Final Thoughts on the Bashista Case

August 30, 2014 by namvorg 2 Comments

For those of you who have been wondering about the Karen Bashista case, we have the closing argument and dismissal here for you to review.

Bashista

 

And if you’re interested, here is the link to the initial filing: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_RanmWVtwG8bFFvRmQxQlBUOG8/edit?usp=sharing

 

We want to make it clear that we support all efforts to eradicate mandatory and forced vaccinations in the workplace. However, as we have said from the beginning, there were many things glaringly wrong with this lawsuit right from the start.

We’ll go into more detail here, but basically, in a nutshell, it says that they waited way too long, they quoted laws and regulations that don’t exist, and they failed to prove their cause. Much of this we also argued back when we originally posted about the case on YouTube, which you can see here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XI-LcawkWUg.

The other thing that we wish to point out is that very little of the initial case was founded in true science and law. Much of it was opinion, and even the lawyer’s website, is questionable if not illegitimate- we certainly would not have chosen a lawyer with a website that looks like this or is named like this. http://www.jesuslawyer.com. You can look at it and view for yourself.

First and foremost, as we have said from the beginning, Michigan has at-will employment. This means that your employer can terminate you, or you can terminate the relationship at any time and for any reason. Nurse Bashista has worked in the state long enough to know that, and I would be willing to bet that she signed a disclosure to that fact upon hire. Claiming that there was an implied contract is simply untrue.

 

We also found it curious that the CDC was ever even mentioned in this lawsuit. The CDC is not mandating vaccines. Individual employers, however, ARE. This dismissal came as no surprise. Also, the Michigan Department of Community Health is also not mandating vaccines. They strongly recommend them, but again, they are not Nurse Bashista’s lawyer, and they were not in charge of creating the mandatory vaccination program at her individual hospital. They are correct in ascertaining that they never had an employment relationship with Nurse Bashista.

 

Keep in mind, Nurse Bashista was let go in January of 2011. She did not file her lawsuit until 2014- THREE years after the fact. Most statute of limitations expire after 24 months.

 

The judge also pointed out that Nurse Bashista, though they stated that her rights were violated under the ELCRA, she failed to show how these rights were violated and failed to respond when they were asked how this was violated. This shows a blatant disregard to questions that could and should have been easily answered and then returned to the court. This could have allowed the trial to continue, though more than likely not.

 

Michigan’s whistleblower laws will always protect the whistleblower. Nurse Bashista going to the media was nothing new in regards to flu shots in 2011. Here are several other stories about flu shots and nurses being fired in 2011 and sooner over flu shot mandates:

 

Nurse Bashista never at any time claimed to have any types of disabilities that we could see from the original filing. Using the ADA, and the Michigan Civil Rights Act, when not having a disability is not really a very good way to get your point across. If she truly had a disabilities, then this should have been brought to the forefront from the get go. It seems to us as if the true reason was for religious reasons, which we’ll address here shortly.

 

Age discrimination could have played very deeply into play here. Nurse Bashista, if she is over 40 years of age, could have had a very strong case in using her age as a means to fight her lawsuit. Older workers are notoriously discriminated against. Assuming she is an older nurse, she was probably at the higher end of her pay scale, and probably at a higher rate of seniority than many of her fellow staff members. Many hospital systems and healthcare organizations are notorious for getting rid of their older workers.

 

We would agree that the fraud case was not pressed as hard as it could have been. Showing a flu vaccine insert would have definitely thrown the fraud that the “flu shot as safe” wide open and would have allowed the case to proceed. As we previously discussed though, there were no scientific studies cited, no flu vaccine inserts used, and all that remained was the “opinion” of Nurse Bashista and her lawyer, rather than using facts and rationale. Had true fraud been pushed, this case could have easily gone forward.

 

We disagree that Nurse Bashista was given full access and full informed consent. Most of us have seen the so-called “consent” forms that our employers have. These are not true informed consent, and this should not have been dismissed. Nurse Bashista and her lawyer were correct in that she did not have truly informed consent presented to her, and she was denied the right to refuse the vaccine based on true informed consent.

 

The case is finally dismissed based on the fact that there is no set group of employees for the class action to take place. In order for a class action to proceed, it would need to be against one particular organization, with a set number of employees in mind that would join in the case. Nurse Bashista certainly did not do this.

 

Interestingly enough, not ONCE was Ms. Bashista’s religious views brought into fact for the dismissal of the case. It’s almost as if the judge neatly skirted around the issue and in doing so, completely refused to address it. The original issue at hand was that Ms. Bashista felt her religious beliefs were being violated; this was the ultimate basis for her initial suit; the rest was just fluff. The judge’s failure to address Ms. Bashista’s claim that this was a violation of her religious rights and beliefs is almost laughable. By focusing on all the other problems, the judge avoided addressing the fact that employees are entitled to religious beliefs, and are entitled to have those beliefs respected even when on the job.

 

Nurse Bashista is outraged that her case was so readily dismissed, but ultimately the case was not strong to begin with. Nurse Bashista wishes to appeal but if the appeal goes forward based on the same shaky claims that were previously given, we can not support that. On top of the fact that the statute of limitations has nearly all but expired here, she would need to re-file and basically start over from scratch; I don’t see that happening, and I don’t see another lawyer taking this up.

 

However, this is a lesson to be learned here. Other lawyers can look at this case as an example of what NOT to do when they are fighting for other nurses. Other lawyers can take this and say “what can I do to get my case to go forward, and help my nurses.” Other lawyers can get their heads out of the sand and step up to help healthcare workers and set precedents for other healthcare organizations. Other lawyers can bring to the forefront the fact that flu vaccines don’t work, aren’t safe for pregnant women, and could show just how much money is being wasted on these frivolous vaccines.

 

The problem is, is that we actually need lawyers to stand up and fight for our rights. There are many out there who are willing to fight for the rights of vaccine injured children, but very few who will fight for the rights of adults to refuse a forced medical procedure. Why is this? What are these lawyers afraid of? Clearly there’s not a lot of money to be made here, but there is history to be made, and laws that should be set to protect working adults. Isn’t there one lawyer out there who would be willing to make history and fight for the rights of working nurses and healthcare workers? If so, speak up and speak out! We need your help. Clearly it will be left up to the courts to decide the fate of us healthcare workers. We need you now- much longer and it will be far too late.