More than two dozen Christian employees of a San Diego community college system are being targeted for termination for not receiving dangerous, ineffective, COVID-19 gene-based “vaccine” injections, in the wake of three of their colleagues already being fired on January 19.
Send the Board an urgent message - people have the right to conscientiously object to the vaccine
San Diego Community College District (SDCCD) remains the only college system in the state of California to adopt a policy of firing employees for declining to receive the abortion-tainted COVID-19 injections due to their religious convictions.
“I am one of at least 30 Christian employees at SDCCD that have been purposely targeted for termination, even now, for not accepting to take a fetus cell-tainted injection,” wrote mathematics professor Carlos de la Lama in an email correspondence with LifeSiteNews.
De la Lama’s career at the institution has stretched almost three decades including 26 years as Department Chair.
He is also a member of the Confraternity of Our Lady of Fatima, having received a personalized affidavit from Bishop Athanasius Schneider to assist in securing a religious exemption from any institutional mandate to receive abortion-tainted vaccines or other biological injections.
After SDCCD initially ensured employees in the summer of 2021 that their jobs would not be threatened by the institution’s COVID gene-based vaccine mandates, they liberally granted both medical and religious exemptions.
However, the policy changed in September when the local American Federation of Teachers (AFT) union began putting pressure on SDCCD—not to protect their members from having their human and civil rights violated with mandatory experimental injections, in violation of the Nuremberg Code—but rather to exert more pressure on the institution to coerce these employees to accept these gene-based injections with threats of termination.
All employees who had previously received exemptions had to reapply with “a whole new level of scrutiny and criteria” according to de la Lama. And in October, religious exemptions began being denied while medical exemptions were granted, indicating an illegal act of discrimination.
“The Civil Rights Act of 1964 absolutely protects religion as a protected class,” the professor explained. “The moment the employer actually has a secular exemption… they have to provide a religious one [as well] because that's the law.”
Send a message today - SDCCD cannot discriminate against religious believers
The group of employees then retained the services of constitutional attorney, and former judge, Gary Kreep who put SDCCD on notice of a violation of the law in this regard on October 26, 2021.
Two days later, SDCCD recanted their prior decisions and approved these religious exemptions. However, the law also allows employers to reject providing an accommodation for any exemption if it involves an undue burden on the employer.
In the late spring of 2022, the job of adjudicating these exemptions and accommodations was delegated to vice chancellor of human resources Gregory Smith who has, according to de la Lama, denied reasonable accommodations for employees with religious exemptions, even while his office has approved accommodations for those who received medical exemptions.
This is the case despite these employees often working “in the same building, same office suite, same classrooms, and perhaps even with the same students,” de la Lama explained. “So, our contention is that they're certainly targeting religious exemptions” of which virtually all have been filed by devout Christians.
Joanna Aud, one of the employees terminated on January 19, explained to local news station KUSI at the time that SDCCD denied her accommodation despite the fact that her primary job was to prepare classes alone in a lab.
“Students are not required to be vaccinated,” Aud explained. “So, as a student, I could actually enroll in a class that typically I would prep. I could be in that class as a student [in] a full classroom [with] no problem. But I have been denied an accommodation to actually prep that class alone in an empty classroom. Somehow, that’s an undue hardship [for SDCCD].”
Amy Reichert is a representative of ReOpen San Diego, an organization which through litigation helped put legal pressure on the City of San Diego, leading to the city council ending its COVID-19 emergency declaration and employee “vaccine” mandate on January 24.
In a February 9 interview with the local news program, host Carl DeMaio asked Reichert if she thought the SDCCD decision makers might be using this mandate as a means to “weed out conservatives” from their workforce.
The mother and activist, who is also running for San Diego County Supervisor, responded this was not necessarily the case, but rather, “to be honest with you, [I think] it's an attack on Christians.”
“I know that sounds like a lot, but the people that got fired [in] the last round, and [those] coming up, aren't people that are necessarily conservatives. These are people who are immigrants, people who are Latino,” and others who are black, including one Dr. Tracy Kiser who is also in the midst of a high-risk pregnancy and is about to lose both her livelihood and health insurance.
Speak up now for these persecuted believers - exemptions must be provided to those with religious objections
Charged with the ultimate decision of terminating these conscientious objectors is the District’s Board of Trustees (BOT) whose individual bios, along with that of the chancellor, are sprinkled with woke buzzwords such as “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.”
In a December 15 testimony before the BOT, Dr. Kiser called out the irony by asking, “Are freedom and religious beliefs no longer part of the ‘diversity’ which this institution claims to embrace?”
“Why am I no longer the kind of person the district deems to have a meaningful role in my department, not because of my job performance but only because of my deeply held religious belief?” she implored.
According to Reichert, behind the BOT’s unanimous stance on this policy is public sector union boss Jim Mahler whom she described as “a complete and total Branch Covidian” who has not accepted the CDC’s admission that the “vaccines” do not stop infection or transmission of the virus, and thus “there is no moral or scientific or legal reason to still have mandates and to fire people in 2023.”
As explained by de la Lama in a telephone interview with LifeSiteNews, “every single member of our board of trustees is backed by this particular union, every one. And so, they're really beholden to [Mahler].”
And this union president doesn’t only enjoy the loyalty of the BOT members due to positive incentives, but negative ones as well. In the past, de la Lama explains how the union has revoked their endorsement from members and given it to a recruited challenger, with full financial backing, when they have “voted against something that was not in line with whatever this particular union president wanted.”
“So that the board members know that they are really in those positions because the union has supported and given them,” de la Lama summarized.
Six more Christian employees are slated to be terminated at the March 2 board meeting, with trustees and the chancellor showing no signs of changing course. These include both Kiser and de la Lama, and according to the latter, “there are at least another 25-30 more … [who] have also been told that they are next.”
Speaking to Paul Rudy of KUSI News last week, Reichert said, “I have a message for the San Diego College district: Stand down. Reverse course. You're hurting and you're harming your own employees. You're violating their civil rights. ReOpen San Diego filed a federal lawsuit against the City of San Diego and won, and a legal freight train is coming your way. You will not do this to your employees. Not on our watch.”
Please send the Board and Mr. Jim Mahler an urgent message today - speak up for these Christians
Thanks for trying to take action! There’s no need to act on this campaign because either your elected officials were not included or there’s currently a vacancy in your district.
Thanks for trying to take action! Unfortunately, we could not send your message because:
None of the officials targeted in this campaign accept the type of communication chosen by your organization.
No further action is needed at this time. Thank you again.
Your message has not been sent!
Your officials require the following additional information to be submitted in order for this message to be delivered to them. The prefix you selected is not accepted by at least one of your legislators. Please choose one of the following prefixes: