Judge rules in favor of motion to reveal identities of health care workers suing state

A federal judge hearing a lawsuit against the state’s COVID-19 vaccine obligations against health care workers ruled in favor of allegations filed by two media companies challenging the anonymity of the nine plaintiffs. ..

Judge John D. Levy of the U.S. District Court ruled on page 13 on Tuesday, requiring a previously anonymous plaintiff to file an amended complaint containing his name by June 7. .. Case.

“After careful consideration of the relevant factors, plaintiffs have concluded that they have not fulfilled the high burden of demonstrating the need to overcome strong presumptions in favor of public access to civil proceedings.

The plaintiff’s allegations to open the identity were filed by two companies that own Portland Press Herald, Kennebeck Journal, Morning Sentinel, and Sun Journal.

Newspapers called interveners in court documents should not continue to allow plaintiffs to continue under a pseudonym because plaintiffs “the fear of harm no longer outweighs the public’s interests in public proceedings.” Insisted.

The plaintiff, a Maine health worker, challenged a change in state law in August 2021 requiring employees of designated Maine health facilities to be vaccinated against COVID-19. The reason plaintiffs refused the vaccine is “based on their religious opposition to abortion and their claim that fetal stem cells were used to develop the COVID-19 vaccine,” the court said.

Levy explained that at the beginning of the proceedings, health care workers allowed them to continue anonymously after claiming that their reasonable fear of harm outweighed the public’s interest in the public proceedings. Mr Levy said he reserves the right to reconsider.

In a decision on Tuesday, Levy said, “The religious beliefs of the plaintiff and the medical decision resulting from not being vaccinated against COVID-19 are pseudonyms, whether considered separately or together. It does not show substantial privacy benefits to support the procedure. “

“But in the final analysis, there is almost no evidence that the fears they have expressed are objectively rational,” Levy writes. “This record does not show that the plaintiff’s privacy interests outweigh the public interest associated with the presumption of openness that applies to civil proceedings.”

Liberty Counsel, a conservative group representing plaintiffs, argued that Maine offers medical exemptions and therefore needs to provide religious exemptions for vaccines. This rule puts people seeking religious exemptions at a disadvantage, Liberty Counsel argues, and therefore violates their right to practice their religion freely.

It was not clear whether plaintiffs were to appeal against Levy’s decision.

“Because your dissertation is a party to the controversy and is represented by the council, Liberty Counsel can only deal with newspaper lawyers on this issue,” Liberty Counsel spokesman Holly Mead interviewed late Tuesday night. Said in an email reply to your request.

Federal judges at all levels – the US District Court, Boston’s First Circuit Court of Appeals, and the US Supreme Court – refused to block the mandate from coming into force while the courts were considering the merits of the proceedings. Liberty Counsel, a conservative group representing plaintiffs, subsequently filed a warrant of discretionary appeal with the Supreme Court seeking full explanation and oral arguments. The petition was rejected in February.

Mandate came into effect in October, and major healthcare providers reported that most workers decided to take their shots and continue working. This case is different from the court battle over federal vaccine obligations for employees of private companies.

Maine did not allow hospital or nursing home workers to give up firing for religious reasons.

” Previous

Related article