DENVER — A federal judge has determined that a former Denver International Airport supply specialist, who challenged the city’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate by filing an incomplete request for a religious exemption, did not have his rights violated when the city denied his application. The judge’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to established protocols when seeking exemptions for mandatory health measures.
In summer 2021, Denver mandated that all city employees must be inoculated against COVID-19 unless they obtained an exemption for medical or religious reasons. Of the 297 requests for religious accommodations filed, the city approved 237. However, Patrick Higgins, the plaintiff, faced rejection after submitting an unsigned form paired with statements that denounced the process and claimed government overreach.
Chief Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court outlined that Higgins’ submission did not constitute a valid request for exemption as it lacked clarity and directness in its religious claims. In his attached narrative, Higgins described COVID-19 as comparable to the flu, condemned the vaccine as a population control mechanism, and alluded to apocalyptic themes such as the “mark of the beast.”
Higgins expressed in his submission, “I am using the ‘Request for Religious Exemption/Accommodation Related to COVID-19 Vaccine’ form as merely a means to identify who I am and I do not consent to anything the form stands for.” Such statements led to the city’s decision to dismiss his application as it failed to meet the criteria necessary for processing a religious accommodation request.
Following his termination, Higgins filed a lawsuit accusing Denver of not accommodating his religious beliefs and retaliating against him for seeking a religious adjustment. The city, however, argued that Higgins did not properly engage in the exemption process, highlighting that his own statements on the form indicated a refusal to participate in the exemption protocol.
The legality of vaccine mandates and the requirements for religious or medical exemptions have been a point of contention across the U.S., sparking numerous lawsuits. In Higgins’ case, Judge Brimmer affirmed that for an accommodation request to be considered, it must be explicit and sincere in stating the religious grounds for exemption. The judge’s decision emphasized that merely expressing dissatisfaction with the mandate does not equate to a formal request for accommodation based on religious beliefs.
This ruling may serve as a precedent for how similar cases are approached, particularly in terms of understanding what constitutes a legitimate request for exemption from government health orders. Legal observers note that clear communication and compliance with procedural requirements are crucial in such contexts.
The case, Higgins v. City and County of Denver, is now closed, with the court siding in favor of city policies and procedures aimed at handling pandemic-related health measures responsibly.
This article was automatically written by Open AI. Please be aware that the information, people, facts, circumstances, and narrative may contain inaccuracies. Any requests for corrections, retractions, or removals should be addressed to contact@publiclawlibrary.org.