18 Major Airlines, FAA, and DOT to Be Sued Over COVID Vaccine Mandates

Not that I expect anything to come of this other than some lawyers to get well fed and paid however I have friends who retired early instead of getting the mandated shots. So maybe something will come out of this mess ?

May 25, 2022 Updated: May 25, 2022

John Pierce Law has filed a lawsuit against Atlas Air, on behalf of US Freedom Flyers (USFF) and Atlas employees, and plans to sue all major airlines, 18 altogether, plus the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), contending that the vaccine mandates imposed by these agencies on the airlines’ employees infringed on their constitutional, religious, and medical liberties.

The lawsuit against Atlas Air was filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida, with over 100 plaintiffs pursuing litigation.

“Fundamentally, this case is about whether Americans should be required to choose between their livelihoods and being coerced into taking an experimental, dangerous medical treatment,” reads the lawsuit (pdf).

Plaintiffs are mostly unvaccinated pilots, flight attendants, as well as other Atlas staff.

“It is also about the safety of America’s airline industry. Should pilots—under federal regulation required to be among the healthiest workers in the United States—who have taken an experimental ‘vaccine’ that is now shown to have potentially deadly, long-term side effects, be allowed to fly massive aircraft in our skies? While those who have (smartly) refrained from such a course be forced out of their jobs?” it states.

Atlas Air is one of the industry’s largest cargo carrier companies and the world’s largest operator of the Boeing 747 aircraft.

lists.youmaker.com...

a reply to: 727Sky

I hope something comes of this. Maybe if enough stink is raised, it can stop the next one. We should never mandate drugs, ever.

a reply to: 727Sky

Why stop there? The FAA is part of the government, they need to go for blood and sue the government as a whole. Tens of thousands of government employees retired or quit early, many of which were Fed pilots as well.

originally posted by: 38181
a reply to: 727Sky

Why stop there? The FAA is part of the government, they need to go for blood and sue the government as a whole. Tens of thousands of government employees retired or quit early, many of which were Fed pilots as well.

Tens of Thousands?

prove it...

a reply to: 727Sky

If they had used a less "extreme" language I suppose they would have more chances of wining, but using expressions like "dangerous medical treatment" (for which they will probably be asked to provide evidence) and by writing ‘vaccine’, showing that they do not consider it a vaccine, I don't think they will succeed.

originally posted by: ArMaP
a reply to: 727Sky

If they had used a less "extreme" language I suppose they would have more chances of wining, but using expressions like "dangerous medical treatment" (for which they will probably be asked to provide evidence) and by writing ‘vaccine’, showing that they do not consider it a vaccine, I don't think they will succeed.

It's not a vaccine in the traditional sense no, it's proven to be gene-therapy

originally posted by: ancientlight
It's not a vaccine in the traditional sense no, it's proven to be gene-therapy

"Vaccine in the traditional sense" doesn't mean it's not a vaccine. "Vaccines in the traditional sense" are only one part of all the vaccines that exist.
And there's one thing that most people that argue that the mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" is that not all CoViD-19 vaccines are mRNA vaccines. Acting as if there was only one choice makes me see this law suit even less likely to be successful.

PS: in other countries, like Portugal, applying special conditions for a job retroactively is illegal, they could only ask people to be vaccinated if they were new people on the job, those that were already admitted when that condition didn't exist cannot be forced to accept it after they signed their contracts with no vaccine clauses.

a reply to: 727Sky

You tend to find that vexatious litigations that cannot provide hard evidence get thrown out of court.

They also then have to pay court costs. This, of course gets passed on down to the people who are covered in the class action. Their lawyers can still make a mint, even though they loose the case.

A money making scam for dodgy lawyers, built on the gullibility of those they represent!

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

You tend to find that vexatious litigations that cannot provide hard evidence get thrown out of court.

Vexatious litigation has a definition and this case isn't it. Unless you have some proof? Even if the judge rules they don't have standing or whatever, it still isn't vexatious litigation by default.

That's just you, who bought every lie the whole time, trying to cast aspersions on a case because the evil anti-scientists don't agree with you. Temporary protection, higher than normal adverse events in young people, no transmission prevention, no prevention of symptoms, no justification for mandating, no clinical evidence for the dire need for vaccination outside risk groups.

It is patently absurd for this to be required for normal employment and unless something changed there is still not a single approved dose available on the market for consumers.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: 727Sky

You tend to find that vexatious litigations that cannot provide hard evidence get thrown out of court.

Vexatious litigation has a definition and this case isn't it. Unless you have some proof? Even if the judge rules they don't have standing or whatever, it still isn't vexatious litigation by default.

That's just you, who bought every lie the whole time, trying to cast aspersions on a case because the evil anti-scientists don't agree with you. Temporary protection, higher than normal adverse events in young people, no transmission prevention, no prevention of symptoms, no justification for mandating, no clinical evidence for the dire need for vaccination outside risk groups.

It is patently absurd for this to be required for normal employment and unless something changed there is still not a single approved dose available on the market for consumers.

All the members of my household recently had COVID-19, except for my wife and I. It went from one person to another in really rapid order.

Both my wife and I are in the 'at-risk' older age group and I was also in recovery from an operation. About the only real difference is that the two of us were fully immunized and boosted. We continue to test negative, and have had no symptoms.

Similarly, the aggregate data from around the world, comparing deaths and serious hospitalization of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, shows that very small percentage of those fully immunized progress to serious or life-threatening outcomes, while a higher percentage of those who are not immunized, do get seriously sick and die.

And the fact that there are many, even who have posted here on ATS, who have had multiple bouts of COVID-19, showing the nature of the disease itself, and that even 'naturally acquired immunity' is not as magical as your "total instant barrier to disease" ideas about how things are supposed to work.

So, just perhaps, your belief that the immunizations don't prevent or inhibit transmission, is based upon your misunderstanding of immune response to a pathogen, and of breakthrough cases?

There are immunized people, like my wife and I, who are untouched while the disease blazes around them, and there are real-world clinical statistics that show the effectiveness of the immunizations both to prevent transmission and development of the disease.