Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 1 of 40 PageID #:1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`)
`NICKIE DENNARD, SHARI LEWAN,
`)
`JESSICA VANDENBOSCH, STEPHEN
`)
`SLEEM, DEREK JOHNSON, LINDA
`)
`DAVAULT, DR. TERRELL REHMUS
`)
`JACQUELINE CLEGG, REGINA
`
`LANGLEY, GERALD KREUTZER, and )
`MICHAEL GIACCHINO
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`ASTELLAS PHARMA INC.,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. __________________
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT
`
`For their VERIFIED COMPLAINT against Defendant, ASTELLAS PHARMA INC.
`
`
`
`(“Astellas” or “Defendant”), Plaintiffs, NICKIE DENNARD, SHARI LEWAN, JESSICA
`
`VANDENBOSCH, STEPHEN SLEEM, DEREK JOHNSON, LINDA DAVAULT, DR.
`
`TERRELL REHMUS, JACQUELINE CLEGG, REGINA LANGLEY, GERALD KREUTZER,
`
`and MICHAEL GIACCHINO (“Plaintiffs”), allege and aver as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action brought to remedy Astellas’ discrimination against employees who
`
`requested religious exemptions and accommodations from Astellas’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs are pharmaceutical professionals, all of whom have sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs against the COVID-19 vaccines because they were either developed from, or
`
`tested upon, aborted fetal cells lines, or for other religious reasons that were explained to Astellas.
`
`Because of Astellas’ unlawful actions in denying Plaintiffs’ meritorious exemption requests,
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 2 of 40 PageID #:2
`
`Plaintiffs faced an immediate “choice” to either (a) receive a COVID-19 vaccination in direct
`
`violation of their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs, or (b) be terminated from their
`
`employment with Astellas as a consequence of exercising their fundamental and statutory rights
`
`to refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines.1
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs have earnestly, honestly, and in good faith sought religious exemptions
`
`and reasonable accommodations from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, but
`
`have been rejected at every turn.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs have complied with all requirements for seeking an accommodation and
`
`exemption based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs, and otherwise complied with all of the
`
`requirements Astellas established for seeking a religious exemption from the Mandatory COVID-
`
`19 Vaccination Policy.
`
`5.
`
`While Astellas claims it would have been an “undue hardship” to allow Plaintiffs
`
`to keep their positions, Astellas has granted numerous other exemptions from the Mandatory
`
`COVID-19 Vaccination Policy with accommodations. The exemptions which Astellas granted
`
`were based on identical or substantially similar religious beliefs as those espoused by Plaintiffs,
`
`and was given to persons who were in the same type of positions as Plaintiffs.
`
`6.
`
`The Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), protect the right of individuals to refuse administration of an unwanted
`
`medical product when acceptance of such product would violate their sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs and the exercise of the same. Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy,
`
`
`1 “Such a Hobson’s choice is actually no choice at all.” Smith v. Grams, 565 F.3d 1037, 1046
`(7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 3 of 40 PageID #:3
`
`including its refusal to grant meritorious religious exemption requests, ignores these fundamental
`
`protections for Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`PARTIES
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Nickie Dennard is an Executive Medical Specialties Representative at
`
`Astellas residing in Georgia. Dennard has worked at Astellas for 11 years, winning numerous
`
`awards including 2 Summit Clubs and ranking first on her team for sales in 2021. Dennard was
`
`denied a religious exemption and accommodation even before actually requesting the exemption
`
`and accommodation. Dennard also applied for a medical exemption to which Astellas never
`
`responded. Dennard has already contracted COVID-19 and fully recovered. Dennard is the sole
`
`caretaker for her child as well as caring for her elderly parents.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Shari Lewan is a former Executive Representative-II Prostate at Astellas
`
`residing in Ohio. Lewan had worked at Astellas for 7 years. Lewan submitted a signed, written
`
`request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
`
`Policy, which Astellas denied. Lewan resigned from Astellas in February 2022 and accepted a
`
`similar position with another pharmaceutical company. Lewan had been recently promoted in
`
`December 2021, had 3 national sales awards, and served on her team’s Culture Club.
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff Jessica Vandenbosch
`
`is a former Senior Executive Oncology
`
`Representative at Astellas residing in Indiana. Vandenbosch had worked at Astellas for 7 years.
`
`Vandenbosch submitted a signed, written request for an exemption and accommodation from
`
`Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Vandenbosch had
`
`already contracted COVID-19 and fully recovered. Vandenbosch was terminated by Astellas on
`
`March 31, 2022. Prior to her termination, Vandenbosch ranked first in sales on her team, second
`
`in the nation, and qualified for the Sales Excellence Summit. Vandenbosch has won multiple sales
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 4 of 40 PageID #:4
`
`awards and competitions at Astellas and was on multiple leadership task force groups because of
`
`her leadership qualities. In December 2021, Vandenbosch was promoted to the highest-level sales
`
`representative position (Level 7).
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Stephen Sleem is a former Senior Executive Oncology Representative at
`
`Astellas residing in Michigan. Sleem had worked at Astellas for over 5 years. Sleem submitted a
`
`signed, written request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-
`
`19 Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Sleem had already contracted COVID-19 and fully
`
`recovered. Sleem was terminated by Astellas on March 31, 2022. Prior to his termination, Sleem
`
`ranked second in sales on his team. Since his termination, Sleem has gone on unemployment and
`
`at 63 years of age, has found it difficult to obtain new employment.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Derek Johnson is a former Regional Sales Manager at Astellas residing in
`
`Virginia. Johnson had worked at Astellas for 8 years. Johnson submitted a signed, written request
`
`for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy,
`
`which Astellas denied. Johnson had already contracted COVID-19 and fully recovered. Johnson
`
`was terminated by Astellas on January 21, 2022.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff Linda Davault is a former Senior Executive Sales Representative II at
`
`Astellas residing in Georgia. Davault had worked at Astellas for almost 16 years. Davault
`
`submitted a signed, written request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’
`
`Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Davault had already contracted
`
`COVID-19 and fully recovered. Davault was terminated by Astellas on March 31, 2022. Davault,
`
`who is 54 years of age, has found it difficult to obtain alternate employment, has been forced to
`
`sell her home, and is moving to a different state. Davault had previously won numerous sales
`
`awards with Astellas and was highly ranked on her team before being terminated.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 5 of 40 PageID #:5
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Dr. Terrell Rehmus is a former Associate Director Medical Values and
`
`Access at Astellas residing in Missouri. Rehmus had worked at Astellas for almost 4 years.
`
`Rehmus submitted a signed, written request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’
`
`Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Rehmus had already contracted
`
`COVID-19 and fully recovered. Rehmus was terminated by Astellas on March 31, 2022.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Jacqueline Clegg is a former Senior Executive Representative at Astellas
`
`residing in North Carolina. Clegg had worked at Astellas for almost 2 years. Clegg submitted a
`
`signed, written request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-
`
`19 Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Clegg had already contracted COVID-19 and fully
`
`recovered. Clegg was terminated by Astellas on March 31, 2022. Prior to her termination, Clegg
`
`ranked third in the nation for sales of a leukemia drug.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Regina Langley is a former Senior Hospital Representative at Astellas
`
`residing in Pennsylvania. Langley had worked at Astellas for 10 years. Langley submitted a signed,
`
`written request for an exemption and accommodation from Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19
`
`Vaccination Policy, which Astellas denied. Langley was terminated on March 31, 2022. Langley
`
`had previously received multiple awards for exceeding sales goals and was awarded the top sales
`
`award in her division twice.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Gerald Kreutzer is a former Senior Hospital Representative at Astellas
`
`residing in Kansas. Kreutzer had worked at Astellas for 14 years. Like Plaintiff Dennard, Kreutzer
`
`was denied a religious exemption before he even applied for one. Astellas refused to allow
`
`Kreutzer to apply for a religious exemption, informing him that Astellas had already decided any
`
`exemption and accommodation would cause an undue hardship. Kreutzer resigned from Astellas
`
`on February 16, 2022.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 6 of 40 PageID #:6
`
`17. Plaintiff Michael Giacchino is a Senior Director Corporate Accounts Government East at
`
`Astellas residing in Pennsylvania. Giacchino has worked at Astellas for over 7 years meeting and
`
`exceeding expectations, winning awards such as HIRC and Leadership awards. Giacchino is
`
`currently ranked second for the Summit Club National performance award for 2021. Giacchino
`
`was promoted to his current role in August of 2020 from the managed markets manager role due
`
`to his strong performance. Giacchino submitted a signed written request for a religious exemption
`
`and accommodation from Astellas’ mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy, which Astellas
`
`denied. After repeated appeals, Astellas provided Giacchino a temporary pause on termination
`
`and required him to work virtually. Astellas eventually notified Giacchino that his employment
`
`would be terminated effective June 2, 2022.
`
`18.
`
`Defendant, Astellas Pharma Inc., is a Japanese pharmaceutical company with U.S.
`
`headquarters located at 1 Astellas Wy, Northbrook, IL 60062.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`19.
`
`This action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically, 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e, et seq. This action also arises under the laws of the State of Illinois, specifically the Illinois
`
`Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70, et seq.
`
`20.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, 1343,
`
`and 1367.
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1)(2) because
`
`Defendant is headquartered in Cook County and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
`
`rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 7 of 40 PageID #:7
`
`22.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant declaratory judgment under the Declaratory
`
`Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-02, implemented through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`23.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding damages
`
`pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the supplementary laws of the
`
`State of Illinois, as applicable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69.
`
`24.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding damages,
`
`including treble damages, under the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70/12.
`
`25.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief regarding costs and
`
`expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, pursuant to the Illinois Health Care Right of
`
`Conscience Act, 745 ILCS 70/12.
`
`
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND.
`
`26. More than two years ago, a global outbreak of a virus now referred to as COVID-
`
`19 began to emerge.
`
`27.
`
`COVID-19 was officially declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization
`
`in March 2022.
`
`28.
`
`At that time, little was known about the virus and great efforts were made by the
`
`public and private sector alike to develop a vaccine.
`
`29.
`
`To combat the spread of the virus, public health experts opined that the public
`
`should practice social distancing, wear masks, and isolate if showing symptoms of COVID-19.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 8 of 40 PageID #:8
`
`Employers across the country began requiring employees to practice these measures, and many
`
`also began permitting remote work.
`
`30.
`
`The U.S. Food and Drug Administration eventually granted Emergency Use
`
`Authorization for a COVID-19 vaccine, the Pfizer-BioNteach vaccine, on December 11, 2020.
`
`The Moderna vaccine was granted Emergency Use Authorization on December 18, 2020, followed
`
`by the Johnson & Johnson vaccine on February 27, 2021.
`
`31. With vaccines available to the general public, employers began to mandate that
`
`employees get vaccinated or else suffer adverse employment action such as being placed on unpaid
`
`leave or being terminated.
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
` Astellas initially rejected the push to force employees to get vaccinated.
`
`In March 2021, Astellas informed its employees that “The Company encourages,
`
`but will not require, vaccination for our employees, where appropriate.” Likewise, Astellas assured
`
`employees that “we respect each individual’s decision whether to do so.” That same
`
`communication also informed employees that they would not be required to report their
`
`vaccination status. Exhibit A, Corporate Communications.
`
`34.
`
`On June 30, 2021, Astellas communicated to its employees that it “will not require
`
`employees to report vaccination status” and instead offered other accommodations stating
`
`“employees who are unvaccinated or who choose not to disclose their vaccination status may be
`
`subjected to heightened screening or restricted entirely from participating in certain in-person
`
`events or activities.” In addition, Astellas provided that visitors to the Northbrook headquarters
`
`needed only to provide proof of a negative COVID-19 test. Exhibit A.
`
`35.
`
`On July 9, 2021, Astellas wrote employees to “reaffirm” the company’s position on
`
`vaccination. In that letter, Fumiaki Sakurai, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Ethics and
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 9 of 40 PageID #:9
`
`Compliance Officer, wrote to reemphasize that “Astellas would respect each individual’s decision”
`
`concerning vaccination and stressed that “Astellas will not require employees to get vaccinated.”
`
`Exhibit A. Furthermore, Mr. Sakurai stated that “Astellas will not tolerate any harassment,
`
`prejudice, or unlawful discrimination against those who do not take the vaccine. We must also be
`
`mindful of each individual’s right to medical privacy, and will not require employees to reveal
`
`their vaccination status . . . .” Even more, Mr. Sakurai noted that “In Japan, there have been
`
`reports that people are urged to resign or are reassigned if they do not take the vaccine, or
`
`are harassed by the thoughtless words and actions of those around them. We will never
`
`tolerate such behavior . . . . we will respect the decision of each employee with regard to
`
`vaccination.” Mr. Sakurai concluded the letter stating that “Astellas reaffirms our respect for the
`
`human rights of our employees, including the right to be free from unlawful discrimination and
`
`harassment.”
`
`36.
`
`Since the start of the pandemic, field employees, including the Plaintiffs, continued
`
`to work and thrive under this understanding. Plaintiffs continued to meet with their clients in-
`
`person, or for a few clients, remotely, based on client preferences. The Plaintiffs’ clients never
`
`asked about Plaintiffs’ vaccination status, nor did they place any conditions or demands on
`
`Plaintiffs to get vaccinated.
`
`37. Moreover, Plaintiffs continued to excel at their work, as they did prior to the
`
`pandemic, with several of them ranking among the top salespersons and representatives and even
`
`obtaining promotions during the pandemic.
`
`38.
`
`The Plaintiffs’ ability to work without a vaccine mandate for almost two years after
`
`the start of the pandemic, and almost one year after a vaccine was made available, did not cause
`
`Astellas any undue hardship. Indeed, Astellas itself repeatedly informed its employees throughout
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 10 of 40 PageID #:10
`
`the pandemic, and even after the vaccine was available, that there was no need to compel
`
`employees to get vaccinated, that their rights and medical privacy would be respected, and that
`
`“heightened screening” or remote work were workable accommodations. The story, however,
`
`took a sudden and unexpected turn for the worse in October of 2021, when the company
`
`completely reversed course, and did (and allowed) that which it promised it never would.
`
`B.
`
`ASTELLAS’ MANDATORY COVID-19 VACCINATION POLICY.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`On October 5, 2021, Astellas for the first time announced, contrary to previous
`
`representations, that all U.S. employees “as a condition of continued employment” must be
`
`vaccinated and verify their vaccination status by January 3, 2022. Exhibit B, COVID-19
`
`Mandate. Astellas assured employees, however, that “Exceptions for qualified medical reasons or
`
`sincerely held religious beliefs will be provided.”
`
`40.
`
`Astellas also circulated a “COVID Mandate FAQ” which explained to employees
`
`that the company would assess accommodation requestions on a case-by-case basis and engage in
`
`the “interactive process.” Exhibit C, COVID Mandate FAQ. The FAQ document further states
`
`that unvaccinated employees who were not granted an accommodation by January 3, 2022, would
`
`be placed on unpaid leave until March 31, 2022, at which point they would be terminated.
`
`41.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination policy does not apply to Astellas
`
`employees outside of the U.S. and all international employees at Astellas remain free to work
`
`without any vaccine mandate.
`
`42.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy does not take into account
`
`individuals who have already recovered from COVID-19 and thus have antibodies or natural
`
`immunity, nor does it take into account alternative measures such as face coverings, personal
`
`protective equipment, self-monitoring and reporting of symptoms, or periodic testing.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 11 of 40 PageID #:11
`
`43.
`
`Astellas’ Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy contrasts with the Federal
`
`government’s policy allowing certain large employers to mandate vaccination or periodic testing
`
`for their employees.
`
`44.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy also differs substantially from the
`
`European Union’s digital COVID-19 certificate, which considers the following as equivalent: (1)
`
`a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) a negative COVID-19 test; or (3) having previously recovered from
`
`COVID-19.
`
`See EU Digital COVID Certificate, EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
`
`https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-
`
`europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en.
`
`45.
`
`Although Astellas has remained firm on its vaccine policy, it has not mandated that
`
`employees receive any boosters, even though health experts have opined that the effect of a vaccine
`
`wanes and that non-boosted individuals pose a risk because they are not up to date.
`
`46.
`
`In order to obtain a religious exemption from the Mandatory COVID-19
`
`Vaccination Policy, employees had to complete a “Religious Accommodation Request Form:
`
`COVID-19” which also included a “Religious Leader/Attestor Certification Form.” Plaintiffs
`
`completed the required forms and obtained certifications from their religious leaders. Exhibit D,
`
`Religious Exemption Forms.
`
`47.
`
`Although the Plaintiffs completed the forms and adequately described their
`
`religious beliefs, and even though Astellas had stated that “Exceptions for qualified medical
`
`reasons or sincerely held religious beliefs will be provided,” the majority of those that submitted
`
`religious exemption requests were denied with the same boilerplate language:
`
`“The Company has reviewed all of the information you have provided in light of your job
`description and assessed the feasibility of the proposed accommodations in order to
`continue to allow you to perform the essential functions of your job. After careful
`consideration, Astellas has determined that allowing an accommodation to the vaccination
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 12 of 40 PageID #:12
`
`requirement in your circumstance would present an undue hardship to the Company due to
`the public-facing nature of your role and continuing threat posed by the COVID-19
`pandemic.” Exhibit E, Religious Exemption Denial.
`
`Astellas further explained in its denial that it was compelled to mandate vaccines
`
`48.
`
`in order to reduce “the risk of potential transmission to others” even though Astellas previously
`
`informed employees of a CDC study which “found no significant difference in the viral load
`
`present in breakthrough infections occurring in fully vaccinated people vs. infections in those who
`
`are vaccinated.” Exhibit F, Aug. 17, 2021 Letter.
`
`49.
`
`Astellas did not provide any means by which employees could appeal the denial of
`
`their religious exemption and accommodation requests. The Plaintiffs were then placed on unpaid
`
`leave and were (beside those who resigned) eventually terminated on March 31, 2022.2 In an
`
`attempt to save their jobs, some of the Plaintiffs had inquired about transitioning to other roles
`
`within the company where they could be accommodated. Astellas representatives either never
`
`responded to these inquires, or informed Plaintiffs that no such positions were available.
`
`50.
`
`Astellas’ blanket denials of Plaintiffs’ religious exemption requests is in stark
`
`contrast to its approval of identical or substantially similar religious exemptions requests from
`
`employees living in certain states like Florida or Texas. For those employees, Astellas stated that
`
`“After careful consideration, Astellas will grant your request your accommodation on a provisional
`
`basis at least until March 31, 2022.” Exhibit G, Religious Exemption Approval. Those
`
`individuals were not threatened with unpaid leave and eventual termination, but were allowed to
`
`
`2 One exception is Plaintiff Dereck Johnson, who was terminated on January 21, 2022, after he
`accepted another position while on unpaid leave to earn income to support his family. Astellas
`terminated Johnson claiming the new position was a conflict of interest, even though the position
`involved helping veterans and did not conflict with Astellas’ pharmaceutical interests.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 13 of 40 PageID #:13
`
`continue working remotely, even though they had the same or similar job titles, roles, and
`
`responsibilities as the Plaintiffs who were denied.
`
`51.
`
`On March 3, 2022, Astellas extended
`
`the
`
`religious exemptions and
`
`accommodations provided to these employees until October 1, 2022 “based upon the continued
`
`workability of the accommodation and applicable state law.” Exhibit H, Extension of
`
`Exemptions.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiffs are also aware of other religious exemptions granted to employees with
`
`similar job titles and roles. For example, Astellas provided one employee in Louisiana an
`
`exemption and accommodation after an attorney sent a demand letter. Exhibit I, LA Exemption
`
`Approval. Plaintiffs are also aware of an employee in South Carolina that was provided a medical
`
`exemption. In addition, Astellas approved a religious exemption to an Alabama employee after he
`
`received a favorable ALJ decision under Alabama state law. Exhibit J, AL Exemption Approval.
`
`Astellas made sure to comment that it “disagree[d] with that decision” indicating that it would
`
`have terminated that employee as well had that state law not interfered.
`
`53.
`
`Astellas’ denials of Plaintiffs’ religious exemption and accommodation requests are
`
`not only at odds with the numerous religious exemptions and accommodations it has granted to
`
`some select employees, Astellas’ decision to deny Plaintiffs’ religious exemptions was not made
`
`on a case-by-case basis and was made without engaging in the interactive process with each
`
`employee to discuss the exemption requests and evaluate potential accommodations.
`
`54.
`
`This conclusion is supported by Plaintiff Dennard’s experience. Ms. Dennard
`
`requested a religious exemption form which she did not initially submit. Yet, Ms. Dennard was
`
`surprised to learn that her religious exemption, which she did not submit, was denied. When she
`
`inquired about how she could be denied a religious exemption which she never requested, a
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 14 of 40 PageID #:14
`
`company representative, Shontelle Dodson, responded that “the idea was to share the
`
`information with you sooner rather than later . . . . any religious accommodation
`
`request you would have submitted would ultimately have been denied . . .”3 Exhibit K,
`
`Dodson Email.
`
`55.
`
`Likewise, Plaintiff Kreutzer was not even allowed to submit a religious exemption
`
`and was informed by Astellas ahead of time that any request he would have made would have
`
`amounted to an undue hardship on the company.
`
`56.
`
`Astellas has conceded, therefore, that it did not engage in case-by-case evaluation
`
`or in the interactive process. Indeed, it is difficult to understand how Astellas could have possibly
`
`denied certain religious exemptions on an individualized basis, completed a “careful review of the
`
`documentation,” or otherwise engaged in the interactive process when Dennard never submitted
`
`anything to the company and when Kreutzer was not even allowed to apply for a religious
`
`exemption. Rather, Ms. Dodson’s honest response demonstrates that Astellas had a pre-determined
`
`outcome and any religious exemption request was going to be denied regardless of what the
`
`application actually said or the specific circumstances of the applicant, and so long as no state law
`
`interfered with that predetermined outcome.
`
`57.
`
`Not only were Plaintiffs subjected to unpaid leave and eventually termination, but
`
`Astellas also perpetrated, and allowed, various forms of harassment and blatant discrimination
`
`against employees on account of their vaccine status. For example, one senior leader at Astellas
`
`was openly heard to have proclaimed that all unvaccinated people should be denied medical
`
`treatment and just die. Others experienced constant shaming, being pressured to abandon their
`
`
`3 Although Dennard was denied a religious exemption before she even applied for one, Dennard
`decided to still submit the religious exemption form after she received the denial.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 15 of 40 PageID #:15
`
`beliefs under threat that they would never be able to get a job anywhere ever again. Astellas
`
`representatives have also called unvaccinated employees uneducated, stupid, and immature, and
`
`unvaccinated employees have been made fun of and belittled because of their religious beliefs.
`
`Senior leaders at Astellas were aware of these instances and failed to take any action. These
`
`actions, and inactions, not only violate federal and state law, but Astellas’ own “Anti-
`
`Discrimination and Harassment Policy.” Exhibit L, Policy.
`
`58.
`
`On December 21, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel submitted a letter to Astellas explaining
`
`that the denials of Plaintiffs’ religious exemption and accommodation requests violated federal
`
`and state law. On January 17, 2022, counsel for Astellas responded denying the same. In that letter,
`
`counsel for Astellas claimed that “Astellas has granted accommodations to the vast majority of
`
`employees who made such requests . . . .” But Astellas has never explained, assuming that
`
`statement is true, how accommodating these Plaintiffs could have caused an “undue hardship” all
`
`of a sudden if the vast majority of employees who requested exemptions were accommodated.
`
`Exhibit M, Attorney Letters.
`
`59.
`
`As a result of Astellas placing Plaintiffs on unpaid leave and eventually terminating
`
`them, Plaintiffs sought alternative employment with other pharmaceutical companies, with some
`
`of the Plaintiffs recently accepting new positions. Based on Plaintiffs’ research, job interviews,
`
`and conversations with colleagues at other pharmaceutical companies, many pharmaceutical
`
`companies do not operate with any vaccine mandate, or provide employees with religious
`
`exemptions and accommodations such as regular testing or masking.
`
`60.
`
`Indeed, even as companies across the U.S. as well as federal and local governments
`
`have lessened restrictions, and as COVID-19 cases have dropped significantly, Astellas has
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 16 of 40 PageID #:16
`
`continued to insist that employees be vaccinated and to deny employees like the Plaintiffs
`
`reasonable exemptions and accommodations.
`
`61.
`
`As a result of Astellas’ actions, Plaintiffs have sustained damages including, but
`
`not limited to, lost income, lost bonuses, lost insurance, lost company benefits, career changes with
`
`lesser pay, emotional distress, and trauma.
`
`C.
`
`PLAINTIFFS AND THEIR SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from complying
`
`with the Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy because of the connection between all three
`
`COVID-19 vaccines (in their origination, production, development, or testing), and the cell lines
`
`of aborted fetuses, or other similar religious beliefs.
`
`63.
`
`A fundamental component of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs is that all
`
`life is sacred, from the moment of conception to natural death, and that abortion is a grave sin
`
`against God and the murder of an innocent life.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs are rooted in Scripture’s teachings that
`
`“[a]ll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
`
`correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV).
`
`65.
`
`Because of that sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiffs believe that they must
`
`conform their lives, including their decisions relating to medical care, to the commands and
`
`teaching of Scripture.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs that God forms children in the womb
`
`and knows them prior to their birth, and that because of this, life is sacred from the moment of
`
`conception. See Psalm 139:13-14 (“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in
`
`my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (ESV)); Psalm 139:16
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02836 Document #: 1 Filed: 05/30/22 Page 17 of 40 PageID #:17
`
`(“Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the day
`
`that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (ESV)); Isaiah 44:2 (“the Lord that
`
`made thee, and formed thee from the womb . . .” (KJV)); Isaiah 44:24 (“Thus saith the Lord, thy
`
`redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things.” (KJV));
`
`Isaiah 49:1 (“The Lord hath called my from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he
`
`made mention of my name.” (KJV)); Isaiah 49:5 (“the Lord that formed me from the womb to be
`
`his servant” (KJV)); Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
`
`camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee.” (KJV)).
`
`67.
`
`Plaintiffs also have sincerely held religious beliefs that every child’s life is sacred
`
`because they are m