MAJOR WIN for RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!

Supreme Court Ruling Protects YOUR Religious Rights at the WOKE-PLACE

I’ve got GREAT news coming to you about one of the Supreme Court’s recent LANDMARK rulings regarding religious freedom at the woke-place.

Protecting your religious freedom has been my mission since DAY ONE of this abominable hogwash operation that was sloshed all over us starting 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.

(God has a will and plan for your life, and whether or not you believe in Him, He believes in you.)

Unfortunately at nearly every turn, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Mormons, Taoists and even Atheists (yes, Atheism is recognized by the government as a religious belief) have had their rights thwarted by employers, educators, medical workers, airline agents, grocery store clerks and the government.

I can state this fact unequivocally because for the last three+ years, I (along with my Pastor husband) have been educating, counseling, encouraging and coaching people from all walks of life to stand up against this blatant religious discrimination and to fight back against this tyranny and oppression, especially at the woke-place (i.e., on the job).

Click HERE if you are being discriminated against by your employer, college, medical practitioner or other. We can coach you through the process of defending your rights without losing access to your job, school, medical provider, etc.

I don’t know if the Supreme Court Justices have been following my videos about Title VII (the law that protects you from religious discrimination at work) but they definitely interpreted the law the same way I have been teaching it for the last 3+ years.

What that means is that YOU as an employee have the LEGALLY-protected right to not be coerced, threatened, intimidated or bullied into doing anything that conflicts with your God-given conscience.

Imagine if your employer had put into place:

• a required “tattoo policy” whereby every employee had to have the company logo tattooed on the forearm

• a mandatory “sleep with your boss policy” to foster team-building

• a required “donate your kidney policy” for social responsibility

• a mandatory “abortion policy” whereby any pregnant woman was required to have an abortion as a condition to continue working

Friends, these concepts might seem outlandish and outrageous, but I guarantee you they are not far-fetched.

You see, once you give in, give up and give over your rights to sovereignty over your body, then where does it stop?

(And no, “bodily sovereignty” does not give you the right to harm another living being, such a developing baby in the womb. That is another body, with its own sovereignty.)

Let’s get back to the recent Supreme Court ruling, shall we?

Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General

This landmark decision, published on June 29, 2023 ruled that the employer MUST accommodate an employee’s sincerely-held religious beliefs, practice and observance — unless the employer can DEMONSTRATE actual economic hardship that impacts the conduct of business.

What this means for you: If your employer jerked you around, saying that you were a “direct threat to others” or that it was a “hardship on the company” to allow you to work in your non-pin-cushion status, those claims are invalid, unless there is EVIDENCE that accommodating your religious expression would ACTUALLY create a financial hardship or actual impediment for that employer to conduct business.

Your employer does not have a shaky leg to stand on if they claim that your pureblood status would “not be fair,” or “make your co-workers uncomfortable,” or “pose a threat to customers or clients.”

NOPE!

As I’ve been shouting from the rooftops for the last three years, NONE of those things matter in the eyes of the law!

My thanks for Gerald Groff and his capable attorneys at firstliberty.org for litigating and winning this landmark case.

Here are the facts of this case:

Mail carrier Gerald Groff informed his USPS superiors that he would be unable to work on Sundays because he considers the Sabbath to be a day of worship and rest.

It was not a problem for some years because USPS did not deliver mail on Sundays. Therefore, there was no conflict between Groff and the USPS.

However, once USPS contracted with Amazon to deliver packages on Sunday, mail carriers were subject to working on Sundays. Groff then transferred to a different mail station that did not have Sunday deliveries. This is important because it demonstrated Groff’s sincerely-held religious belief, observance and practice. Groff went out of his way to make sure he could keep his job and still not work on Sundays.

However, that mail station where Groff had transferred then started up the Sunday mail deliveries as well. Groff requested to not work Sundays.

Guess what happened?

As could be expected in the woke-place, the religious mail carrier was the target of gradual disciplinary actions that ultimately led to his resignation. Even though he “resigned” it was more that that the circumstances were so untenable that he felt he had no other choice than to quit. This situation is what is known as constructive termination or discharge:

“Constructive discharge occurs when an employee quits their job in response to working conditions that are so poor that no reasonable person would stay.” - Legal Information Institute

In this ruling, The Supreme Court reinforced Title VII obligations on employers in a unanimous 9-0 decision overturning a progressive 1977 judgment, making it plainly apparent that they have a legal duty to accommodate employees' religious beliefs.

The court also clarified that any hardship caused to co-workers is not a defense unless the co-worker’s hardship directly affects the conduct of the business and that an employer MUST reasonably accommodate not merely assess the reasonableness of a particular possible accommodation. 

Title VII law is very straightforward:

“It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer -

(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

Employers are prohibited from interfering with their employees' right to freely exercise their religion; nevertheless, there is one exception to this rule... Unless it would cause "undue hardship" to the conduct of the business.

“The statute defines “religion” as including “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that [it] is unable to reasonably accommodate . . . without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.” -EEOC Compliance Manual on Religious Discrimination

Many healthy Americans have tussled with the "undue hardship" excuse in light of the illegal suffocation, testing, and vaccination policies instituted by employers for the last several years. Because the government is prohibited from doing it, they bribed corporate America to do it for them. If this judgement had been issued pre-covid, the amount of religious accommodation denials would likely decrease by a whopping 1000%, which gives you an idea of the magnitude of this verdict.

By clarifying the undue hardship standard, The Supreme Court just poked a huge hole in these employers’ ships weakening their ability to hide behind the liberal hijacking of the Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison case. In the Hardison case, lower courts and the EEOC seized on the phrase "de minimis" as the guiding criterion for undue hardship defenses, but as detailed in the SCOTUS decision, that particular phrase was cherry-picked out of context. Instead, SCOTUS highlighted what was repeatedly described in Hardison:

“In describing an employer’s “undue hardship” defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. The Court understands Hardison to mean that “undue hardship” is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business.”

After this week’s decision, employers may only deny a religious accommodation by showing that it would “result in substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business.” Not just increased costs, but “substantial” increased costs.

“The court holds that showing “more than a de minimis cost,” as that phrase is used in common parlance, does NOT suffice to establish undue hardship under Title VII. Hardison cannot be reduced to that one phrase. In describing an employer’s undue hardship defense, Hardison referred repeatedly to “substantial” burdens, and that formulation better explains the decision. The court understands Hardison to mean that undue hardship is shown when a burden is substantial in the overall context of an employer’s business. This fact-specific inquiry comports with both Hardison and the meaning of ‘undue hardship’ in ordinary speech.”

Employers may no longer invoke the "undue hardship" excuse without explaining why an accommodation would actually be too substantially difficult to implement. —» This is what I have been teaching for the last three years and finally someone gets it! This ties in exactly to the work we’ve been doing at The Healthy American.«—

Thousands of employees and many of our clients have been up against an employer who argues they must get vaccinated or else the company will suffer undue hardship. Friends, whoever makes the claim must back it up with evidence. The employer must demonstrate how it would be an undue hardship using verifiable evidence.

“To prove undue hardship, the employer will need to demonstrate how much cost or disruption the employee’s proposed accommodation would involve.^[246]  An employer cannot rely on hypothetical hardship when faced with an employee’s religious obligation that conflicts with scheduled work, but rather should rely on objective information.^[247]  A mere assumption that many more people with the same religious practices as the individual being accommodated may also seek accommodation is not evidence of undue hardship.” - EEOC compliance manual on religious discrimination

Here's a glimpse at what your employer would have to provide to demonstrate an undue hardship in regards to their denial of religious accommodation to their vaccination policy: A list of all of the people who have become ill as a result of the employee's unvaccinated state, the criteria used to determine that the employee was the cause of their illness, how many of these people ended up in the hospital, what kind of treatment they received, and the names of those who died as a result of the employee breathing oxygen and being unvaccinated. The employer can NEVER present that information because it does not exist. You are innocent until proven guilty. This is the rule of law. There is ZERO evidence that you are causing a burden for the company by inhaling oxygen, remaining un-assaulted by the nasal rape, and being unvaccinated.

KEY TAKEAWAY:
All of you who are fighting against your employer, I want you to cite this Supreme Court Ruling and email the EEOC requesting they update their compliance manual to accurately reflect the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v. DeJoy, Postmaster General.

This verdict will be very helpful for all employees moving forward, and I expect more attorneys to emerge from the woodwork to take on this blatant religious discrimination now that courts are ruling against these employer actions.

Click here to view my video coverage of this decision, in which I essentially present a condensed version of my online religious exemption workshops. We've been very successful so far, and as a result of our education, more and more people are standing up for themselves because they understand that they have the absolute, lawful right to no consent to anything that violates their God-given conscience.

If YOU need my help in declining vaccinations, masks or testing, or if you are dealing with the EEOC and want help, go HERE to sign up for our private counseling services to receive one-on-one assistance.

As always, thank you for reading, and for sharing this important VICTORY with everyone who loves freedom and is willing to fight back to defend it.
~ Peggy