In a rare decision involving an immunity claim by government officials, a Massachusetts judge has denied a college’s human resources director’s request for immunity from a lawsuit seeking monetary damages against her for denying a professor’s religious exemption request from the jab.
In denying the college official’s request, Massachusetts Superior Court Judge Edward McDonough slammed Springfield Technical Community College (STCC) Acting HR Director Vannoch Sin for what he called a “thinly masked opposition, [if] not overt hostility,” toward Associate Professor Sheryl Fullen in her opposition to the COVID vaccine on religious grounds.
“Sin’s misconduct, as alleged in Fullen’s complaint, egregiously violated Fullen’s right to free exercise of religion not because Sin considered whether Fullen’s religious relief not because Sin considered whether Fullen’s religious belief conflicted with being vaccinated, but because Sin not seriously and candidly consider her beliefs, but instead wrongfully rejected Fullen’s accommodation request based either on Sin’s opposition to, hostility toward, or factually unsupported quarrel over Fullen’s sincerely held beliefs,” McDonough wrote.
Sin referred questions from The Epoch Times about the ruling to the college’s human resources office. It did not respond. Sin, a former admissions director for the University of Massachusetts in Amherst, also said in an email that June 21 was her last day at STCC.
Her attorney Jeffrey Collins of the Boston law firm Morgan Brown & Joy, did not respond to inquiries from The Epoch Times.
On its website, STCC lists Sin as the contact person for employees looking for “reasonable accommodations” from the school COVID vaccine mandate policy.
Fullen was an associate professor of the college’s school of health and patient simulation when she was fired for not taking the vaccine.
Fullen, who is identified in various court pleadings as staunchly opposed to abortion, objects to the COVID-19 vaccine because it was derived from fetal cells.
Sin fired Fullen after denying her religious exemption request and for not getting the vaccine, according to the lawsuit.
In her court pleadings, Sin argued that she was exempt from the litigation because she is a government employee and, therefore, qualified for immunity from lawsuits.
McDonough disagreed, ruling Sin knew she was violating Fullen’s constitutional rights, a basis for government employees to lose their immunity.
Fullen’s lawyer Ryan McLane told The Epoch Times that the case, while at the trial level, could have the potential to set precedence against other government employees who denied religious exemptions.
“Government officials have chronically escaped liability by successfully claiming immunity and often leaves those injured by their actions with no relief,” he said, “we definitely need that to change in some cases.”
Several national legal organizations, including the Cato Insitute and the Institute For Justice, have launched campaigns seeking a legislative overturn, both at the federal and state level, of the longstanding practice of granting immunity by government officials.
McLane said the ruling is also promising for those subject to jab or job ultimatums after having their religious beliefs treated with disrespect in the workplace.
“The judge called the consideration given to my client’s truly held religious beliefs for what it was—a sham,” he said. He is seeking Fullen’s base salary and other monetary damages in the suit.
In addition to his ruling on Sin’s immunity claim, the court also wrote in its ruling that Fullen was protected under the Massachusetts constitution’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act against the government for “imposing substantial burdens on religious exercise.”
McDonough took specific aim at Sin for claiming that Fullen’s offer to wear a mask and undergo temperature checks in lieu of the vaccine were inconsistent with the safety protocols of the CDC against the virus.
Legal experts like attorney Roger Gannam, a lead counsel in a highly publicized charge against the military for denying religious exemptions to a group of U.S. Marines, told The Epoch Times that the Massachusetts ruling is a promising sign because it also recognized the First Amendment right to exercise religious freedom.
So far, in most cases, the courts have relied solely on Title VII, the federal protection against religious rights in the workplace.
“We have seen lazy judges in other cases like this to just defer to what employers or public health officials have claimed,” said Gannam, who is vice president of legal affairs at Liberty Counsel. “It was refreshing to see, in this case, a judge dig into the science and the applicable laws.”
According to court filings, Sin accused Fullen of masquerading her political beliefs as religious beliefs when she objected to vaccines because they were made from body matter extracted from aborted babies.
“The religious passages cited in your application do not prevent you from complying with the employee vaccination policy. This is a matter of choice on your part, period; since your beliefs do not prevent you from complying with the employee vaccination policy, you are not eligible for a reasonable accommodation based on religion,” Sin wrote in a letter to Fullen.
McDonough also chastised Sin for using citations from the Catholic church in supporting her position against Fullen, who is a practicing Catholic, according to her lawsuit.
“Worse, as noted, Sin directly questioned Fullen’s honesty and integrity in her termination letter, gratuitously tossing offensive, disrespectful and derogatory quotes,” wrote McDonough. “Purportedly from other clergy that we must not allow or give support to mere personal or political preferences masquerading as religious liberty claims.”
Catholics have remained divided over the COVID vaccine, with church leaders urging parishioners to get it.
Last year, Pope Francis said it was a moral obligation for Catholics to get the vaccine and denounced church members for relying on “baseless information” to refuse it.
He also referred to taking the vaccine as “an act of love” and refusing it “suicidal.”
In contrast, groups like the Catholic Medical Association and the National Catholic Bioethics Center have both denounced mandating Catholics to take a vaccine made from fetal cells.
“CMA opposes mandatory COVID-19 vaccinations as a condition of employment without conscience or religious exemptions,” the organization said.
