After reviewing the Peggy Hall video, talking to others, and doing other research, we have come up with a game plan for my wife's religious exemption letter. The general idea is to keep the tone professional, truthful, and friendly.

I guess the question is how much "buzz word" dropping should you put in the letter (like mentioning Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or your right to a "Legal Federal Religious Exemption"). I would think too much of this could set an adversarial tone. But, some might be beneficial because at least you look like you have done your research and are prepared for any future skirmishes they may create. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Bonfire97 said:

---

After reviewing the Peggy Hall video, talking to others, and doing other research, we have come up with a game plan for my wife's religious exemption letter. The general idea is to keep the tone professional, truthful, and friendly.

I guess the question is how much "buzz word" dropping should you put in the letter (like mentioning Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or your right to a "Legal Federal Religious Exemption"). I would think too much of this could set an adversarial tone. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

---

Maybe keep the legalese out of the exemption statement but let management / HR know that your wife is versed in the law and will make sure that her civil rights are respected.

Bonfire97 said:

---

After reviewing the Peggy Hall video, talking to others, and doing other research, we have come up with a game plan for my wife's religious exemption letter. The general idea is to keep the tone professional, truthful, and friendly.

I guess the question is how much "buzz word" dropping should you put in the letter (like mentioning Title 7 of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or your right to a "Legal Federal Religious Exemption"). I would think too much of this could set an adversarial tone. But, some might be beneficial because at least you look like you have done your research and are prepared for any future skirmishes they may create. Any thoughts would be appreciated.

---

Unless they are clueless, the employer knows what law applies and what you are asking for. So name-dropping statutes (it's "Title VII" by the way) and made up tags isn't going to scare them and is not where your focus should be. It should be providing support for the "sincerely held religious belief" you claim prevents you from getting vaccinated. That's the issue that will be considered, not some empty "buzz word".

I would make it specific to human fetal cell lines used to derive or in testing for the original development of the vaccines, so they don't try group them with products developed in 1930 or 1975 that someone used in a 2004 study.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/lets-get-a-few-things-cleared-up-testing-cell-lines-and-fetal-tissue/

This is difficult for some because employers are specifically asking follow up questions that violate Title VII. Yes they know its illegal, and many are just going to respond and get themselves caught in the trap they (the government) has set.

How does one acknowledge they are not addressing the questions without explaining why they don't have to without referencing Title VII?

Seems like a dangerous game. Refuse to answer questions they will deny you for not addressing the questions. Answer the question by referencing Title VII and it's condescending.

Would like to hear others.

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

This is difficult for some because employers are specifically asking follow up questions that violate Title VII. Yes they know its illegal, and many are just going to respond and get themselves caught in the trap they (the government) has set.

How does one acknowledge they are not addressing the questions without explaining why they don't have to without referencing Title VII?

Seems like a dangerous game. Refuse to answer questions they will deny you for not addressing the questions. Answer the question by referencing Title VII and it's condescending.

Would like to hear others.

---

That's why you don't use the aborted fetal cell line exemption. Keep it a generic "I prayed and was told not to take it" approach and they can't poke holes in it near as easily.

I'm going with this one. Click "Employment Sample" under "PERSONAL".

https://lc.org/exempt


Snippet:

These are the questions posed:

• If you have not received a COVID vaccination to date, whether you intend to receive a vaccination and, if so, when you have scheduled an appointment to do so.
• Please describe the nature of your objection to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
• A written statement from you discussing the nature and tenets of your asserted beliefs and information about when, where, and how they follow the practice or belief.
• Written religious materials describing your religious belief or practice.
• Written statements or other documents from a third party, such as your religious leader(s), practitioner(s), or others with whom you have discussed your belief(s), or who have observed your past adherence.
• Any documents or information that reflects a sincerely held religious objection to receiving specifically the COVID-19 Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer, and/or Astra-Zeneca vaccine. Would receiving the vaccine substantially burden your religious exercise? If so, please explain how.
• How long have you held the religious belief underlying the objection?
• Please describe whether, as an adult, you have received any vaccines against any other diseases (such as a flu vaccine, chicken pox, rubella and/or a tetanus vaccine) and, if so, what vaccine you most recently received and when, to the best of your recollection.
• If you do not have a religious objection to the use of all vaccines, please explain why your objection is limited to particular vaccines, including but not limited to the Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer, and/or Astra-Zeneca vaccine.
• If there are any other medicines or products that you do not use because of the religious belief underlying your objection, please identify them.
• Please provide any additional information you think may be helpful in reviewing your request

Like I mentioned, they are seeking very specific follow ups. I agree with you, give them very little because
are not required to prove their beliefs, that is what is protected. they want to trap people into certain things

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

These are the questions posed:

• If you have not received a COVID vaccination to date, whether you intend to receive a vaccination and, if so, when you have scheduled an appointment to do so.
• Please describe the nature of your objection to the COVID-19 vaccination requirement.
• A written statement from you discussing the nature and tenets of your asserted beliefs and information about when, where, and how they follow the practice or belief.
• Written religious materials describing your religious belief or practice.
• Written statements or other documents from a third party, such as your religious leader(s), practitioner(s), or others with whom you have discussed your belief(s), or who have observed your past adherence.
• Any documents or information that reflects a sincerely held religious objection to receiving specifically the COVID-19 Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer, and/or Astra-Zeneca vaccine. Would receiving the vaccine substantially burden your religious exercise? If so, please explain how.
• How long have you held the religious belief underlying the objection?
• Please describe whether, as an adult, you have received any vaccines against any other diseases (such as a flu vaccine, chicken pox, rubella and/or a tetanus vaccine) and, if so, what vaccine you most recently received and when, to the best of your recollection.
• If you do not have a religious objection to the use of all vaccines, please explain why your objection is limited to particular vaccines, including but not limited to the Johnson & Johnson, Moderna, Pfizer, and/or Astra-Zeneca vaccine.
• If there are any other medicines or products that you do not use because of the religious belief underlying your objection, please identify them.
• Please provide any additional information you think may be helpful in reviewing your request

Like I mentioned, they are seeking very specific follow ups. I agree with you, give them very little because
are not required to prove their beliefs, that is what is protected. they want to trap people into certain things

---

Are these questions not highly illegal? Maybe just send an email and state I will be consulting with legal counsel to best address your question. Maybe that will get them to back off (assuming they have competent HR people)?

DD88 said:

---

I would make it specific to human fetal cell lines used to derive or in testing for the original development of the vaccines, so they don't try group them with products developed in 1930 or 1975 that someone used in a 2004 study.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/lets-get-a-few-things-cleared-up-testing-cell-lines-and-fetal-tissue/

---

They're using the 'well, what other vaccines have you taken?' tack to create an excuse to toss out that reasoning.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

DD88 said:

---

I would make it specific to human fetal cell lines used to derive or in testing for the original development of the vaccines, so they don't try group them with products developed in 1930 or 1975 that someone used in a 2004 study.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/lets-get-a-few-things-cleared-up-testing-cell-lines-and-fetal-tissue/

---

They're using the 'well, what other vaccines have you taken?' tack to create an excuse to toss out that reasoning.

---

Yep, I think my generic response posted a couple of times in this thread is the way to go. You could go the mark of the beast route as well; pretty hard to call that one bull**** when they are threatening your livelihood over it for noncompliance.

Extremely illegal against the Title VII and EEOC. That was my question. They are asking you to tell them why you want an exemption and disapprove. Good information from liberty online, I believe someone posted their personal template above, but they have good information about the legality of the questions, or lack there of. That is my question.

If someone just replies as an answer they prayed on it, while valid, it seems very unlikely to pass their smell test. They are baiting people to fail the exemption, which makes this whole thing even dumber. It just seems like a lose lose. The government is advocating to businesses just to refuse the exemption and let them quit or be fired. All around unbelievable overreach and garbage from a tyrant administration that has done nothing but make people miserable.

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

How does one acknowledge they are not addressing the questions without explaining why they don't have to without referencing Title VII?

---

Hall makes it pretty clear in her video that this is a chess game and you need to limit information and what you say and don't say. Our game plan is to start invoking language like references to Title VII if they start applying pressure. Keep it friendly in round one.

I think it is key to keep the argument focused on beliefs and stay away from other topics that could lead to other lines of questioning. Dealing with HR is like dealing with high powered litigation attorneys. Your dancing on the abyss. One false move and your gone. I love involving myself in tactical games with these types. My wife, on the other hand, not so much.

* All the edits to correct my typing. It's been a long week.

Makes sense. It has been a stressful week for sure.

Also, make sure everything is in writing. Don't correspond with anybody verbally. You need documentation for any future legal battle.

Watched the video and she attempts to explain it well, but says you should include certain things, but you don't have to defend your faith. A little disappointing because to get better information you have to pay $175.

For example, you need to explain your beliefs, but you don't have to explain your beliefs, there yours. Its a very odd way to communicate to people who are seeking help.

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

Watched the video and she attempts to explain it well, but says you should include certain things, but you don't have to defend your faith. A little disappointing because to get better information you have to pay $175.

For example, you need to explain your beliefs, but you don't have to explain your beliefs, there yours. Its a very odd way to communicate to people who are seeking help.

---

Just keep it generic. If they deny your exemption by having you justify your faith file a lawsuit using all the email correspondence you've collected and look for other employment. I wouldn't want to work somewhere that would deny you an exemption in that manner anyways.

You can file a pro se lawsuit for pretty cheap and it doesn't take a legal genius to point out obvious civil rights and EEOC violations.

Pookers said:

---

Also, make sure everything is in writing. Don't correspond with anybody verbally. You need documentation for any future legal battle.

---

Not HR, not an attorney, blah blah blah...

I agree with this 100%. Remember every word you use has a very real and likely specific meaning. Oral communication often skirts this, but assume at all times (if you're speaking) that you're being recorded and that transcript will be official. Communication via writing is slower, it's methodical, it provides the opportunity to step back, to think, plan, and review.

Truth

This is "Heads I Win, Tails you Lose" or what I refer to as a rigged outcome.

People need to go to jail and lose everything for pulling this BS.

Pookers said:

---

Ukraine Gas Expert said:

---

This is difficult for some because employers are specifically asking follow up questions that violate Title VII. Yes they know its illegal, and many are just going to respond and get themselves caught in the trap they (the government) has set.
This. Otherwise you open yourself up for scrutiny and debate.

How does one acknowledge they are not addressing the questions without explaining why they don't have to without referencing Title VII?

Seems like a dangerous game. Refuse to answer questions they will deny you for not addressing the questions. Answer the question by referencing Title VII and it's condescending.

Would like to hear others.

---

That's why you don't use the aborted fetal cell line exemption. Keep it a generic "I prayed and was told not to take it" approach and they can't poke holes in it near as easily.

---

Do they ask these type of probing questions of employers to prove they are in one of the protected LBGTQIA+ classes? Or do they just take people at their word.

Honestly - "...am I a heterosexual man or a transgender woman cross-dressing lesbian? i.e. a woman trapped inside of a man's body who loves women and likes to wear men's cloths?" Who is to say one way or the other...

I would answer the questions thinking about the absurd statement above. Who is your employer to question your beliefs or ask you to provide proof of your faith?

She has another video specifically discussing Kaiser. A company who refused exemptions. Part 2, she walks through how she would respond, much better info fyi.

Nm, I don't care enough about this.

Yes, we all get a survey on the first day and BOOM if you're a gay you're untouchable.

Make zero mention of laws. Your job is to be convincing that you have sincerely held beliefs that are fundamental to your moral / ethical religious compass and those beliefs conflict with you getting the Covid vaccine at the present time.

You want to paint them into a corner that if they deny the exemption, they are the ones making an arbitrary determination that your religious beliefs either have no value or are being falsified. They have to give you the benefit of the doubt to guard your protected rights under the constitution (my personal opinion) - use that to your advantage and if they initially deny the exemption, ask for any documentation/ information they used to make their determination, let them know you will not comply, and don't be afraid to threaten litigation on religious discrimination grounds.

flashplayer said:

---

Make zero mention of laws. Your job is to be convincing that you have sincerely held beliefs that are fundamental to your moral / ethical religious compass and those beliefs conflict with you getting the Covid vaccine at the present time.

You want to paint them into a corner that if they deny the exemption, they are the ones making an arbitrary determination that your religious beliefs either have no value or are being falsified. They have to give you the benefit of the doubt to guard your protected rights under the constitution (my personal opinion) - use that to your advantage and if they initially deny the exemption, ask for any documentation/ information they used to make their determination, let them know you will not comply, and don't be afraid to threaten litigation on religious discrimination grounds.

---

Except, they won't be discriminating against you on religious grounds if they attempt to provide an accommodation. If an accommodation provides an undue hardship, then they have done their part under the law if they deny it. That's not an easy sell, so employers have been providing an accommodation that is reasonable and acceptable -- unpaid leave.

Because of the proliferation of bogus religious beliefs that you can buy online, it is reasonable for employers to probe a little bit. Just like it is perfectly legal to get medical verification of a need for accommodation for a disability, or to verify the need for medical leave.


So another question the OP has to consider is what if there is no fight about the religious belief? What if instead it goes like this:

OP's wife: I won't get the shot because of a sincerely held religious belief.
Employer: Okay, great. We can attempt to accommodate you. What accommodation do you think will let you work onsite without getting a vaccine?
OP's wife: Um, mask? Isolation?
Employer: Well, that won't work because (we're a federal contractor) (we have over 100 employees), and we are required to have everyone vaccinated.
OP's wife: Nuh uh, Governor Abbott said you can't force me to get vaccinated.
Employer: That's correct. I'm not forcing you to get vaccinated, I'm just saying that you cannot work onsite. The vaccination choice is still completely yours.
OP's wife: So you are refusing my exemption and firing me?
Employer: Of course not, we are accepting your exemption, keeping you employed and providing you an accommodation -- unpaid leave. You're still on the payroll, will still receive your benefits (you are still responsible for your portion of the premium) and are free to come back when your circumstances change or the law changes.

Not allowing someone to work is not a reasonable accommodation. Weekly testing would be.

After seeing this, this is their end game. They don't care about the exemption.

Washington State Football Coach's Firing Just Gave Away Governor's 'Illegal' Mandate Trick Play

flashplayer said:

---

Not allowing someone to work is not a reasonable accommodation. Weekly testing would be.

---

There can be more than one reasonable accommodation, and an employee is not entitled to a preferred one.

Switch out religion for disability. Consider someone who works in a plant and is required to stand, lift, climb ladders and stairs, etc. He tears his ACL and cannot stand for long periods, cannot lift, cannot climb. A reasonable accommodation the employee wants is to have a scooter or chair, but it is not feasible in the workplace. No other accommodation will work. Unpaid leave is a reasonable accommodation until the employee is able to perform the essential functions of the job.

Presence and vax (due to government or contract mandate) could be essential functions. No accommodation other than unpaid leave may be available. It is reasonable for the same reason as above.