BOSTON (LifeSiteNews) — A civil rights attorney who represented workers who were fired for refusing to take the abortion-tainted COVID-19 jabs said that one single bureaucrat in Massachusetts made the decision to deny unemployment benefits to the unjabbed. The revelation comes as further information comes out proving that the jabs are not effective at preventing transmission of the virus.
“In Massachusetts, the state government is still denying unemployment assistance to all workers fired from any job, government or private, for refusing to get the Covid-19 vaccine and boosters,” Ilya Feoktiskov wrote in The Federalist. “Even vaccinated workers who refused to get boosters and workers who refused the vaccine for legitimate religious or medical reasons are being denied.” He said that his law office is representing some of the workers unfairly fired — and it turns out the firings are because of one person.
We have discovered that the decision to punish them for refusing the jab by cutting them out of the state’s social safety net was not made by the state’s legislature, governor, or high court. It was made by one Emmy Patronick, a mid-level bureaucrat serving in the state’s Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development as the director of policy and performance for the state’s Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA).
“In an Oct. 14, 2021, ‘interoffice memorandum’ to all DUA unemployment claim adjudicators, Patronick simply overruled federal and state employment laws with a new policy more to her liking,” the attorney explained.
The memo said that as long as an employer at least offered a medical exemption, even if none were ever granted, that would justify denying unemployment benefits. Oddly for a labor department in a liberal state, Patronick ordered staff not to ask any questions of the employers and simply take their word for it, ensuring that fired workers would not have an advocate in the state government.
The memo stated:
Adjudicators should not ask to review medical documentation that was already reviewed by the employer and found to be insufficient to support a medical exemption. Similarly, where an employer — through a review of documentation or an interview, or some other reasonable process — has found that an employee’s professed religious belief either is not sincerely held or does not prevent the employee from being vaccinated, an Adjudicator should not attempt to overturn that decision through paper fact finding. Nor should Adjudicators permit employees to submit documentation or raise arguments that were not made at the time of the discharge.
Feoktiskov, the attorney, pointed out that this is not how the system is supposed to work. Workers are supposed to be allowed to challenge a denial of benefits and the role of the executive branch is to work with both sides to reach a conclusion.
“At the most basic level of due process, an adjudicator must be impartial, she must hear arguments from both parties, and she must second-guess both of them equally,” the attorney wrote in his Federalist essay. He also alleged that the memo “illegally exempts Massachusetts employers from conforming their vaccine policies with the reasonable accommodation provisions of federal laws such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
He said that his clients all had received a similar denial that mirrored the language used by Patronick.
The memo lacks any relevant case law citations. LifeSiteNews emailed Patronick on March 9 and asked her if she sought input from a government attorney, what case law she used to write her memo and if she could comment on the allegations raised in the Federalist article. She did not respond to the request for comment.
The WHO Pandemic Treaty looks set to be one of the biggest power-grabs in living memory, with unelected globalists seeking the power to declare pandemics, and then control your country's response.
But it's not too late to do something about it.
SIGN and SHARE this special petition telling Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus that the WHO will never usurp your nation's sovereignty.
The past two years have been rife with infringements on personal liberties and civil rights by national governments, but now the World Health Organization is seeking to appropriate those same abusive powers to itself at a global level.
194 member states representing 99% of the world's population are expected to sign pandemic treaties with the WHO that would allow Tedros, or any future Director General, to dictate exactly how your nation would respond to a new disease outbreak which they consider a pandemic.
This attack on national sovereignty will come as no surprise to those who for years have listened to elites like Klaus Schwab and Bill Gates discussing their vision for the centralization of power into globalist organizations like the World Economic Forum (WEF), the WHO and the rest of the United Nations.
SIGN this petition against the WHO's Pandemic Treaty, before it's too late.
Ludicrously, 20 world leaders calling for the treaty, including Tedros, Boris Johnson and Emmanuel Macron, compared the post-Covid world to the post-WWII period, saying similar co-operation is now needed to "dispel the temptations of isolationism and nationalism, and to address the challenges that could only be achieved together in the spirit of solidarity and co-operation - namely peace, prosperity, health and security."
Australian PM Scott Morrison is the latest leader to express support for a “pandemic treaty”.
The stated intention of the WHO is to “kickstart a global process to draft and negotiate a convention, agreement or other international instrument under the Constitution of the World Health Organization to strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response.”
The wheels are already in motion, with the Biden administration officially proposing the initial steps towards handing global pandemic control to the WHO.
Biden's representatives have submitted amendments to the WHO's International Health Regulations (IHR), which would give the Director General the right to declare health emergencies in any nation, even when disputed by the country in question.
These amendments, which would be legally binding under international law, will be voted on by the World Health Assembly (the governing body of the WHO) at a special convention running from May 22-28 and set the stage for a fully-fledged pandemic treaty to be passed.
SIGN and SHARE the petition telling the WHO that you won't accept any pandemic treaty
The ball has been rolling since the last World Health Assembly meeting in December, where the United States launched negotiations "on a new international health instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response," a U.S. statement read.
"This momentous step represents our collective responsibility to work together to advance health security and to make the global health system stronger and more responsive.
"We look forward to broad and deep negotiations using a whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach that will strengthen the international legal framework for public health/pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response and enable us to address issues of equity, accountability, and multisectoral collaboration evident in the COVID-19 pandemic.
"We know it will take all of us working together across governments, private sector, philanthropy, academia, and civil society to make rapid progress towards a long-term solution for these complex problems," the U.S. statement added.
SIGN the petition today to show the WHO that you won't accept this attack on national sovereignty.
These are precarious times in which freedom and self-determination must be defended from those who would ride rough-shod over your civil rights.
We do not want to go back to global lockdowns, vaccine mandates and propoganda.
Sign the petition - speak up now!
For More Information:
Biden hands over American sovereignty with proposed WHO treaty - LifeSiteNews
Pandemic Treaty is a backdoor to global governance - LifeSiteNews
Dr. Robert Malone on the WHO's power-grab - LifeSiteNews
**Photo: YouTube Screenshot**
Massachusetts allows vaccine mandates despite ineffectiveness of shots to stop transmission
The ongoing COVID-19 jab mandates come despite mounting evidence that shows that the shots do not reliably prevent transmission or infection.
For example, a town in Ontario lifted its mandate after reviewing data that showed that the shots were not reducing transmission of COVID. A U.S. Food and Drug Administration official has previously said “(w)e don’t know if people can become infected and thus also transmit even with vaccination.”
An executive with Pfizer previously testified that his company did not test to see if the shots prevented transmission, citing “science. “No. We had to really move at the speed of science to really understand what is taking place in the market,” Janine Small stated.
The COVID jabs have also attracted scrutiny due to ongoing health concerns, including death.
Researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention have acknowledged a “high verification rate of reports of myocarditis to VAERS after mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccination,” suggesting that “under-reporting is more likely” than over-reporting, as LifeSiteNews previously reported.
Numerous consequences, including death, continue to pour into the U.S. federal government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).
As of January 6, 2023, (VAERS) reported 33,591 deaths, 188,857 hospitalizations, 18,181 heart attacks, and 26,166 myocarditis and pericarditis cases through December 23 after the jabs, as LifeSiteNews recently reported.