$700,000 Awarded to Healthy American Client in Religious Discrimination Lawsuit!

Blue Cross is (rightly) being punished for its blatant wrongful termination of longtime employee who objected to becoming a human pin cushion 👍

I KNEW THIS WOULD HAPPEN!

This is the story of a Healthy American from TN, Tanja Benton, who stood up against her employer, Blue Cross, who had an ILLEGAL REQUIREMENT in place for her to become a human pin cushion.

Tanja came to us and enrolled as a concierge client in 2021 to learn about the federal and state laws that protect her right to religious expression at the workplace (I refer to it as the wokeplace).

Click below to watch my detailed analysis (well, yeah — a little snark seeped into my commentary) of this ground-breaking GREAT news!

Imagine this… you’ve been working for your employer for nearly two decades. You are a trusted, valued employee who follows company protocol, even when you are told to work from home during the “pandemic” because it was "the safest place to be.”

But suddenly, a vaccine requirement is instituted, and you are told that you must return to work in person because it is a “hardship” for you to work from home, even though that’s what you had been doing for the previous two years.

So you seek help from The Healthy American to learn about your rights on the job, and you carefully craft your religious exemption document, stating that it is against your sincerely-held religious beliefs to inject your body with substances derived from human fetal cells.

Your employer coerces, intimidates and pressures you — insinuating that you are not sincere and cannot be believed. (Gee — let me get this right — an employee has been on the job for nearly two decades and suddenly is deemed untrustworthy??)

Because Tanja put her faith in God instead of pharmaceuticals, she was illegally terminated by Blue Cross/Blue Shield (BCBST).

The punch line? Tanja took her wrongful termination to FEDERAL COURT and a jury awarded her nearly $700,000 (details in a moment) – 500K in PUNITIVE DAMAGES to PUNISH them to not ever do it again.

Can we get a round of applause here?! 👏🎉

The Fox News headline must have sent chills down the spines of corporate overlords everywhere.

Fox reported, “A federal jury found that Tanja Benton 'proved by a preponderance of the evidence' that her decision to refuse the vaccine was based on a 'sincerely held religious belief,'” according to the settlement.

Let's talk about that "preponderance of evidence" thing. This is the standard for most civil cases, including Benton's. Basically, Benton only needed to show that her claims were more likely true than not. She had to convince the jury that her refusal to get the COVID-19 vaccine was sincerely rooted in her religious beliefs. Spoiler alert: She did it (and it’s a lot more simple and straight-forward to do in federal court compared to facing the anti-religious corporate firing squad).

This isn't your "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in criminal cases, which requires no room for doubt about guilt. Nope, Benton just needed to tip the scales slightly in her favor—and boy, did she ever. The jury was definitely outraged because 500k of that award was punitive damages!

So how did Benton manage to pull this off? Simple. She objected to a work policy based on her religion, explained the nature of her beliefs and requested an accommodation. She explained that her opposition to the vaccine stemmed from her conviction that COVID-19 vaccines are derived from aborted fetus cell lines, which she, as a devout believer, could not condone.

Benton played by the book. She formally requested a religious accommodation, explaining her objections and how the vaccine would defile her body and dishonor God. Her request was crystal clear and laid out her heartfelt beliefs.

No supporting testimonies from religious leaders were needed. Benton stood her ground alone, showing that even if her views were in the minority, they were still valid. The jury agreed, and that's what matters.

Employers love to deny accommodations, labeling employees as insincere. Yet, an entire jury found Benton's statement sufficient. No religious leader needed to vouch for her faith, because under the law, your beliefs are your own—independent of any church, leader, or doctrine.

I’ve been preaching this since Day One:

• Your beliefs are YOUR beliefs, not those of your church, spiritual leader, church doctrine, or religious scholars.

• Your beliefs do not need to be “logical, consistent, agreeable, or comprehensible.”

• You do not need to “defend your faith” or make someone understand it—you only need to express it.

• Your beliefs are what you think or know to be true; they do not have to be established as facts. A fact is not the same as a belief. Your beliefs are protected by law, even if they are not supported by facts.

• According to the EEOC, “your beliefs are easily established” and “generally not in dispute.” Your employer should generally accept that your religious beliefs are sincere.

• Once you notify your employer of your religious exemption, your employer is required (duty-bound by law!) to provide a reasonable accommodation so you do not have to choose between your religion or your job.

And guess what? The jury knew it, too.

Protecting your religious freedom has been my mission since DAY ONE of this hogwash operation that started in March 2020.

YOU have the God-given right to worship, observe, practice, and BELIEVE as your soul requires. NO MAN has the right to come between you and your Creator.

More Details:

-“Benton, who worked at BCBST from 2005 through November 2022 primarily as a bio statistical research scientist, said in her lawsuit that her job did not include regular contact with people, WTVC reported.”

-“Benton said she worked from home for a year and a half during the pandemic, and didn't have any complaints until BCBST announced employee vaccine requirements.”

Benton demonstrated that she could effectively perform her job remotely for 18 months without any issues or complaints. This helped to show that her request for an accommodation (continuing to work remotely) was reasonable and feasible. Evidence was presented that accommodating her religious beliefs would not cause undue hardship to BCBST. Given her ability to work remotely effectively, Benton argued that there was no significant burden on BCBST to allow her to continue working under similar conditions.

Timeline:

Aug 25, 2021 is when Tanja signed up for at The Healthy American to get her religious exemption education

Aug 27, 2021 is when her employer instituted the vaccine requirement

Sept 15, 2021 is when she submitted her request for accommodations

Claims:

Denial of Accommodations under Title VII & Tennessee Human Rights Act (THRA)

Unlawful Termination:

Benton alleges that BCBST terminated her employment due to her refusal to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which she opposed based on sincerely held religious beliefs. She contends that the vaccines are derived from aborted fetal cell lines, which contradicts her religious convictions.

Request for Accommodation:

Benton requested a religious accommodation to continue working remotely, as she had been doing effectively during the COVID-19 pandemic. BCBST denied this request, citing the need for in-person client interactions as essential to her role, despite Benton's argument that her job rarely required such interactions.

The filed compliant specifically alleged: “Because of her sincerely held religious beliefs, Plaintiff refused to be vaccinated forCOVID-19. Specifically, Plaintiff firmly believes, based upon personal research, that all COVID-19 vaccines are derived from aborted fetus cell lines. Because of her sincerely held religious beliefs concerning abortion, Plaintiff cannot in good conscience consume the vaccine, which would not only defile her body but also anger and dishonor God.”

-Benton filed a Charge of Discrimination with the EEOC, which issued a Notice of Right to Sue, enabling her to bring this lawsuit.

Damages Sought:

• Back pay and lost employment benefits

• Damages for emotional distress

• Reinstatement or front pay in lieu of reinstatement

• Punitive damages

• Pre-judgment interest

• Attorney fees and costs

NOTE: In addition to the above, I would have asked for:

-a personal apology from all those who discriminated against me
-a public apology from top management and the HR staff with a video posted on the website
-a public statement that they would never violate religious beliefs again
-requirement to undergo Title VII non-discrimination training (ideally through The Healthy American (!)

Key Points:

• Benton had a lengthy tenure with BCBST, working from home without issue for over a year and half.

• BCBST's refusal to accommodate her religious beliefs led to her termination.

• The jury’s substantial award ($500,000 in punitive damages!) shows a strong stance against religious discrimination AKA the jury was outraged! It signals to employers the importance of carefully considering and accommodating religious beliefs, especially when remote work is a viable option. I sense more lawsuits against blue cross on the horizon considering people in their HR department were telling employees there were no exemptions.

• The case reinforces the requirement for employers to provide reasonable accommodations for employees’ religious beliefs under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

• Benton’s case is a slam dunk after a previous Supreme Court decision in June of 2023 making it harder for employers to claim a hardship. BCBST failed to prove that accommodating Benton’s religious beliefs would cause undue hardship, particularly since she had been working remotely without any issues.

• Future cases may reference this decision when evaluating similar claims.

So, how do you like THEM apples? Pretty good apples, indeed!