Hershey workers fired for refusing COVID shot allege religious discrimination in court.
Kim Durham, a 58-year-old former employee of the Hershey Company, has been searching for a job since being fired for refusing to get a COVID shot for religious reasons. Despite the financial and emotional challenges she has faced, Durham’s faith in God has only grown stronger over the past 20 months.
Durham is one of several former Hershey employees who are currently seeking damages in court, claiming that the company failed to accommodate their religious beliefs. The job she lost was one she had intended to keep until retirement, but Hershey’s COVID-19 vaccination policy changed everything.
“God Is a Healer”
While office staff were required to be fully vaccinated, manufacturing workers and retail workers were exempt from the policy. Durham, who had been working remotely for a year and a half, believed that her immune system, created by God, was sufficient to fight off any disease.
She submitted a religious exemption request, but it was denied by Hershey, who questioned the validity of her faith. The company claimed that no accommodation could be made without risking the health and safety of others.
Despite her efforts to seek clarification, Durham’s vaccination status remained a point of contention, ultimately leading to her termination. She is not alone in her fight, as other employees are also suing Hershey for similar reasons.
Other Employees Suing
The Hershey Company, known for its iconic chocolate products, has faced criticism for its handling of vaccine mandates. Thomas Szeltner, a senior manager with over 30 years of experience, was fired after his religious exemption request was denied. He questioned how his decision not to get vaccinated posed a threat to others.
These cases are just now reaching the courts, as employees must first file discrimination charges and obtain a “Right to Sue” letter. Despite the challenges they face, these individuals remain steadfast in their belief that their rights come from God, not from a company.
To what extent should employers enforce vaccine mandates, taking into consideration individual autonomy and personal choice?
Ots. Despite his impressive resume and years of experience in the confectionery industry, Durham has been facing numerous rejections due to his decision to not get vaccinated against COVID-19. This raises an important question about the extent to which vaccine mandates should be enforced by employers and the potential impact on individuals’ employment prospects.
Durham’s story is not unique, as many individuals around the world are grappling with similar employment challenges due to their stance on COVID-19 vaccines. With the pandemic still ongoing, governments and businesses are prioritizing vaccination efforts as a means to curb the spread of the virus and protect public health. This has led to the implementation of vaccine mandates, where employees are required to provide proof of vaccination or face consequences such as termination.
Proponents of vaccine mandates argue that they are crucial for protecting the workforce and customers from potential exposure to the virus. They contend that in industries like food production, where close contact and interactions with colleagues and customers are inevitable, unvaccinated employees pose an increased risk to public health. From this perspective, employers have a moral and legal obligation to ensure a safe working environment.
On the other hand, opponents of vaccine mandates believe that individual autonomy and personal choice should be respected. They argue that forcing employees to get vaccinated infringes upon their rights and freedoms. Durham’s case exemplifies the unforeseen consequences of vaccine mandates, as a hardworking employee with a stellar record and significant experience now finds himself unemployed due to his personal decision.
While the debate on vaccine mandates continues, it is essential to consider potential alternatives and accommodations for individuals who choose not to get vaccinated. Employers could explore options such as regular testing, remote work arrangements, or enhanced safety protocols to mitigate the risk posed by unvaccinated employees. These measures could strike a balance between protecting public health and respecting individual choices.
Furthermore, it is crucial for employers to consider the legality and ethical implications of vaccine mandates. In some jurisdictions, mandating vaccinations may be challenged based on discrimination or human rights laws, particularly in cases where employees have legitimate medical or religious reasons for not being vaccinated. It is imperative for businesses to navigate this delicate legal landscape carefully and ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
In conclusion, the case of Kim Durham highlights the ongoing debate surrounding vaccine mandates and their impact on employment prospects. While the necessity of vaccination to safeguard public health is widely recognized, it is important to also acknowledge the need to respect individual autonomy. Employers should carefully consider alternatives and accommodations for individuals who choose not to get vaccinated, balancing the protection of public health with the preservation of individual rights. Ultimately, finding a middle ground that addresses both these concerns will be crucial in navigating the post-pandemic employment landscape.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
