Featured Image
 Nicole Glass Photography 

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.

Feoktiskov wrote:

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.

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.

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.