Hey, there! Log in / Register

State Police union goes back to court to try to block firing of seven anti-vax troopers

The State Police Association of Massachusetts (SPAM) today sued to try to block the impending firing of seven troopers who claim religious reasons for not wanting to get Covid-19 shots.

This is the union's second court attempt to block a vaccination mandate. Last fall, the union sued to try to block the mandate for all troopers, but a Suffolk Superior Court judge rejected their request, in part because she concluded public health, in the form of a state effort to fight a deadly disease, took precedence.

In its newest suit, also filed in Suffolk Superior Court, the union argues that seven specific troopers who are now on the cusp of actually being fired have a First Amendment right to refuse to take the shot, whether because they object to the alleged way it would interfere with their God-given DNA or because some vaccine testing might have been done on cell lines derived from fetuses aborted in the 1970s.

The union says it is not contesting either the science behind the shots or the mandate itself, but rather what it says is the state's refusal to allow for "reasonable accommodation" of the troopers' religious beliefs, as called for under their contract, for example, by letting them continue to work while wearing masks and undergoing regular Covid-19 testing.

The union charges that officials refused to even let the troopers make a case for "reasonable accommodations" - as opposed to how officials did work to try to accommodate troopers who sought medical exemptions from the mandate.

The suit comes a day after the union took a swipe at Boston after a group of suburban police departments that pool resources for large events said it would no longer send help to Boston because of a city-council ordinance limiting how BPD can use tear gas and other "non-lethal" crowd-control methods.

The Association and its members continue to stand ready to answer any call for assistance. To our brothers and sisters in Boston: we have your back even if your own city council and others don't. We are not ones to back down because of dangerous policies. #StrongerTogether

Complete complaint (1.2M PDF).

Neighborhoods: 

Ad:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

I believe the swipe at Boston has to do because of this article:

https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/suffolk-county/metrolec-no-longe...

Metrolec was used for all major events and it’s a huge loss for us. The next straight pride parade (and there will be one), it looks like we might be on our own, and that’s no good for anyone.

- a Boston Cop

up
Voting closed 27

I've updated the story.

up
Voting closed 16

They already couldn't staff a full St. Patrick's Day parade, so I'm not shocked about that, but what I'm really hearing is that police who escalate situations on their own by using violence will face consequences and those guys from the 'burbs who dream of kicking ass in lawless cities are going to be disappoint when it turns out they can't beat on hippies so they're taking their ball and going home.

up
Voting closed 22

In the last so-called "Straight Pride" parade, seems that the cops mostly did their "policing" on counterprotesters who had the audacity to object to white supremacist phobes swaggering down Tremont Street behind their hate-rhetoric banners. Not sure anyone needs that kind of "protection" tbh.

up
Voting closed 24

"we've tried nothing, and we're all out of ideas!"

up
Voting closed 29

Methinks they ought to have chosen a name for their organization with a less unfortunate abbreviation.

up
Voting closed 25

editorialize by modifying facts. You editorialize by choosing which facts to mention.

up
Voting closed 16

there is no reason to accommodate them.

up
Voting closed 36

Nor is the part about the fetuses.

up
Voting closed 9

They're probably not based in religion either.

up
Voting closed 23

...about their union dues paying for these ridiculous lawsuits.

up
Voting closed 17