By Aaron Kheriaty

October 13, 2021 - Here is the latest move by the University of Kalifornia (UC) in response to my lawsuit in federal court on behalf of COVID-recovered individuals with natural immunity challenging its vaccine mandate.

On September 30 at 5:03 p.m. I received a letter from the University informing me that, as of the following morning, I was being placed on “Investigatory Leave” for my failure to comply with the unlawful vaccine mandate. I was given no opportunity to contact my patients, students, residents or colleagues and let them know I would disappear for a month. Rather than waiting for the court to make a ruling on my case, the University had taken preemptive action.

You might be thinking, a month of paid leave doesn’t sound so bad. But the language is misleading here, since half of my income from the University comes from clinical revenues generated from seeing my patients, supervising resident clinics, and engaging in weekend and holiday on-call duties. So while on leave my salary is significantly cut.

Furthermore, my contract stipulates that I am not able to conduct any patient care outside the University: to see my current patients, or to recoup my losses by moonlighting as a physician elsewhere, would violate the terms of my contract.

It came as no surprise that, since my request for a preliminary injunction was not granted by the court, the University would immediately begin procedures to dismiss me. However, in the complicated legal game of three-dimensional chess I did not anticipate this particular development: the current administrative designation, where I am neither able to work at the University nor permitted to pursue work elsewhere, was not a development I had anticipated.

The University may be hoping this pressure will lead me to resign voluntarily, which would remove grounds for my lawsuit: if I resign prior to being terminated by the University, I have no legal claim of harm.

I have no intention at this time of resigning, withdrawing my lawsuit, or having an unnecessary medical intervention forced on me, in spite of these challenging circumstances. You may be wondering about the unlawful Kalifornia Department of Public Health vaccine mandate mentioned in the University’s letter above: yes, I am subject to two mandates, the UC mandate as a faculty member and the Kalifornia State mandate as a healthcare provider.

Regarding the latter mandate, I filed a similar lawsuit in federal court last Friday against the State Public Health Department. I will post more later on that case as it develops.

Although this is a challenging time for me and my family, at this time I remain convinced that this course of action is worthwhile. I am grateful for your ongoing encouragement, prayers and support. I want my readers to know that I am taking legal action not primarily for myself, but for all those who have no voice and whose constitutional rights are being steamrolled by these unlawful mandates.

In my position I came to see the importance of representing those whose voices were silenced, and to insist upon the right of informed consent and informed refusal. I have nothing personal to gain by this lawsuit and a lot to lose professionally. In the end, my decision to challenge these unlawful mandates came down to this question: how can I continue to call myself a medical ethicist if I fail to do what I am convinced is morally right under pressure?