Phoenix Children’s Hospital (PCH) defended its administrators after they revealed in a mass email those who’d received exemptions to their COVID-19 vaccine mandate. In a lawsuit against PCH (CV2021-016638), two employees claimed that PCH’s email violated their privacy and disclosed their medical information negligently.
In a 24-page response obtained by Arizona Daily Independent, PCH attorneys insisted that the scope and impact of the pandemic overshadowed the exposure of the aggrieved employees’ vaccination status. They also insisted that the apparently inadvertent disclosure about which employees were unvaccinated didn’t constitute revelation of medical records.
“While the email acknowledges PCH granted the recipients a medical or religious exemption to the vaccine requirement, the email does not indicate the basis for any employee’s exemption. And the email reveals no medical diagnosis, condition, or circumstance about any recipient,” read the response. “Plaintiffs claim their vaccination status is a private fact or medical information. For a group of employees working in an acute care children’s hospital in the midst of a global pandemic that has killed more than 776,000 people in the United States, the disclosure of an employee’s vaccination status to other unvaccinated co-workers is not sufficient publicity to support an invasion of privacy claim. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ vaccination status is not the type of patient medical information protected from disclosure by the negligence claim they purport to state.”
Even though the identities of the unvaccinated were then shared on social media, PCH attorneys further claimed in their response that the disclosure wasn’t widely disseminated, reasonably offensive, or private. Their response also claimed that the employees’ vaccination status was of legitimate public concern due to the pandemic.
“A claim for public disclosure of private facts requires disclosure to the larger public, not simply an internal list of employees. It also requires the disclosure to be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Plaintiffs cannot show an alleged disclosure of their vaccination status to other unvaccinated co-workers meets those standards. Plaintiffs further cannot show that the email discloses private information about either of them or that sharing their vaccination status with other employees working at a pediatric hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic is not of legitimate public concern,” read the response.
In part, PCH attorneys drew the distinction between the disclosure of patient versus employee medical information when weighing legal precedent. Their response declared that the employees’ complaints about inappropriate disclosure of medical information was invalid because they were employees, not patients. They also asserted that employee vaccination status was of legitimate interest to the workforce.
“PCH did not maintain a list of unvaccinated employees for the purpose of patient diagnosis or treatment, but rather to aid PCH’s patient and employee health and safety efforts,” read the response. “Courts have found private published facts that are connected to public health and safety to be of legitimate public concern [….] Here, the matter of legitimate public concern is public health and safety amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”
In a statement to Arizona Daily Independent the employees’ attorney, Alex Kolodin, warned that this type of defense from PCH would only set a precedent to openly distinguish between the vaccinated and unvaccinated in the workplace.
“PCH is defending their breach of duty to their employees, not by acknowledging their mistake, but by doubling down,” said Kolodin. “Yesterday, in court filings, they submitted a brief that is essentially the unauthorized sequel to ‘If I did it.’ Their claim, essentially, is that the PCH employees whose private medical information they disclosed had it coming because employee vaccination status is ‘of legitimate interest to its workforce.’ They also warned the public that, if the Biden administration mandates are upheld, they may go further still and ‘make visible distinctions between vaccinated and unvaccinated employees. This behavior, by a major hospital, is disappointing to say the least.”
Kolodin later assessed to AZ Free News that PCH made extreme claims in their response.
“It’s sensational. They’re bomb throwing – this is just judicial bomb throwing,” remarked Kolodin. “They’re just putting outrageous claims out there.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
Scottsdale Police Department (SPD) closed its investigation into former Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board President Jann-Michael Greenburg, demoted to board member, this week after determining it fell outside their jurisdiction.
SPD reported that it passed the case on to higher levels of law enforcement for review: the FBI, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and Maricopa County Attorney’s Office. They also clarified that SUSD’s investigation into the matter was still underway.
SPD spokesman Kevin Quon explained in a press release that the Greenburg dossier contained open source and public documents only. Quon added that higher levels of law enforcement may investigate under their jurisdiction.
“It was determined that the drive contained open source and/or public documents. Therefore, it has been determined that no criminal conduct has been committed at this time that would be under the jurisdiction of the Scottsdale Police Department,” said Quon. “The Scottsdale portion of this investigation is now closed. Scottsdale investigators have met with the FBI, Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, briefed them, and provided them with a copy of our investigation for review in determining if any criminal acts might fall under their respective jurisdictions.”
Greenburg had editing access to the Google Drive dossier that his father, Mark Greenburg, created. As AZ Free News reported, SUSD assured parents that their information was safe in an email following the dossier’s discovery. Due to the personal and sensitive nature of this case, AZ Free News won’t provide links to the dossier.
As part of his efforts to collect information for his dossier, Mark Greenburg would film parents outside of school board meetings using a body camera. He also claimed to have hired a private investigator to bolster his dossier on parents opposed to Jann-Michael.
YIKES: Here's the father of Scottsdale Unified school board president Jann-Michael Greenburg, secretly taking bodycam footage of parents on school property and saying he hired a "private investigator who is writing down all their [license] plates." pic.twitter.com/CXt5dJDtKg
Attorney General Mark Brnovich asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to investigate the Greenburg dossier. In a letter first obtained by Fox News, Brnovich requested that the DOJ specifically look into whether the dossier violated the First Amendment as well as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
“Evidence has been discovered that Scottsdale Unified School District (“SUSD”) board member, Jann-Michael Greenburg, may have conspired to abuse his position of power against Arizona students and their parents,” wrote Brnovich. “A dossier containing information on those who wish to participate in their children’s education and peacefully petition their government should concern all Americans of good conscience.”
No parent should ever be intimidated by a school board for exercising their constitutional rights.
Our office sent letters to Scottsdale Unified School District and DOJ today, regarding the alleged dossier. https://t.co/tUHBqLcl4z
The SUSD board voted to remove Greenburg as president last month, though he remains on the board. Scottsdale parents are behind an effort to recall Greenburg from the board entirely.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
“Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t get a guilty verdict because he was f*****g white!”
Thus spoke Mastaani Qureshi – one of the Arizona State University (ASU) students who violated the Code of Conduct for harassing two white male students out of “their” multicultural center – during a campus protest against Kyle Rittenhouse’s potential future enrollment. Four socialism and social justice advocacy student organizations held the protest: Students for Socialism, Movimiento Estudiantil Chicanx de Aztlán (MEChA), Students for Justice in Palestine, and the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition (MSC).
As punishment, Qureshi received a stern warning for the multicultural center incident. In an interview with ASU’s newspaper, State Press, Qureshi revealed that ASU also required her to write a reflection paper on how to “facilitate civil dialogue.”
That mandated reflection apparently had no bearing on Qureshi’s remarks during Wednesday’s protest. Like the other protestors, Qureshi repeated that “killer Kyle” must be barred from campus. Rittenhouse was acquitted of all murder and reckless endangerment charges last month after days of jury deliberation. One of the investigative reporters who testified at the Rittenhouse trial, Drew Hernandez, documented the ASU Rittenhouse protest and Qureshi’s speech.
“We want to say that Kyle Rittenhouse is not just any random killer, he’s a white supremacist killer. He is a vigilante. He is the descendant of white Americans who killed black and brown people. White supremacists back in the day were also acquitted of all charges if we have read history. Kyle Rittenhouse didn’t get a guilty verdict because he was f*****g white!” yelled Mastaani. “ASU is not only a predominately white university, it is a white supremacist university!”
In response, a white male counterprotestor holding a sign for gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake yelled repeatedly, “Hey bigot! What’s wrong with you, bigot? What’s wrong with our skin, bigot?”
“And that is exactly what whiteness and masculinity looks like,” responded Qureshi.
Students for Socialism at Arizona State University march around campus against Kyle Rittenhouse cheering “killer Kyle off our campus” pic.twitter.com/oPxAG9k6QN
Not only did the four student organizations protest against Rittenhouse’s potential enrollment at ASU, they demanded that the university fund some of their other initiatives.
Several of the initiatives were those that Qureshi was deeply involved in. One of them was a hub where victims of domestic and sexual abuse could receive help that Qureshi advocated for last year as the co-president of the campus’ Women’s Coalition, called a Campus Assault Advocacy, Resources & Education (CAARE) Center.
As AZ Free News reported earlier this week, the student organizations didn’t answer why they would demand funds for a rape crisis center when Joseph Rosenbaum was a convicted child molestor and Anthony Huber was a convicted domestic abuser.
The student organizations also demanded that ASU fund the multicultural center also advocated for by Qureshi through the MSC, where she and two other female students harassed two white male peers for “racist” messaging like a “Police Lives Matter” sticker. Neither ASU or the student organizations clarified the current status of the center’s funding when AZ Free News asked.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
The faculty and instruction director at James Madison Preparatory School, a 6-12 charter school marketed as a classic liberal arts education with a focus on the Constitution, told students during a pre-Thanksgiving assembly that he was grateful for science and that science has proved God doesn’t exist. The school rents their classrooms from the adjacent Tempe Christian Church.
That charter school director, Paul Grant, has taught history at the charter school for 21 years. During the assembly, Grant reportedly pulled up a slide on a projector screen depicting creationism with a “no” symbol: a circle with a line through it, also called a “prohibition sign.” He stated that he was grateful to know science proved creationism wrong – the fundamental religious idea that God created the earth. One of the students’ parents filed a complaint with the school following that assembly: Dana Bailey Alexander.
David Batchelder, one of the founders of the charter school and its communications director, told AZ Free News in a statement last Wednesday that individuals don’t reflect the school as a whole – even those in leadership. Batchelder added that an investigation into Grant was underway, though he didn’t refer to him by name. Alexander identified Grant as the offending teacher to AZ Free News.
“The personal opinions or statements of an individual teacher or administrator do not reflect the views of James Madison Preparatory School. The school does not condone any speech or conduct that violates students’ rights. A formal complaint is under investigation. Any consequences will be determined as a result of the findings of that complaint.”
Batchelder followed up with Alexander on Wednesday in an email obtained by AZ Free News. He reported that their investigation found Grant’s comments to be inappropriate and over the line. Batchelder added that their legal counsel would determine appropriate consequences for Grant.
This communication is to report the results of the investigation and review of the complaint filed on 23 November 2021.
The assertions from your complaint related to inappropriate comments and visual materials presented during the daily assembly on 19 November 2021 have been substantiated based on interviews with students and staff who were present in the auditorium, and a review of the materials. The school staff member made inappropriate comments at assembly related to his individual beliefs and the individual beliefs of those present. These comments crossed a boundary which must be respected.
The comments made and materials presented are not consistent with the policies or philosophy of the school. The comments made and materials presented are not condoned or approved by the school.
The school engaged legal counsel to assist in this review and in determining consequences for the school staff member. The staff member has been counseled regarding these comments and disciplined accordingly. This staff member has apologized to all in the school community who were present at that assembly.
At this time the complaint is closed.
Over an hour after submitting that message, the school issued an apology for the incident via its newsletter. They also stated that Grant had already been counseled and disciplined on the matter, but didn’t disclose what that entailed.
“On Friday 19 November a member of the school made inappropriate comments at assembly. The comments are not constituent with the policies or the philosophy of the school and were not condoned or approved by the school,” read the statement. “After review of this incident, the staff member has been counseled regarding the comments and disciplined accordingly. This staff member has apologized to all in the school community who were present at that assembly.”
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
State Senator Nancy Barto (R-Phoenix) shared that she was the sole state legislator from Arizona in attendance at the rally outside the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on Wednesday. Inside, the justices held a hearing for a watershed case in abortion law: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. Their ruling is anticipated in the spring.
Barto told AZ Free News that the hearing was historic, as was the gathering outside the SCOTUS building advocating for an end to abortion. She said the rally was peaceful, and recounted how diverse their rally was: individuals reportedly represented from all across the political spectrum, the religious and non-religious, and a generational attendance from tikes to older adults such as herself.
“America has lived this lie long enough. Our laws need to be modernized to recognize [the science]: viability is different now, women are not burdened by pregnancy anymore. The greater standard is, of course, that our constitution needs to fit our laws and protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” observed Barto. “We will wait and see and keep praying for these justices to really follow the changing hearts in America, hearts that really have turned. People no longer support abortion through nine months; the more that they learn about what abortion does to women and the unborn in terms of pain, and how the development of an unborn child is trackable from the earliest moments in utero.”
The case brought by Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a Mississippi abortion clinic challenging the constitutionality of Mississippi’s ban on abortions after 15 weeks. On behalf of the defense, Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch countered that SCOTUS should leave abortion law to individual states. A SCOTUS ruling in favor of Mississippi would overturn the precedent set by the 1973 case that legalized abortion nationally, Roe v. Wade, which was upheld in the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
The crux of the plaintiff’s arguments during the hearing concerned the need for SCOTUS to stand by precedent set in previous rulings, discussed as the question of “stare decisis.” They also insisted that the interests of the woman outweighed those of the state, especially prior to the viability of the unborn child.
The plaintiffs also admitted that they were arguing a constitutional right to abortion under the constitutional guarantee of liberty when pressed by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas as to what right they were arguing needed protecting. Previous SCOTUS rulings on abortion considered concepts entailing rights under the Constitution and various amendments, such as personhood, undue burdens, and privacy.
Founding Father James Wilson warned of licentiousness, a concept conflated with liberty but truly its antithesis. “Licentious,” or “license,” comes from the Latin term “licentia”: an unbridled, wanton, chaotic freedom. The distinction between liberty and license wasn’t made by anyone in the hearing. Wilson was one of the original SCOTUS justices, serving from the onset of its establishment by the Judiciary Act of 1789 until his death in 1798.
“Liberty and happiness have a powerful enemy on each hand; on the one hand tyranny, on the other licentiousness. To guard against the latter, it is necessary to give the proper powers to government; and to guard against the former, it is necessary that those powers should be properly distributed,” asserted Wilson.
After the hearing, Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ-06) shared one of his floor statements from earlier this year describing how his life was saved when his birth mother chose life over abortion and gave him up for adoption.
“I was born in an unwed mother’s home – so was my brother, so was my sister. You’ve all met my little girl that came to us as a gift out of nowhere. But I’m 38 years old [at the time] and through a series of accidents, I get the phone number for my birth mother – and I call her. And the first words were just through the tears and this high-pitch almost – she was struggling, you could hear her almost hyperventilating – is: ‘I prayed for you every morning. Are you okay? Are you healthy, are you happy?’ And I’m crying on my side, saying, ‘I have a great life. Thank you for letting me live.’ […] My little girl’s third generation adopted, now. […] And we will get together with our birth moms and our moms. The amazing thing is my mom became best of friends with my birth mom. This is the American family of today – let’s love it and respect it.”
Earlier this year, I spoke on the House Floor to share my personal story about how my life was saved when my birth mother chose life and gave me up for adoption.
