The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday that a family cannot sue their child’s school district after their then-6-year-old child was mistakenly given a COVID-19 vaccine without their consent.

The incident occurred at a November 2021 clinic hosted by the Windham Southeast School District and the Vermont Department of Health. The child, referred to as L.P. in court documents, was a student at Academy School within the district.

According to the ruling, L.P.’s father had informed a school official prior to the clinic that his child should not be vaccinated. The school official acknowledged this directive. However, L.P. was mistakenly given a name tag meant for another student who had already been vaccinated earlier that day, leading to L.P. receiving one dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Despite L.P. verbally protesting by saying, “Dad said no,” clinic workers proceeded with the vaccination. The error was eventually realized by Academy School officials, who called L.P.’s parents to apologize. Following the incident, L.P.’s parents decided to remove their child from the school.

The Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling stated that state and school officials involved are protected under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act. The PREP Act provides liability immunity to “covered persons” in the event of a public health emergency for actions related to administering “covered countermeasures,” which include vaccines.

“To avoid dismissal on immunity grounds, plaintiffs would have had to present well-pleaded allegations showing that (1) at least one defendant was not a covered person, (2) some conduct by a defendant was not causally related to administering a covered countermeasure, (3) the substance injected into L.P. was not a covered countermeasure, or (4) there was no PREP Act declaration in effect at the time L.P. was injected,” the ruling stated.

This decision upholds a January 2023 ruling by a state superior court.

Windham Southeast Superintendent Mark Speno issued an apology for the incident in a November 2021 letter to families. “Thankfully, we are not aware of any harm to the student because of this mistake,” the letter reportedly read. “We take our responsibilities to students and families very seriously, and we respect parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their children.”

Crisis in the Classroom (CITC) has reached out to both Speno and an attorney for L.P.’s family for comment, but has not yet received a response. This story will be updated if responses are received.

In a landmark decision, a federal jury has awarded Tanja Benton nearly $700,000 after she was terminated from her job at BlueCross BlueShield of Tennessee (BCBST) for refusing to comply with the company’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The jury concluded that Benton’s refusal was grounded in her sincerely held religious beliefs.

Tanja Benton was employed by BCBST from 2005 until November 2022, serving primarily as a biostatistical research scientist. Her role, as outlined in her federal lawsuit, did not require regular in-person contact with clients or patients. In fact, Benton managed a portfolio of 10 to 12 clients annually, interacting with them infrequently and often not in person. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Benton transitioned to working from home for approximately 18 months without any reported issues.

In response to the ongoing pandemic, BCBST implemented a company-wide COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Benton refused to comply, citing her belief that the vaccines were derived from aborted fetus cell lines, a claim that has been debunked. In her lawsuit, Benton expressed her conviction that receiving the vaccine would defile her body and dishonor God.

Benton requested a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate, which BCBST denied. The company insisted that no exceptions could be made for individuals with Benton’s job title and suggested she apply for a different position within the organization. Despite her appeals and arguments that her job did not involve direct interaction with people, BCBST ultimately terminated her employment.

Following her termination, Benton filed a federal lawsuit against BCBST. The jury found that Benton “proved by a preponderance of the evidence” that her refusal to get vaccinated was based on her sincerely held religious belief. The verdict awarded Benton $177,240 in back pay, $10,000 in compensatory damages, and $500,000 in punitive damages, totaling $687,240.

BCBST defended its vaccine mandate, stating, “The vaccine requirement was the best decision for the health and safety of our employees and members – some of whom are the most vulnerable in the state – and our communities. We appreciate our former employees’ service to our members and communities throughout their time with BlueCross.”

The jury’s decision in favor of Benton underscores the complex interplay between public health measures and individual religious beliefs. As companies navigate the evolving landscape of workplace safety and employee rights, this case serves as a significant precedent for handling vaccine mandates and religious exemptions.

Read the full settlement document below:

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has filed a lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, accusing the company of deceptive marketing practices regarding its COVID-19 vaccine. The lawsuit, lodged in state court in Thomas County, alleges that Pfizer marketed the vaccine as “safe” despite allegedly knowing it was associated with “serious adverse events.”

The legal challenge by Kansas follows a similar lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in November. At a news conference on Monday, Kobach revealed that Kansas is among several states pursuing legal action against Pfizer. The lawsuit contends that Pfizer misrepresented its COVID-19 vaccine as “safe and effective” while being aware of potential side effects, including myocarditis and pericarditis—heart inflammations that, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), rarely occur.

“In such an environment, it is imperative Kansans making that decision receive the truth,” Kobach stated, emphasizing the importance of transparency for individuals deciding whether to get vaccinated.

Pfizer has dismissed the lawsuit as baseless. In a statement, the company expressed pride in developing the COVID-19 vaccine swiftly during the global pandemic, claiming it saved countless lives. Pfizer emphasized that its communications about the vaccine have been accurate and science-based, and that patient safety remains its top priority.

“The representations made by Pfizer about its COVID-19 vaccine have been accurate and science-based. The company believes that the state’s case has no merit and will respond to the suit in due course,” Pfizer said.

The lawsuit alleges that Pfizer’s actions violated Kansas’ consumer protection laws, despite the fact that vaccine recipients did not pay for their doses directly. Kobach argues that consumer protection laws still apply and that Pfizer violated prior consent judgments with the state. The lawsuit seeks monetary damages, although it does not specify an amount.

Kobach, a Republican, is launching this legal challenge as the pandemic fades from public consciousness, but vaccine-related anger and conspiracy theories continue to circulate, particularly among some right-wing groups. The lawsuit underscores ongoing tensions and distrust surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the outcome could have significant implications for pharmaceutical companies and their accountability in public health crises.

SOURCE: THE KANSAS CITY STAR