Vancouver pharmacist sues London Drugs for wrongful dismissal over COVID jab order

[Eom]

A Vancouver pharmacist is suing London Drug, alleging the company wrongfully dismissing her after she refused to get a COVID-19 vaccination.

 

Lina Reid, who worked as a staff pharmacist at the store for 16 years, was told in August that her employer was introducing a policy requiring all of its employees to be fully vaccinated.

 

 

She and her colleagues were told that it was expected that the policy would extend to future booster shots as recommended by public health.

On Nov. 1, after refusing to be fully vaccinated, she was placed on unpaid leave for an undetermined length of time, according to her lawsuit filed in B.C. Supreme Court.

 

The 60-year-old claims that there is no agreement or term of employment between herself and London Drugs that allowed the vaccine mandate to be imposed and that by putting her on unpaid leave, the company effectively wrongfully dismissed her.

 

She says that since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, the defendant London Drugs has been able to operate safely by following public health guidelines, including masking, social distancing, contact tracing and health questionnaires.

 

“The plaintiff specifically pleads that the unilateral decision to now require vaccines and testing could not have been a bona fide occupational requirement as the defendant has repeatedly demonstrated that it can operate safely without such a requirement,” says the lawsuit.

 

“This point is further underscored by the fact that the British Columbia government has specifically chosen not to impose a vaccine mandate on the defendant or the general population.”

 

Osaro Obaseki, a lawyer for Reid, declined to disclose his client’s reasons for refusing to get vaccinated.

 

“Ultimately the reasoning behind it is kind of immaterial to the analysis.”

 

He said that his law firm has a number of other similar lawsuits across Canada but added he’s unaware of any court decisions to date.

 

In an emailed statement, London Drugs said that while it would not comment on an outstanding legal dispute with a specific employee, the company has numerous policies and procedures in place intended to protect the health and safety of their employees and customers.

 

“All employees, including pharmacists, are currently required to show evidence of full vaccination or demonstrate negative COVID status through ongoing screening,” said the statement.

 

“We are confident our health and safety measures are appropriate, justified and strike a fair and measured balance protecting the rights of our employees and creating a safe work and retail environment for all. London Drugs is confident its workplace safety policies would be upheld in any court proceedings.”

 

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/pharmacist-at-b-c-s-london-drugs-sues-for-wrongful-dismissal-over-covid-jab-order

[Shekky]

This post in a nutshell

 

[King Heffy]

I hope she has to pay LD's court costs.

[hammertime]

I'm not an anti vaxxer I myself am fully vaxxed and currently sitting home sick with covid. I don't see why she should be required to be vaxxed if she doesn't want to be?  

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

So if a doctor prescribes a new medicine to a customer. Does she refuse to dispense it because it might not be tested to her satisfaction? 

 

 

[Ghostsof1915]

1 minute ago, hammertime said:

I'm not an anti vaxxer I myself am fully vaxxed and currently sitting home sick with covid. I don't see why she should be required to be vaxxed if she doesn't want to be?  

 

 

Because there's lots of customers, that are immune compromised. Doesn't make any sense to not have staff fully vaxxed, and the company doing everything it can to take all reasonable steps for employee safety, and the safety of customers. 

 

You can work on a construction site. Wear flip flops, and a baseball cap. But if your boss sends you home because you're supposed to wear steel toed boots, safety vest, gloves and a construction helmet, that's the companies right. 

[VancouverHabitant]

4 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So if a doctor prescribes a new medicine to a customer. Does she refuse to dispense it because it might not be tested to her satisfaction? 

 

 

Too many mental gymnastics, I'd prefer to let people not be vaccinated and not lose their way of life.  

 

 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, VancouverHabitant said:

Too many mental gymnastics, I'd prefer to let people not be vaccinated and not lose their way of life.  

 

 

And when you own your own business, that's your kind of decision to make.  There are plenty of jobs out there she can apply for since she is clearly unqualified to work in any kind of medical capacity.

[Ronaldoescobar]

I believe this will come down to how much they have offered/given her in severance. As this rule was implemented (and fairly so as private companies have a lot of leeway in that regard) after she had worked there for some time, I think they would have to pay her severance as per the labour code to let her go. 

[sonoman]

[King Heffy]

2 minutes ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

I believe this will come down to how much they have offered/given her in severance. As this rule was implemented (and fairly so as private companies have a lot of leeway in that regard) after she had worked there for some time, I think they would have to pay her severance as per the labour code to let her go.

Looks like she was also given plenty of working notice though.

[Ronaldoescobar]

Just now, King Heffy said:

Looks like she was also given plenty of working notice though.

Oh absolutely and if she’s not willing to comply then she’s gone, which I agree with. That said as it is a change to her job description/requirements, I think they would have to pay her a fair severance. that’s why I think this case will come down to how much was offered if anything. It’s not like she is going to get millions due to some charter infringement or anything. 

[Ghostsof1915]

8 minutes ago, King Heffy said:

And when you own your own business, that's your kind of decision to make.  There are plenty of jobs out there she can apply for since she is clearly unqualified to work in any kind of medical capacity.

She can work for GNC, or Popeye's Supplements! 

[hammertime]

Just now, Ghostsof1915 said:

Because there's lots of customers, that are immune compromised. Doesn't make any sense to not have staff fully vaxxed, and the company doing everything it can to take all reasonable steps for employee safety, and the safety of customers. 

 

You can work on a construction site. Wear flip flops, and a baseball cap. But if your boss sends you home because you're supposed to wear steel toed boots, safety vest, gloves and a construction helmet, that's the companies right. 

I suppose that makes sense. I'm not sure that I agree but it makes sense. By that same token though every employer can say the same where is the line. It's not like it's going away can you force the entire population to get 2 shots a year for the rest of their life? Youre always going to have outliers who refuse and then you end up with these idiots in Ottawa. 

[King Heffy]

1 minute ago, Ronaldoescobar said:

Oh absolutely and if she’s not willing to comply then she’s gone, which I agree with. That said as it is a change to her job description/requirements, I think they would have to pay her a fair severance. that’s why I think this case will come down to how much was offered if anything. It’s not like she is going to get millions due to some charter infringement or anything. 

Fair argument, although if enough notice was given it could be reasonably argued that the severance was unnecessary, depending on how long she had been working there. As long as the notice was longer than she would gotten using the Bardal factors, she doesn't have much of a leg to stand on.

[Eom]

The comments on the Vancouver Sun and Province Facebook pages about this are brutal. Seen a few comments from people saying they know the pharmacist and that they have a history of shady things like withholding patient's medications etc. Sounds like they had more grounds to let her go than just not being vaccinated. She sounds like a jerk

[6of1_halfdozenofother]

It doesn't appear her employment was terminated, just that she was put on unpaid leave for an indefinite time, according to the article.  In other words, she still has her job, just no shifts to report for; her employer hasn't released her from their employment.  Might be premature to consider this as "wrongful dismissal", no?

[Tinky-Winky]

what a joke, rules are rules, all have to follow em, dont like, find new employment elsewere than

[WeneedLumme]

Given the circumstances, ie: the pandemic and the nature of her job, I would be willing to bet that her lawyers were not willing to take this case on a straight contingency fee. If she had a serious chance of winning anything more than perhaps a token one dollar in damages, they would, but lawyers have a strong aversion to tilting at windmills for free.

Edited February 8, 2022 by WeneedLumme

[CanucksCountry]

1 hour ago, Ghostsof1915 said:

So if a doctor prescribes a new medicine to a customer. Does she refuse to dispense it because it might not be tested to her satisfaction? 

 

 

That's kinda of a dumb take imho if she failed to give the Vaccine to others then sure but if she doesn't want to take something for HER OWN BODY that should be her choice. If there is nothing in the contract as she says to force her to take the Vaccine, she will win in court handily 

Edited February 8, 2022 by CanucksCountry