- A class-action lawsuit against the University of California over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate is proceeding, representing thousands of employees.
- The lawsuit centers on informed consent and privacy, asserting that UC employees were coerced into vaccination under threat of job loss and were not fully informed about vaccine risks.
- Notable plaintiffs include Dr. Christopher Rake, who was escorted out of UCLA Health after refusing the vaccine, and Dr. Jan Maisel, who suffered a severe reaction to the vaccine and was suspended for refusing a second dose.
- The California Supreme Court declined to hear a key claim invoking the Nuremberg Code, which prohibits medical experimentation without informed consent.
- The UC lawsuit is part of a growing wave of legal challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates, including a case by Santa Clara University students. These cases underscore the tension between public health policies and individual rights, with critics arguing that institutions prioritized financial and political interests over well-being.
A class-action lawsuit against the University of California (UC) over its Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) vaccine mandate is moving forward despite a recent setback from the California Supreme Court. The case, which represents thousands of UC employees, alleges that the university violated their rights to privacy, bodily autonomy and informed consent when it mandated COVID-19 vaccines for all staff and faculty.
While the Supreme Court declined to hear one of the plaintiffs' key claims – that the mandate violated the Nuremberg Code and California law – the broader lawsuit remains alive, raising critical questions about medical freedom, corporate influence and the ethics of public health policies.
The lawsuit, which could eventually include up to 200,000 plaintiffs, is one of the largest legal challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in the United States. It highlights the tension between public health measures and individual rights, a debate that has only intensified since the pandemic began.
The case gained national attention in 2021 when one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Christopher Rake, was escorted out of a UCLA Health medical center after refusing to comply with the vaccine mandate.
A video of the incident, which Rake posted on social media, went viral. In it, he explained that he was willing to lose his job to stand up for his rights and the rights of others to make informed medical decisions. (Related: Ontario healthcare workers file CA$170M class action suit over province’s workplace COVID-19 vaccine mandate.)
The California Supreme Court's decision not to hear the plaintiffs' claim regarding the Nuremberg Code was a blow to the case.
The Nuremberg Code, established after World War II, prohibits medical experimentation on humans without their full and informed consent. The plaintiffs argued that the COVID-19 vaccines, which were authorized under emergency use and had not yet completed long-term clinical trials, constituted an experimental medical intervention.
While the Supreme Court declined to address this issue, the lawsuit is far from over. The remaining claims—including violations of privacy rights, employment laws and state health codes – are still moving forward in the lower courts.
Plaintiffs' attorneys have also indicated that they may revisit the Nuremberg Code argument later in the case.
One attorney involved in the case said that it is a pivotal moment for "human rights in the modern era" and that the court has the opportunity to hold institutions accountable for violating fundamental principles of informed consent and bodily autonomy.
Students push back against vaccine mandates
The UC lawsuit is not the only legal challenge to COVID-19 vaccine mandates in California.
In 2022, two students from Santa Clara University filed a lawsuit against the school over its booster mandate. The students, Jackson Druker and Harlow Glenn, argue that the mandate violates their rights to bodily autonomy and medical freedom.
Glenn, who experienced an adverse reaction to her initial COVID-19 vaccine, said the university denied her request for a medical exemption.
Druker, whose mother co-founded Children’s Health Defense-California, has been a vocal critic of vaccine mandates, framing the issue as one of personal choice rather than politics.
The Santa Clara lawsuit alleges 18 causes of action, including violations of students' constitutional rights, interference with the doctor-patient relationship and breaches of federal emergency use authorization laws.
Like the UC case, it raises questions about the ethics of mandating vaccines that were authorized under emergency use and whose long-term effects remain uncertain.
The UC and Santa Clara lawsuits are part of a growing wave of legal challenges to COVID-19 vaccine mandates across the country. These cases highlight the tension between public health policies designed to protect the greater good and individual rights to privacy, autonomy and informed consent.
Critics of the mandates argue that institutions like UC and Santa Clara University prioritized financial and political interests over the well-being of their employees and students. They point to Big Pharma's influence on public health policies and the lack of transparency about the risks associated with COVID-19 vaccines.
As the UC lawsuit moves forward, it has the potential to set a precedent for how courts balance public health mandates with individual rights. The case also raises important questions about the role of institutions in shaping public health policies and the ethical responsibilities they have to their employees and students.
As the legal battle continues, one thing is clear: The debate over COVID-19 vaccine mandates is far from over, and its implications will be felt for years to come.
Watch this clip about a recent vaccine mandate court victory.
This video is from the Maverick News channel on Brighteon.com.
More related stories:
Was the Biden White House complicit in a COVID origins cover-up?
More scientists call for MORATORIUM on mRNA COVID-19 vaccines: WILL IT EVER HAPPEN?
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.