London Medicine has filed court docket paperwork defending itself in opposition to a lawsuit from a former pharmacist that he was wrongfully dismissed for refusing to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination.
Lena Reid, who labored as a employees pharmacist for 16 years, stated in her lawsuit that she was informed in August that her employer was introducing a coverage that requires all staff to be absolutely vaccinated.
In response to her lawsuit filed within the B.C. Supreme Court docket, on November 1, she was positioned on unpaid go away after she was denied vaccination.
Reid, 60, argues that there was no settlement or interval of employment that allowed the vaccine mandate to be applied and that by putting him on unpaid go away, the corporate had unfairly dismissed him.
She stated that because the begin of the pandemic in March 2020, the shop had been in a position to function safely by following public well being pointers, which embody masking, social distancing, contact tracing and well being questionnaires.
However in response to the lawsuit, London Medicine says routine duties for Reid, who resigned from his job in December, required him to be nearer to different staff and the general public.
“It was required to offer members of the general public with vaccination and well being info, which can embody details about COVID-19,” the response says. “If the plaintiff had been employed by the defendant, he would have been required to present COVID-19 booster photographs to members of the general public.”
London Medicine says its vaccine coverage for workers was supposed to replicate the shop’s place as a well being care supplier for important items and providers and to create a safer setting for workers and prospects.
“In implementing the coverage, the defendant assumed that it served most people, and was not conscious of the well being or immunization standing of its prospects who entered the shop and interacted with staff,” the shop says. .
“Pharmacies could pose a selected threat due to the potential for sick prospects to formally work together with employees in small areas.”
The shop says the coverage was the interval of Reid’s employment and that he was positioned on go away for failure to adjust to the coverage “moderately enforced.”
“The implementation of the coverage was not a breach of contract nor did it essentially alter a required interval of the plaintiff’s employment.”