Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 1 of 13
`
`
`
`Katherine I. Hartley
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`P.O. Box 2131
`Coeur d’Alene, ID 81616
`Tel.: 858-945-6924
`khartley@pji.org
`
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`BRENDA SANDER,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`SANOFI U.S.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.:
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR
`VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER TITLE
`VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
`[42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.]; VIOLATION OF
`RIGHTS UNDER THE COLORADO ANTI-
`DISCRIMINATION ACT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 2 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`OVERVIEW
`
`1.
`
`The Plaintiff, Brenda Sander (“Ms. Sander”), brings this action against Sanofi U.S.
`
`(“Sanofi”) or (“Defendant”), a corporation operating in Colorado. This action is based on
`
`violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.).
`
`2.
`
`Defendant refused to accommodate, otherwise discriminated against, and
`
`subsequently terminated Ms. Sander because of her religious beliefs.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant knew that Ms. Sander had sincerely held religious beliefs because she
`
`requested a religious accommodation. Defendant nevertheless failed to accommodate and
`
` terminated Ms. Sander’s employment.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`Sanofi is located within this judicial district and division. All of the events and
`
`12
`
`omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this judicial district and
`
`13
`
` division. Therefore, this Court has personal jurisdiction over Sanofi.
`
`14
`
`5.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`15
`
`1331, as it arises under the laws of the United States, and presents a federal
`
`16
`
` question, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3)-(4). The Court also has jurisdiction
`
`17
`
` under 42 U.S.C. §2000e5(f)(3).
`
`18
`
`6.
`
`This Court has supplemental and concurrent jurisdiction to hear State claims
`
`19
`
`brought before the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`20
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper within this judicial district and division, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`21
`
`1391(b), because the relevant events have occurred and are threatened to occur in this
`
`22
`
` jurisdictional district and division. The Defendant’s place of business is in this district.
`
`23
`
`8.
`
` Plaintiffs’ claims for damages and declaratory relief are authorized by 28
`
`24
`
`U.S.C. §2201-02, Civil Rules 57 and 65, and the general legal and equitable powers of this Court,
`
`25
`
`which empower this Court to grant the relief requested.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 3 of 13
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff
`
`9.
`
`At all times relevant herein, Ms. Sander resides in Teller County and was an
`
`employee of Defendant Sanofi.
`
`Defendant
`
`10.
`
` Sanofi is a company headquartered in Bridgewater Township, New Jersey. At the
`
`time of the events giving rise to this Complaint, Ms. Sander was employed by Sanofi as a Regional
`
`Study Manager in the state of Colorado.
`
`11.
`
`Sanofi at all times relevant herein was an employer of Ms. Sander.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`12. Ms. Sander was hired in 2004 by Sanofi.
`
`13. Ms. Sander is a Christian.
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`On November 12, 2021, Sanofi announced its COVID-19 vaccination policy.
`
`The policy required employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`continued employment.
`
`16
`
`16. Ms. Sander has a sincerely held religious belief that requires her to make all
`
`17
`
`decisions in her everyday life through prayer and reading the Bible.
`
`18
`
`17. Ms. Sander prayed and sought direction from the Bible regarding the COVID-19
`
`19
`
`vaccine and whether she should take it.
`
`20
`
`18.
`
`Ultimately, Ms. Sander decided that taking the COVID-19 vaccine would be a
`
`21
`
`significant transgression against her beliefs.
`
`22
`
`19.
`
`For this reason, she would not take the COVID-19 vaccination that was mandated
`
`23
`
`by her employer.
`
`24
`
`20. Ms. Sander submitted a religious accommodation request that clearly stated she
`
`25
`
`sought God’s guidance in whether she should take the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`26
`
`21.
`
`In relevant part, Ms. Sander’s request stated “through the Holy Spirit, God has
`
`27
`
`counseled me to keep my body pure and not take the COVID-19 vaccine.”
`
`28
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 4 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`22. Ms. Sander even proposed a reasonable accommodation, stating she could continue
`
`working as she has for the past 8 years, in her home office. Her job did not require her to travel,
`
`meet with customers, or attend in person-meetings or conferences.
`
`23.
`
`Despite working from home, Ms. Sander not only performed her job duties
`
`excellently, she had been recently promoted due to her excellent work quality.
`
`24.
`
`On December 14, 2021, Sanofi denied Ms. Sander’s request, claiming “it could
`
`not substantiate the existence of a specific sincerely held religious belief, observance, or practice
`
`that is in conflict with obtaining the COVID-19 vaccine.”
`
`25.
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`In other words, Sanofi rejected Ms. Sander’s religious beliefs as insincere.
`
`Defendant Sanofi terminated Ms. Sander on January 21, 2022.
`
`Sanofi did not properly engage in the interactive process.
`
`Sanofi denied the sincerity of Ms. Sander’s beliefs despite Title VII’s statutory
`
`13
`
`definition including “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief.”
`
`14
`
`29.
`
`An individual’s testimony about his or her belief must be given great weight and is
`
`15
`
`enough to demonstrate sincerity.
`
`16
`
`30.
`
`Sanofi could have reasonably accommodated Ms. Sander without incurring undue
`
`17
`
`hardship.
`
`18
`
`31.
`
`The fact that Ms. Sander was willing to lose her job over her belief is indication
`
`19
`
`that her religious belief is sincerely held.
`
`20
`
`32. Ms. Sander filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`21
`
`(EEOC) on July 20, 2022.
`
`22
`
`33. Ms. Sander’s religious beliefs were a motivating factor in her termination. The
`
`23
`
`Defendant violated her federal rights under Title VII.
`
`24
`
`34. Ms. Sander’s income and health insurance ceased immediately, placing a large
`
`25
`
`burden on her.
`
`26
`
`35.
`
`On February 26, 2024, Ms. Sander obtained a “Right to Sue” letter from the
`
`27
`
`EEOC. This letter serves as Exhibit A to this complaint.
`
`28
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 5 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
` CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.]
`Failure to Provide Religious Accommodation
`
`36. Ms. Sander hereby incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs, as though
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`37.
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., makes it an
`
`unlawful employment practice to fail or refuse to reasonably accommodate the religious beliefs
`
`and practices of an employee or prospective employee.
`
`38.
`
`An employer is obligated to engage in interactive process, or a meaningful dialogue
`
`with an employee regarding a request for religious accommodation.
`
`39.
`
`40.
`
`Sanofi was Ms. Sander’s employer within the meaning of Title VII.
`
`Sanofi did not engage in this interactive process.
`
`41. Ms. Sander had a bona fide religious basis to refuse Sanofi’s vaccination mandate.
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`Sanofi.
`
`Sanofi did not accommodate Ms. Sander’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`Accommodating Ms. Sander would not have resulted in a substantial burden for
`
`44.
`
`Sanofi’s failure to provide a religious accommodation has harmed and will
`
`continue to harm Ms. Sander.
`
`45. Ms. Sander is entitled to back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive
`
`damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, a declaration that Sanofi violated her rights under Title VII.
`
`46. Ms. Sander is entitled to further relief as more fully set forth below in her Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (C.R.S. § 24-34-402 et seq.) – Failure to
`Provide Religious Accommodation
`
`47. Ms. Sander hereby incorporates and realleges the preceding paragraphs as though
`
`fully set forth herein.
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 6 of 13
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`48.
`
`Under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, it is an unlawful employment
`
`practice for an employer to terminate a person’s employment because of a conflict between the
`
`person’s religious belief or observance and any employment requirement, unless the employer
`
`demonstrates that it has explored any available reasonable means of accommodating the religious
`
`belief or observance.
`
`49. Ms. Sander was a person and an employee of Sanofi.
`
`50.
`
`Sanofi was at all times relevant herein an employer of Ms. Sander.
`
`51. Ms. Sander is a devout evangelical Christian. Sanofi was aware of her sincerely
`
`held religious beliefs.
`
`10
`
`52.
`
` Like many evangelical Christians, Ms. Sander holds strong beliefs based on her
`
`11
`
`understanding of Scripture.
`
`12
`
`53.
`
` Sanofi knew Ms. Sander did not get the vaccination because of her sincerely held
`
`13
`
`religious beliefs. Ms. Sander was not accommodated and then fired. This is an adverse job action.
`
`14
`
`54.
`
`Sanofi refused to explore the available reasonable alternatives to allow Ms. Sander
`
`15
`
`to do her job.
`
`16
`
`55.
`
`Accommodating Ms. Sander would not have posed significant health risks to
`
`17
`
`Sanofi’s employees or clients.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`56. Ms. Sander provided ample alternatives for Sanofi to consider.
`
`57.
`
`Sanofi’s refusal to accommodate, or even explore possible accommodation of Ms.
`
`20
`
`Sander’s religious beliefs, was a substantial motivating factor in Sanofi’s decision to deprive Ms.
`
`21
`
`Sander of her employment.
`
`22
`
`58. Ms. Sander suffered significant damages as a result of Sanofi’s unlawful
`
`23
`
`discriminatory actions, including emotional distress, past and future lost wages and benefits, and
`
`24
`
`the costs of bringing this action.
`
`25
`
`59. Ms. Sander is entitled to back pay, front pay, compensatory damages, punitive
`
`26
`
`damages, attorney’s fees, costs of suit, and a declaration that Sanofi violated her rights.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 7 of 13
`
`
`
`60. Ms. Sander is entitled to further relief as more fully set forth below in her Prayer
`
`for Relief.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Ms. Sander respectfully prays this Court grant relief as follows:
`
`A. Award Ms. Sander backpay, including past loss of wages and benefits, plus interest;
`
`B. Award Ms. Sander her front pay, including future wages and benefits;
`
`C. Award Ms. Sander other and further compensatory damages in an amount according to
`
`proof;
`
`D. Award Ms. Sander noneconomic damages, including but not limited to mental
`
`suffering;
`
`E. Award to Ms. Sander her reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of suit;
`
`F. Award Ms. Sander punitive damages;
`
`G. Enjoin Sanofi from enforcing their discriminatory policies;
`
`H. Declare that Sanofi has violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and The Colorado
`
`Anti-Discrimination Act; and
`
`I. Grant Ms. Sander such additional or alternative relief as the Court deems just and
`
`proper.
`
`JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury with respect to all claims so triable.
`
`Dated: April 15, 2024
`
`/s/ Katherine I. Hartley
`Katherine I. Hartley
`PACIFIC JUSTICE INSTITUTE
`P.O. Box 2131
`Coeur d’Alene, ID 81616
`Tel.: 858-945-6924
`khartley@pji.org
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff, Brenda Sander
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-6-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 8 of 13
`
`I, Brenda Sander, am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter. I have read the
`
`VERIFICATION
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF RIGHTS UNDER TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL
`
`RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 [42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.] and am familiar with same. The contents are
`
`true and accurate and known to me by personal knowledge except for those matters asserted on
`
`information and belief. As to those matters, I believe them to be true.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States and the State of
`
`Colorado, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this j_Jp_ day of April 2024, in the
`County of -,;,lier, State of Colorado.
`
`a��----
`
`Brenda Sander
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Verified Complaint
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 9 of 13
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 10 of 13
`
`U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
`Denver Field Office
`950 17th St, Suite 300
`Denver, CO 80202
`(720) 779-3610
`Website: www.eeoc.gov
`
`DISMISSAL AND NOTICE OF RIGHTS
`(This Notice replaces EEOC FORMS 161, 161-A & 161-B)
`
`Issued On: 02/26/2024
`
`To: Brenda D. Sander
`1169 ptarmigan drive
`WOODLAND PARK, CO 80863
`Charge No: 541-2022-03168
`EEOC Representative and email: PHILIP GROSS
`
`Enforcement Manager
`
`philip.gross@eeoc.gov
`
`
`
`DISMISSAL OF CHARGE
`
`The EEOC has granted your request for a Notice of Right to Sue, and more than 180 days have
`passed since the filing of this charge.
`The EEOC is terminating its processing of this charge.
`
`NOTICE OF YOUR RIGHT TO SUE
`
`This is official notice from the EEOC of the dismissal of your charge and of your right to sue. If
`you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) on this charge under federal law in federal
`or state court, your lawsuit must be filed WITHIN 90 DAYS of your receipt of this notice.
`Receipt generally occurs on the date that you (or your representative) view this document. You
`should keep a record of the date you received this notice. Your right to sue based on this charge
`will be lost if you do not file a lawsuit in court within 90 days. (The time limit for filing a lawsuit
`based on a claim under state law may be different.)
`If you file a lawsuit based on this charge, please sign in to the EEOC Public Portal and upload the
`court complaint to charge 541-2022-03168.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On behalf of the Commission,
`
`Digitally Signed By:Amy Burkholder
`02/26/2024
`Amy Burkholder
`Director
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 11 of 13
`
`Cc:
`Jennifer McGovern
`Seyfarth Shaw LLP
`2 SEAPORT LN STE 1200
`Boston, MA 02210
`
`Jeff Burns
`Sanofi
`450 WATER ST
`Cambridge, MA 02141
`
`Noah Hurwitz
`617 Detroit St. Suite 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`
`
`Please retain this notice for your records.
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 12 of 13
`
`Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (01/22)
`
`INFORMATION RELATED TO FILING SUIT
`UNDER THE LAWS ENFORCED BY THE EEOC
`(This information relates to filing suit in Federal or State court under Federal law. If you also
`plan to sue claiming violations of State law, please be aware that time limits may be shorter and
`other provisions of State law may be different than those described below.)
`
`IMPORTANT TIME LIMITS – 90 DAYS TO FILE A LAWSUIT
`If you choose to file a lawsuit against the respondent(s) named in the charge of discrimination,
`you must file a complaint in court within 90 days of the date you receive this Notice. Receipt
`generally means the date when you (or your representative) opened this email or mail. You should
`keep a record of the date you received this notice. Once this 90-day period has passed, your
`right to sue based on the charge referred to in this Notice will be lost. If you intend to consult an
`attorney, you should do so promptly. Give your attorney a copy of this Notice, and the record of
`your receiving it (email or envelope).
`If your lawsuit includes a claim under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), you must file your complaint in
`court within 2 years (3 years for willful violations) of the date you did not receive equal pay. This
`time limit for filing an EPA lawsuit is separate from the 90-day filing period under Title VII, the
`ADA, GINA, the ADEA, or the PWFA referred to above. Therefore, if you also plan to sue under
`Title VII, the ADA, GINA, the ADEA or the PWFA, in addition to suing on the EPA claim, your
`lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of this Notice and within the 2- or 3-year EPA period.
`
`Your lawsuit may be filed in U.S. District Court or a State court of competent jurisdiction.
`Whether you file in Federal or State court is a matter for you to decide after talking to your
`attorney. You must file a "complaint" that contains a short statement of the facts of your case
`which shows that you are entitled to relief. Filing this Notice is not enough. For more information
`about filing a lawsuit, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
`ATTORNEY REPRESENTATION
`For information about locating an attorney to represent you, go to:
`https://www.eeoc.gov/employees/lawsuit.cfm.
`In very limited circumstances, a U.S. District Court may appoint an attorney to represent individuals
`who demonstrate that they are financially unable to afford an attorney.
`
`HOW TO REQUEST YOUR CHARGE FILE AND 90-DAY TIME LIMIT FOR REQUESTS
`There are two ways to request a charge file: 1) a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request or
`2) a “Section 83” request. You may request your charge file under either or both procedures.
`EEOC can generally respond to Section 83 requests more promptly than FOIA requests.
`Since a lawsuit must be filed within 90 days of this notice, please submit your FOIA and/or
`Section 83 request for the charge file promptly to allow sufficient time for EEOC to respond and
`for your review.
`To make a FOIA request for your charge file, submit your request online at
`https://eeoc.arkcase.com/foia/portal/login (this is the preferred method). You may also submit a
`FOIA request for your charge file by U.S. Mail by submitting a signed, written request
`identifying your request as a “FOIA Request” for Charge Number 541-2022-03168 to the
`
`

`

`Case No. 1:24-cv-01034 Document 1 filed 04/17/24 USDC Colorado pg 13 of 13
`
`Enclosure with EEOC Notice of Closure and Rights (01/22)
`
`District Director at Rayford O. Irvin, 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
`
`To make a Section 83 request for your charge file, submit a signed written request stating it is
`a "Section 83 Request" for Charge Number 541-2022-03168 to the District Director at Rayford
`O. Irvin, 3300 North Central Avenue Suite 690, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
`
`You may request the charge file up to 90 days after receiving this Notice of Right to Sue. After
`the 90 days have passed, you may request the charge file only if you have filed a lawsuit in court
`and provide a copy of the court complaint to EEOC.
`For more information on submitting FOIA requests, go to
`https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/index.cfm.
`For more information on submitted Section 83 requests, go to https://www.eeoc.gov/foia/section-
`83-disclosure-information-charge-files.
`
`