Opinion: Why Bob Ferguson is wrong and what SMF is doing about it

Silent Majority Foundation challenges Bob Ferguson over alleged rights violations in federal lawsuit. — Pete Serrano, counsel, Silent Majority Foundation

Counsel Pete Serrano explains the Silent Majority Foundation’s recent lawsuit against Attorney General Bob Ferguson and others

Pete Serrano
Silent Majority Foundation

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution and laws of the state of Washington, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties of the office of (name of office) to the best of my ability.” WA Attorney General and Governor Oath of Office.

In this Substack, we’ll address what happens when government officials swear an oath to uphold the law (and know the law) but ignore it to advance their ideology. Why is this worthy of a Substack? Because it is a common occurrence in Washington. How do we rectify these issues? For SMF, it means an increasing workload with more lawsuits. When did we take such action? Earlier this week, we filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Bob Ferguson, the Office of the Attorney General (AGO) and several executive level employees of the AGO for violations of our clients’ rights in Federal Court (where: Western District of Washington, Tacoma Division).

On Dec. 3, 2024, Silent Majority Foundation filed a lawsuit on behalf of ten former employees of the Washington State Office of the Attorney General, challenging the AGO’s adoption and implementation of AGO Policy I.58, Vaccination, which required AGO employees and volunteers to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condition of employment. While the Attorney General’s oath requires adherence to the Constitution and laws of the US and Washington, AG Ferguson discriminately applied the mandate against our clients, violating their rights. While vaccine mandates were pushed throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the expectation for the Attorney General is that he would first look to uphold the rule of law and the constitution and protect his employees’ rights before pushing an alleged health mandate. But that’s not what happened.

In Fact…

• The draft vaccination policy included the statement that it would be imposed as a “qualification of fitness for duty.” The mandate’s purpose: the AG’s office was “focused on providing the safest possible environment for our employees.” As is the typical case with Ferguson, this purpose statement was a sham! The true purpose, discussed via email by Defendant Sonju with Kathryn Leathers (Governor Inslee’s attorney) was to increase vaccination rates in the community through a “lead by example” approach. Remember, at this time there was very little information about the “vaccine’s” (lack of) safety, and its effectiveness was in question. The mandate’s true purpose was not based on research or any known facts, but on a set of beliefs that the Plaintiff’s were expected to hold to and were simply developed from a broad spectrum of the State government.

• A broad, templated approach (adopted from the Office of Financial Management’s [OFM] exemption tool) was used to respond to and potentially deter the approval of exemptions and accommodations encouraging the infringement of rights specifically around requested religious exemptions.

“Defendants Sonju and Petrie were included on an email thread dated August 3, 2021, in which religious animus was clear and they made no objections to such animus. Specifically, Kathryn Leathers stated that medical exemptions would be allowed, but as to religious exemptions, she stated, “religious (if we have to; if yes, as narrow as possible).” This was a clear case of religious animus. What is religious animus? “Animus-based lawmaking targets religion for disadvantage without any plausible justification… it targets religion, or religious individuals or groups, on the basis of nothing more than bias, dislike, or hostility toward the religious beliefs in question or against the people who hold them.” The AG’s approach is completely backwards from a constitutional perspective as the Constitutions (US and Washington) broadly grant liberties while limiting the government’s ability to narrow our guaranteed rights. The Sonju/Leathers email clearly demonstrates that the protection of First Amendment rights was not a priority in the decision-making process for accommodations.

Additionally:

• The AGO Policy Statement issued on September 21, 2021 required that all employees be vaccinated regardless of whether they worked from home full-time or not. What is the “health and safety” basis for including teleworkers?

• Accommodation requirements were centered around the Organization’s ability to accommodate without placing undue hardship on the organization. An undue hardship requires the organization to prove two elements: (1) an individualized assessment of (2) current circumstances that show that a specific reasonable accommodation would cause significant difficulty or expense. All Plaintiffs were teleworking, with some at 100% telework up to and through the exemption, accommodation, and appeals processes. Clearly, the Plaintiffs were not impeded by working from home — accommodations could and should have been allowed.

Plaintiffs in their own words

“At this time, the AGO assumes the hardship exists and I am being denied the opportunity to show otherwise. Can the AGO show that a reasonable accommodation to telework diminishes efficiency, infringes on other employee’s job rights or benefits or impairs workplace safety? Can the AGO demonstrate how much cost or disruption my proposed accommodation would involve? Can the AGO show that granting me the accommodation would be more than a De Minimis Cost? In fact, the AGO cannot. I have supplied and paid for electricity, internet and supplies while teleworking.” – Allison Hanson

The Attorney General’s Office unlawfully terminated the Plaintiff’s despite knowledge of EEOC guidelines, which state that employers “should ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on sincerely held religious beliefs.” Any further inquiry into a belief must have an “objective basis” that the employee is not credible in their assertion of the religious belief. The process used to determine the sincerity of religious beliefs in regard to exemption requests was in contrast to EEOC requirements.

In SMF’s words

Karen Osborne and Emily Ling are heading up this case; they wrote (in the Complaint): “There is a direct causal link between the policy or custom of denying any individualized assessment or interaction with each Plaintiff and the constitutional deprivation suffered by each Plaintiff. The policy itself is unconstitutional, in that it “amounts to deliberate indifference to the rights of persons with whom [the Defendants] come into contact,” where Defendants’ policy to deny any interaction with Plaintiffs “are the ‘moving force [behind] the constitutional violation.’”

We encourage you to read the 137-page Complaint as it discusses our rights and the government’s view of the same. With AG Ferguson taking the Governor’s office, we can expect more of the same! We need to step up and MAKE our voices heard, reminding the government that they are subservient to the Constitution.

As Silent Majority Foundation is a non-profit team our work is only accomplished through your generosity. We need your support TODAY! We will keep fighting to protect you, but we need you to support us. Please donate today and challenge five friends to donate today, too! Please join us in our end of the year goal of encouraging each of our followers and their friends to “lift where you stand.”

Please consider a generous donation and follow that up by becoming a monthly donor to SMF! Thank you!

To read our Complaint and to donate visit: https://www.silentmajorityfoundation.org/Ferguson.