

I am a believer in the efficacy of vaccines in general (and COVID-19 vaxes, specifically, albeit with the knowledge that COVID-19 might be endemic and reducing severity of disease or impact of certain strains, like with seasonal flu, might be the best we can do) and I've gotten the jabs myself, but I'm sympathetic towards those who oppose vax mandates, especially on the grounds that they wouldn't have signed a contract for scholarship/employment if those previously unlisted mandates were suddenly implemented. I hope you find success in getting out of the program without debt, or at least finding a way to renegotiate your contract. For starters, though, I would investigate whether this is even an issue with you and your SF, since they will be the ones implementing the mandate (per #2 of the SMART covid vax memo). Have you reached out to anyone (e.g., SF POC) to get the specific policies of your SF? Would you, for instance, submit to their weekly/monthly testing schedule? Would you apply for a religious exemption (and what counts for "religious" may be flexible, depending on how you express your convictions or the policies of your SF, so you can use that to your advantage)? I don't know the best time to lawyer up in this sort of issue, but I imagine it's some point *after* some amicable solutions have already been explored.

Unfortunately, if a renegotiation is not possible, I don't have any legal resources for you, but In lieu of the great Sisyphus coming down themselves to save the day with some sort of dire warning amidst clever wordplay, I'll do the deed of advertising his thread to the Debtor's Discord here:

viewtopic.php?t=3768

If nobody else can help here, I'd suggest you continue your search for resources there. And please report back as you see fit. If it's not about covid vax, SMART may get you (or any of us) on something else sometime in the future, so we could all benefit from the wisdom you gain through this endeavor.

Good luck!

[hbur2]

Thank you for your (very well worded) reply

I have heard from my POC at my SF and as of last week all DoD personnel must be fully vaccinated by Nov 22, 2021. My phase 2 will start (approx.) Sept. 2022. I am definitely planning to pursue other options prior to litigation.

I will keep everyone posted on here about things my SF is planning to do with someone in my boat. I can't imagine that they would hold a mass exodus of employees just because they don't want a vaccine but I've been wrong before.

[human234895]

The service agreement obligates you to accept employment with the SF, including compliance with lawful conditions of employment handed down by the executive branch. You can file whatever lawsuit you like because that's how our civil courts work, but I'm not sure on what grounds you would do so. The Pentagon has not yet decided what exactly it will do with non-compliant employees, but there seems to be very little debate over the legality of the Executive Order (by people who know what they're talking about). It's been hard to read the room, but my SF seems poised to place non-compliant persons on unpaid leave followed by termination after a grace period. I expect this will be the norm throughout the DoD. Servicemembers will most likely be discharged under other than honorable conditions. It is unknown whether clearances would be stripped on administrative or non-administrative grounds. The Pentagon is also continuing to offer guidance on how medical and religious exemptions are to be scrutinized to confirm legitimacy. That's a big question mark, but it appears poised not to accept applications for exemption lightly, but this will ultimately be handled at lower levels.

Just to give you some grounding reality, notions of "mass exodus" are drummed up in the fringe media of a certain political persuasion much more than played out in reality. The DoD has a pretty solid and rapidly growing vaccination rate which is now above the US average (which it previously was not). The most recent casestudy on this important question about vaccine mandates was the NYPD, which placed a total of 34 officers on unpaid leave for non-compliance. I'm not starting a debate on this. I'm just making you aware that you probably should not plan for the Pentagon to change its mind. There is very little mercy for non-compliance with orders in military culture, so I have a hard time seeing the Pentagon decide it suddenly wants people who refused orders from the highest levels of their chain of command.

I can't say I understand how you've come to your conclusion, but I hope you decide it's worth the consequences when it's all said and done.

[hbur2]

Thank you for your information,

At this point In my career I guess I've decided that it's not the govts job to tell me what sort of medical care I need to receive in order to pursue gainful employment in and out of the govt.

I am mainly reaching out here to see if anyone who's received the scholarship also feels the same way.

I thoroughly want to finish my commitment with SMART amiably but this mandate is making it difficult to do so.

I'm not hoping the Pentagon changes it's position, I'm hoping these mandates are found unconstitutional before I need to head out to my SF this solving my dillema.

Could you point out the clause that mentions the first point you made? I'm not doubting the validity I'd just like as much information as I can get my hands on so I can make the most educated decision.

[human234895]

Please reference Sections 2, 7, and 8 of the Service Agreement, which broadly indicate the obligation to fulfill a service agreement and comply with all program policies and procedures. The legal application of these clauses would be the same as is the case with denial of clearance. SMART interprets any failure to be hired and complete the service agreement as a violation of the Service Agreement, even when it could be argued that failure to hire is not strictly the "fault" of the scholar. If possible, SMART will seek an alternative SF for the scholar. In the case of denied clearance or failure to comply with another condition of employment, this is of course not possible and the scholar is dismissed. In your favor, it is worth noting that debt collection appears to be a choice executed by the SMART program and not necessarily a process that occurs automatically. There is always the possibility that SMART could simply decline to collect but Section 2 of the Service Agreement grants the program the right to do so. You may want to browse the debtor's Discord for more insights on SMART's debt collection practices.

Understood. For your situational awareness, be advised that there is not currently any legal challenge to the constitutionality of EO 14043, at least not that I'm aware of. The EO itself provides accommodations for the consitutionally protected classes of "sincerely held religious beliefs" and disabled persons with medical reasons for declining the vaccine. A federal judge has presently stayed a portion of EO 14042 which applies the vaccination mandate to large government contractors but did not take issue with any other aspect of that EO or EO 14043. It's a big world, so it's entirely possible I'm not tracking something, but that is the current situation as I understand it. Historical precedent indicates a right of the executive branch to make mandates of executive employees, specifically including vaccine mandates within the DoD. SMART has been relatively timely (within 1-2 weeks) in its updates to scholars about relevant EOs, so I think you can reasonably expect to hear from SMART if there is any action regarding an EO that effects you on this matter. If you would like to stay ahead of the curve, I suggest occassionally browsing for news on EO 14043. You should also stay in touch with your SF POC regarding whether your SF will provide alternative accommodations for voluntarily unvaccinated persons, such as facemask mandates and routine testing. That is another big question and a matter on which the employers are awaiting continued guidance from higher levels.

[hbur2]

Thank you for all the information.

I reached out to the POC at my SF about my options for next year so hopefully he has some good news.

I just cannot see a world a year from now where every citizen of the USA has to either get vaccinated or perpetually wear a mask and get tested for COVID on a weekly basis but that seems to be where our politicians are taking us.

[human234895]

Edit: Original had incomplete information regarding EO 14042.

Sorry if my wording was confusing. There is not a universal vaccine mandate at this time. The Administration has not discussed issuing such a mandate and based on prior comments, it seems not to believe it has the authority to do so. Such a mandate would likely need to come from Congress or at a lower level of government, and most language from the Administration reflects a desire for action from such levels of government. As such, I am currently doubtful we would see a universal mandate. EO 14042 provides a mandate via OSHA of private companies, especially healthcare companies and federal contractors, that employ over 100 people with certain other conditions and exceptions. EO 14043 provides a mandate of federal employees. Any mandates you hear of outside of these descriptions come at lower levels of government or are voluntarily instituted by businesses. When I mentioned the possibility of a mask/testing regimine, that was to imply that it is a possible alternative to termination that some federal employers may or may not offer to voluntarily unvaccinated individuals. That is not currently confirmed, and the Administration has announced that private companies will have a higher level of flexibility in their response than federal contractors and the executive agencies. This was the case at my SF prior to EO 14043: vaccinated individuals did not have to wear masks, unvaccinated individuals did.

Hope this clarification helps.

[Hidden Biden]

Dictator Biden has no constitutional authority to have you vaccinated. Where the power lies is in we the people. If people will just walk off the job and go on strike you will have the government by the nuts and they can't make you do anything. I don't trust anything the government (democrat or republican)says... I'm a free thinker. Stop being afraid, stand up against the tyrants on the Hill.

[Guest]

Dictator Biden has no constitutional authority to have you vaccinated. Where the power lies is in we the people. If people will just walk off the job and go on strike you will have the government by the nuts and they can't make you do anything. I don't trust anything the government (democrat or republican)says... I'm a free thinker. Stop being afraid, stand up against the tyrants on the Hill.

Jesus, get a grip.

[Uh huh]

Dictator Biden has no constitutional authority to have you vaccinated. Where the power lies is in we the people. If people will just walk off the job and go on strike you will have the government by the nuts and they can't make you do anything. I don't trust anything the government (democrat or republican)says... I'm a free thinker. Stop being afraid, stand up against the tyrants on the Hill.

The problem you’re going to run into a lot is that most of “the people” want everyone vaccinated. Because it’s a contagious disease. You sound ridiculous.

[malarious]

Thank you for all the information.

I reached out to the POC at my SF about my options for next year so hopefully he has some good news.

I just cannot see a world a year from now where every citizen of the USA has to either get vaccinated or perpetually wear a mask and get tested for COVID on a weekly basis but that seems to be where our politicians are taking us.

Did they ever get back to you on this? I have heard most exemption requests have been denied. At this stage, I have still heard no debate about the vaccine mandate for federal employees regarding its constitutionality. Had you started working and then this was required, you'd be in the same boat, so I do not see them working with you on it.

I am curious, as someone who has a science-based curriculum, what is your opposition to the vaccination? You've had many vaccines prior to this point.

[Guest]

I'm interested in a response as well