Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 1 of 94
`
`Commonwealth ofMassachusetts
`MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
`THE TRIAL COURT
`WOBURN
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.: 2381CV03493
`
`MIDDLESEX, SS.
`
`SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
`
`MARGARET CURTIN,
`Plaintiff,
`
`CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE,
`Defendant.
`
`REMOVALTO U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 2 of 94
`
`Commonwealth of Massachusetts
`MIDDLESEX SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
`THE TRIAL COURT
`Woburn
`
`Civil Docket#2381CV03493
`
`I, Jessie Bernard, Deputy Assistant Clerk of the Superior Court, Within and for said County
`ofMiddlesex, do certify that the annexed paners are true copies made by photographic process of
`
`pleadings in 2381CV03493 entered in the Superior Court on the 19" day of Decemberin the
`
`year of our Lord 2023.
`
`In testimony whereof, I hereunto set my hand and affix seal of said Middlesex Superior Court at
`
`Woburn in said county, this 2"! day of April, in the year of our Lord Two Thousand
`
`Twenty- Four.
`
`Deputy Assistant Clerk
`
`Alt LPNOTE
`
`Jessie Bernard
`
`

`

`CRTR2709-CR
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 3 of 94
`MIDDLESEX COUNTY
`Docket Report
`
`2381CV03493 Curtin, Margaret vs. The Cambridge Hospital et al
`Equitable Remedies
`12/19/2023
`FILE DATE:
`CASE TYPE:
`F - Fast Track
`CASE TRACK:
`ACTION CODE:
`D09
`DESCRIPTION:
`Interference in Contractual Relationship
`04/02/2024
`CASE DISPOSITION DATE:
`Transferred to another Court
`CASE DISPOSITION:
`CASE JUDGE:
`
`CASE STATUS:
`STATUS DATE:
`CASE SESSION:
`
`Closed
`04/02/2024
`Civil H Rm 710
`
`PARTIES
`
`Attorney
`Richard Cullin Chambers
`Chambers Law Office
`Chambers Law Office
`220 Broadway Suite 404
`Lynnfield, MA 01940
`Work Phone (781) 581-2031
`Added Date: 12/19/2023
`Private Counsel
`Asha A Santos
`Littler Mendelson PC
`Littler Mendelson PC
`One International Place
`Suite 2700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Work Phone (617) 378-6092
`Added Date: 04/02/2024
`Private Counsel
`Alexa M Esposito
`Littler Mendelson, P.C.
`Littler Mendelson, P.C.
`One International Place
`Suite 2700
`Boston, MA 02110
`Work Phone (617) 595-5818
`Added Date: 04/02/2024
`
`651251
`
`670861
`
`698378
`
`Plaintiff
`Curtin, Margaret
`171 Austin Street
`Hyde Park, MA 02136
`
`Defendant
`Cambridge Health Alliance
`1493 Cambridge Street
`Cambridge, MA 02139
`
`Defendant
`Cambridge Publice Health Commission
`1493 Cambridge Street
`Cambridge, MA 02139
`Defendant
`The Cambridge Hospital
`1493 Cambridge Street
`Cambridge, MA 02139
`
` Printed: 04/23/2024 10:28 am
`
`Case No: 2381CV03493
`
`Page: 1
`
`

`

`CRTR2709-CR
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 4 of 94
`MIDDLESEX COUNTY
`Docket Report
`
`FINANCIAL DETAILS
`
`Date
`12/19/2023
`
`Fees/Fines/Costs/Charge
`Civil Filing Fee (per Plaintiff)
`
`12/19/2023
`
`Civil Security Fee (G.L. c. 262, § 4A)
`
`12/19/2023
`
`Civil Surcharge (G.L. c. 262, § 4C)
`
`Assessed
` 240.00
`
` 20.00
`
` 15.00
`
`Paid
` 240.00
`
` 20.00
`
` 15.00
`
`Total
`
` 275.00
` 275.00
`INFORMATIONAL DOCKET ENTRIES
`
`Dismissed
` 0.00
`
`Balance
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
` 0.00
`
`Date
`
`Ref
`
`Description
`
`Judge
`
` 1
` 2
`
`12/19/2023
`12/19/2023
`12/19/2023
`
`12/19/2023
`12/19/2023
`
`03/06/2024
`
` 3
`
`03/06/2024
`
`03/06/2024
`
`03/15/2024
`
` 4
`
`04/02/2024
`
`04/02/2024
`
`04/02/2024
`
` 5
`
`04/02/2024
`04/02/2024
`
`Complaint electronically filed.
`Civil action cover sheet filed.
`Case assigned to:
`DCM Track F - Fast Track was added on 12/19/2023
`Demand for jury trial entered.
`EDocument sent:
`A Tracking Order was generated and sent to:
`Plaintiff, Attorney: Richard Cullin Chambers, Jr., Esq.
`richard@chamberslawoffice.com
`Amended: First amended complaint filed by Margaret Curtin
`and Jury Trial Demand
`Party status:
`Defendant Cambridge Publice Health Commission: Inactive;
`Party status:
`Defendant The Cambridge Hospital: Inactive;
`Service Returned for
`Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance: Service accepted by counsel;
`
`Alexa Esposito, on 3/14/24, no address given
`Attorney appearance
`On this date Asha A Santos, Esq. added as Private Counsel for Defendant
`Cambridge Health Alliance
`Attorney appearance
`On this date Alexa M Esposito, Esq. added as Private Counsel for Defendant
`Cambridge Health Alliance
`Defendant Cambridge Health Alliance's Notice of
`Filing of Notice of Removal
`REMOVED to the U.S. District Court
`Case transferred to another court.
`
` Printed: 04/23/2024 10:28 am
`
`Case No: 2381CV03493
`
`Page: 2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 5 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 5 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court ~ Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`|
`
`MIDDLESEX, ss.
`
`COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
`SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT
`CIVIL ACTION NO.;
`
`MARGARET CURTIN,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Vv.
`
`ZAC D443
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`CAMBRIDGE PUBLIC HEALTH
`COMMISSION, THE CAMBRIDGE
`HOSPITAL and CAMBRIDGE HEALTH
`ALLIANCE,
`
`
`
`
`
`RECEIVED
`42/19/2023
`
`MG
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
`
`I. PARTIES
`
`1. Plaintiff, Margaret Curtin, (hereinafter, “Curtin” or “Plaintiff’), was fifty-seven
`
`(57) years old and was employed for over twenty-eight (28) years full-time as a
`
`Board Certified, Family Nurse Practitioner with the Defendants, when she was
`
`unlawfully and wrongly terminated.
`
`2. Curtin specifically was employed at Cambridge Health Alliance’s, (hereinafter,
`
`“CHA”), East Cambridge Health Center.
`
`3. Defendant ‘CHA’is located at 1493 Cambridge Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts
`
`02139.
`
`4. CHA’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO) is Mr. Assaad J. Sayah, MD.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 6 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 6 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12419/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`5. Defendant ‘Cambridge Public Health Commission’, (hereinafter, “CPHC’’) and “The
`
`Cambridge Hospital’, (hereinafter, “TCH”) are listed as Curtin’s payor on herlast
`
`paystub.
`
`6. CPHC and TCHlisted on Curtin’s last paystub as located at 350 Main Street, Malden,
`
`Massachusetts 02148.
`
`7. Upon information and belief, CHA, CPHC and TCH, had an interchangeable
`
`employer/employeerelationship with Curtin.!
`
`8. Collectively and presumably, CHA, CPHC, and TCH are employers within the
`
`meaning of 42 U.S.C. Sec 2000(b) and M.G.L. c 151B, Sec!(5), with more than
`
`fifteen (15) employees.
`
`9. Collectively, CHA, CPHC, and TCH are the Defendants in this matter.
`
`10. The Defendants negligently, unlawfully, and wrongly terminated Curtin, when they
`
`denied her request for a Religious Exemption and Accommodation, causing Curtin
`
`to suffer a significant loss of her future earnings, pension and retirement.
`
`11. The Defendants summarily and wrongly terminated Curtin’s employment on:
`
`October 18, 2021.
`
`Il. MASSACHUSETTS COMMISSION AGAINST DISCRIMINATIONeeeeeeeeSar
`
`(“MCAD”) CHARGE
`
`12. Curtin filed timely charges with the Massachusetts Commission Against
`
`Discrimination (“MCAD”), whothennotified the United States Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).
`
`
`
`' Plaintiff's pay stub acknowledges ‘Cambridge Public Health Commission’ and ‘The Cambridge Hospital’ as
`Plaintiff's payroll payor. The Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) and the United States
`Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)filings acknowledge ‘Cambridge Health Alliance asthe
`Respondent.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 7 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 7 of 94
`
`Date Fited 12/19/2023 3:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`13. The EEOC issued Curtin her “Right-to-Sue”notice.
`
`14. Curtin brings this lawsuit within ninety (90) days of receipt of her EEOC “Right~
`
`to-Sue”notice. All preconditionsfor filing this lawsuit have been performed or
`
`have occurred.
`
`HE. FACTS
`
`15. Curtin was employed by Defendants for twenty-eight (28) years and was fifty-seven
`
`(57) years old when she was unlawfully and wrongly terminated from Defendants’
`employment because ofher age and her sincerely held religious beliefs.
`16. Curtin alleges that the Defendants’ unconstitutional Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccine
`
`Policy, and the rejection ofher religious exemption based on her sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs, in addition to her age, was a tactic to terminate her employment
`
`and prevent her from eventually collecting her full retirement benefits.
`
`17. Federallaw and Massachusetts law both prohibit employers from discriminating
`
`against their employees whoare forty (40) years old and older based on their age.
`
`18. As of June 15, 2021, the former Massachusetts Governor, Charles D. Baker,
`
`(hereinafter, “Baker”), terminated the “Covid-1 9 State of Emergency.” As a matter
`of law and fact, after June 15, 2021, the Commonwealth ofMassachusetts declared
`
`there was no longer any “Covid-19 Emergency”in existence.
`19, On August 16, 2021, the Defendants implemented their own Mandatory Covid-19
`VaccinePolicy, (hereinafter, the “Vaccine Policy”) and informed employees that
`
`the deadline for meeting this new VaccinePolicy requirement, would be “October
`
`18, 2021, barring an approvedreligious or medical exemption”.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 8 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 8 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`20. Defendants essentially implemented their own VaccinePolicy, two (2) months
`
`after Governor Baker terminated the “Covid-19 State of Emergency” in
`
`Massachusetts.
`
`21.
`
`On September 20, 2021, Curtin submitted her request for a Religious Exemption
`
`and Accommodation to Defendants.
`
`22.
`
`Curtin followed the Defendants’ protocol for applying for a Religious Exemption
`
`and Accommodation.
`
`23.
`
`In her request for a Religious Exemption and Accommodation, Curtin explained her
`
`sincerely held religious beliefs precluded her from taking any Covid-19 vaccime.
`
`24.
`
`Curtin specifically explained that her sincerely held religious beliefs according to
`
`Christian beliefs and the Holy Bible that we “Offer our bodies asa living sacrifice,
`
`holy and pleasing to God- this is our true and proper worship. Do not conform to
`
`the present world system, but be transformed by the renewal ofyour mind, so as to
`
`sense for ourselves whatis the good and acceptable will of God. (Romans 12: 1-
`
`3).”
`
`25.
`
`Curtin further explained her particular sincerely held religious beliefs, “Therefore,
`
`since we have these promises, my dear friends, we should wash ourselves clean of
`
`everything that pollutes either: body or soul. (2 Corinthians 7:1).”
`Per Curtin, another ofher “deeply held religious beliefs is that we are made in
`
`26.
`
`God’s image and likeness. (Genesis 1:27).”
`
`24.
`
`Curtin closed her Religious Exemption and Accommodation letter by stating that, “I
`
`am requesting not to be put in a situation where | must choose mybeliefs over my
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 9 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 9 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`employment. Until now, I have been able to do both and request the opportunity to
`
`continue to do so.”
`
`28.
`
`Curtin also submitted a letter from her Parish Priest, as required by the Defendants,
`in support ofhersincerely held religious beliefs and her request for a Religious
`
`Exemption and Accommodation.
`
`29,
`
`Manyof Curtin’s Administrators knew that she applied for a Religious Exemption
`
`and Accommodation request. She deliberately communicated with them and
`
`informed them that her hearing was scheduled for October 4, 2021.
`
`30.
`
`Nonetheless, on September 28, 2021, the Defendants posted Curtin’s job position
`
`on-line. The posting of Curtin’s position online ahead of the hearing demonstrates
`
`that there was never any intention of the Defendants to grant her an
`Accommodation.
`.
`
`31.
`
`Furthermore, Curtin believes that the posting of her position online prior to her
`
`hearing was @ coercive tactic.
`
`32.
`
`On October 8, 2021, the Defendants denied Curtin’s request for a Religious
`
`Exemption and Accommodation via a letter sent to her that stated, “You will be
`
`expected to be vaccinated prior fo October 18, 2021, in order to continue
`
`employment.”
`
`33.
`
`The denial of Curtin’s Religious Exemption and Accommodation caused her
`extreme anguish, an enormous amount of stress, anxiety, sleepless nights, and deep,
`
`unrelenting sadness as she realized she would have to choose between hersincerely
`
`heldreligious beliefs and a job she loved.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 10 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 10 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Decket Number
`
`34.
`
`After the denial of her Religious Exemption and Accommodation request and
`
`seeing the premature posting of her job online, Curtin met with her Medical
`
`Director, openly weeping at the prospect of losing the job she loved.
`
`35.
`
`After the denial of her Religious Exemption and Accommodation request, Curtin
`
`was harassed and harangued by her CHA Administrators on a daily basis as to
`
`whether or not she was goingto take the Covid-19 vaccination.
`
`36.
`
`Toreiterate, Curtin was fifty-seven (57) years old at the time of her unlawful,
`
`negligent, and wrongful termination due to her sincerely held religious beliefs that
`
`were not granted an Accommodation.
`
`37.
`
`At the time of Curtin’s unlawful, negligent, and wrongful termination from
`
`Defendants’ employment, she was one (1) month shy of being able to secure
`
`anotherfive (5) percent increase in her retirement benefits in perpetuity.
`
`38.
`
`At the time of Curtin’s unlawful, negligent, and wrongful termination from
`
`Defendants’ employment, she was the family’s primary wage earner.
`
`39.
`
`Essentially, Curtin was given a ‘Hobsen’s Choice’, when she was forced to “choose
`
`betweenher sincerely held Christian religious beliefs and her family’s livelihood”.
`
`40.
`
`Curtin believed she was being: unjustly coerced and was traumatized by the
`
`prospect ofnot havinga job.
`
`4,
`
`Importantly, Curtin had been one (1) of the only CHA Clinicians to physically
`
`provide care at the CHA in the beginning and throughout the Covid-19 crises, when
`
`many other CHA Providers worked remotely during this time.
`
`42.
`
`Curtin’s service duringthis crisis greatly benefited the CHA by enablingit to keep
`
`its doors open and continue serving the community as it was tasked to do.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 11 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 11 of 94
`
`Date Filed 42/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Coun - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`On October 18, 2021, Curtin was Officially terminated from Defendants’
`
`43.
`
`employment because of their denial of her request for a Religious Exemption and
`
`Defendants’ refusal to allow her any Accommodation.
`
`44,
`
`As aresult of Defendants unlawful and wrongful termination of Curtin, she was
`
`forced to take only forty-seven (47) percent of her retirement monies, as she was
`
`one-month short of receiving a full-year’s credit in perpetuity for her retirement.
`
`45.
`
`As aresult of Curtin’s unlawful and wrongful termination by the Defendants, she
`
`was unable to secure another job for over fourteen (14) months and suffered great -
`
`financial harm and extremestress.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants should have and-could have Accommodated Curtin. In fact, Curtin
`
`addressed this directly in her Religious Exemption Hearing and volunteered to
`
`continue working with Accommodations. These Accommodations would not have
`
`cost the Defendants any additional monies or inconvenience, because they already
`
`existed and were in place.
`
`47. Instead, Curtin was denied hér request for a Religious Exemption and
`
`Accommodation becauseof hersincerely held religious beliefs despite offering to
`
`“mask, social distance and test”. Ironically, these were the same meansavailable at
`
`the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic; conditions Curtin has already worked
`
`successfully in and volunteered to continue to do so.
`
`48.
`
`Curtin was an older, seasoned, dedicated, higher-paid, long-term, and loyal
`
`employee, who had plansto retire from Defendants’ employment.
`
`49.
`
`Curtin worked hard for nearly three (3) decades as a Primary Care Provider with
`
`deep ties to her patients and community.
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 12 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 12 of 94
`
`Gate Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`50. Curtin valued, enjoyed, and was so committed to her work atCHA that she was
`
`“language certified in both Spanish and Portuguese”. Curtin explains, “J had
`
`always enjoyed working within CHA, because their mission statementofdelivering
`
`healthcare to some of the most vulnerable populations regardless of insurance or
`
`ability to pay, aligned with my personal values to do the same. I was deeply
`
`committed te CHA's mission as well as to the patients entrusted to me.”
`
`51. Curtin’s termination from CHA resulted in Curtin feeling harassed, violated, and
`
`discriminated against because she asserted her sincerely heldreligious beliefs, her
`
`Constitutional rights, and due to her advanced age.
`
`52. Curtin was andstill is devastated by her termination from CHA and has suffered
`
`damages as a result of Defendants’ actions including, but not limited to, lost wages,
`
`lost pension, lost benefits, costs related to survival without income, as well as
`
`extreme and severe emotional stress to her and her family.
`
`THE RIGHT TO REEUSE THE COVID-19 VACCINE BY CURTIN
`
`(EUA),
`53. The COVID-19 vaccines ‘are under Emergency Use Authorization’
`Emergency Use Instructions (EU), or the Public Readiness and Emergency
`
`Preparedness Act, referred to as the PREP Act, authority (EUA/EUI/PREPAct),all
`
`preempted by the United States Constitution Article I. Congress only has the
`
`authority, none of which can come under mandatory conditions.?
`
`54. Consequently, Curtin contends that it is unlawful for a public or private entity to
`
`mandate that she must take an unlicensed vaccine. Curtin’s allegations herein only
`
`2 Bmergency Use Authorization (EUA)- of unapproved drugs, devices, or biological products, ar emergency use authorization of
`approved drugs, devices, or biological products for an unapproved use.
`
`349 USC 247d-6d & 42 USC 247d-6e (Prep Act); 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3 (the EUA/EUT statute)
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 13 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 13 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`relate to Defendant’ depriving her of her right to refuse -EUA/EUI/PREP Act-
`unlicensed vaccine product.
`|
`For EVA products, Congress requires the United States Secretary of Health and
`Human. Services (HHS Secretary) to ensure individuals considering theuse of the
`
`35.
`
`productare informed oftheir legal rights 4 underthe statute (i.e., the option to accept
`
`or refuse) and to ensure that individuals are not subjected to medical experimentation
`
`outside of their free consent and/or harmed by medical products not effectively
`
`researched for safety and efficacy.°
`
`56.
`
`The right
`
`to accept, exempts products not
`
`licensed by the FDA for general
`
`commercial marketing 21 U.S.C. § 355(a) * during the declared emergency; thus, the
`individual has the legal authority to use the unlicensed product. On the other hand,
`the right to refuse the unlicensed use of the product ensures that the federal
`
`government and persons underits authority comply with the laws pertaining to the
`
`investigational use of unlicensed drugs,biologics, and devices.’
`
`57. The CDC issuance of EUlIs, under the 21 U.S.C. §360bbb-3 authority of the HHS
`
`Secretary, are subject to the same treaties, laws, federal agreements, and federal
`
`contracts as EUAs. Therefore, the same strict requirements and conditions applies to
`Defendants’ actions regarding EUIs products as ifthey were EUAs products.
`
`
`
`421 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)( EAI.
`
`> In the context of COVID-19 vaccines, the mandatory conditions of 21 U.S.C, §360bbb-3 for the vaccineare intended to provide
`people with enough information to be able to give their, informed consent to being injected with an experimental emergency use
`authorization product.
`\
`$91 U.S.C, § 355(a) (FDCA; Drugs and Devices; New Drugs): “No person shall introduceor deliver for introduction
`into commerce any new drug, unless an approval of an application filed pursuant to subsection (b) or (j) is effective
`with respectto such drug.”
`
`745 CFR Part 46, the Belmont Report, Article VII of the ICCPR Treaty, Federal Wide Assurance program, CDC
`COVID-19 Vaccination Program Providers Agreement, among others.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 14 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 14 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`58. A drug orbiologic under EUA/EUIis considered investigational regardless of its
`
`name and cannot have a licensed indication for its emergency use.®
`59. As for the PREP Act,’ it provides immunities for persons volunteering for “covered”
`activities. Accordingly, the HHS Secretary issued a PREPActdeclaration for Medical
`Countermeasures against COVID-19 in February 2020.'9[ 85 FR 15198]. The PREP
`
`Act requires only “voluntary participation”,
`
`60, The PREPActstrips an individual of their due process rights to seek judicial relief
`
`should injury occur from using a product under the statute’s authority, but only after
`
`the person legally and effectively consents''to the use of the product. Thisis the
`reason why the “program” is under “voluntary conditions”.
`61. All drugs, biologics, or devices under Defendants’ mandate are under the federal
`
`authority of the PREP Act. [42 USC 247d-6d & 42 USC 247d-6¢].
`
`62. Defendants are expressly preempted by Congressional authority from using their
`
`authority to interfere with Curtin’s granted right to determine voluntary participation
`
`in a PREPAct “covered countermeasure”. Congress preempts any legal entity from
`
`enforcing a countermeasure under the PREP Act.
`
`
`
`8 91 U.S.C. §360bbb-3(a)(2) (A, B). In addition, CDC claimed authority to grant expanded access protocols cites as
`Emergency Use Instructionsfor the unlicensed use of licensed and EUA drugs andbiologics does notexists in federal
`law.
`
`942 USC 247d-6d & 42 USC 247d-6e
`
`‘© Medical countermeasure (MCM): Medical products authorized under National Defense Authorization Act 2004
`TITLE
`XV1—Defense
`Btomedical
`Countermeasures
`hitps:/fivww.covinfé.gov/content/nke/PLAW-
`
`
`
`
`108pubH36/pdf/PLAW- LO8pibH36.pdf-
`:
`,
`1 Investigational uses ofproducts funded or under federal-authority must comply with 45 CFR § 46.116, 122 and the
`Belmont Report which defines “legally effective informed consent.” Defendants are not authorized to obtain Curtin’s
`consent and such fact demonstrates its mandate is uétra vires. Hospitals have dualroles; (1) employer and(2) medical
`practitioner. The employeris not authorized to obtain consent and it is the employerissuing the mandatein this case.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 15 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 15 of 94
`
`Date Filed 42/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`63. On August 16, 2021, Defendants issued their own Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccine
`Policy, unlawfully, requiring Curtin to inject an EUA, EUI, or PREP Act- COVID-
`19 vaccine product into her body by October 18, 2021, as a condition of continued
`employment
`in violation of the United States Constitution and her Fourteenth
`Amendment guarantees. Such mandates cannot be lawful using EUA/EUI/PREP Act
`unlicensed products. Defendants relied exclusively on EUA, EUI, and PREP Act
`countermeasures for Curtin to comply with their Vaccine Policy.
`64. Curtin asserted her individual, absolute Constitutional and federal statutory right to
`refuse the administration of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), Emergency
`Use Instructions (EUI) and/or PREP Act- COVID-19 Vaccine, without losing a
`‘benefit and employment to which she is otherwise entitled. Such a tight is NOT
`dependent upon Curtin seeking a religious or medical exemption.
`65. Curtin asserts that Congress prohibits Defendants from establishing EUA, EUI, or
`PREP Actconditions requiring herto surrenderherstatutory rights and Constitutional
`protections as a condition to enjoy the privileges andbenefits offered by the
`
`Defendants.
`
`66. As a matter of law, no person can mandate the use of an unlicensed drug, biologic,
`
`or device by another person as a condition of employment.
`67. Defendants’ willful and wanton disregard for the Federal Constitution and the
`authority ofthe United States Congress caused a real, life-altering event to Curtin’s
`
`financial, emotional, and physical well-being.
`THE COVID-19 VACCINES ARE NOT EFFECTIVE AT STOPPING THE SPREAD OF
`THE DISEASE
`
`li
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 16 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 16 of 94
`
`Date Filed 2/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`68. Following an announcement by the Food and Drug Administration (hereinafter,
`“FDA”) on August 2, 2021, claiming thatvaccines were ninety-one percent(91%)
`effective in preventing Covidel9 (Pfizer), it became immediately clear that was not
`
`true.
`
`69. Illustrating by exampleare the followinglist ofvisible persons that became infected
`by Covid-19 despite having been injected with a Covid-19 vaccine along with the
`
`date their infection was announced:
`
`08-19-2021
`
`U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper
`
`U.S. Senator Angus King
`
`U.S. Senator Roger Wicker
`
`10-19-2021
`
`Dept Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas
`
`12-19-2021
`
`U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren
`
`01-02-2022 Dept of Justice Secretary Lloyd Austin
`
`03-13-2022 U.S. President Barack Obama
`
`03-31-2022
`
`CIA Director William Burns
`
`04-05-2022 U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland
`04-07-2022
`U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
`
`04-09-2022
`
`U.S. Dept of Agriculture Secretary Tim Vilsack
`
`04-26-2022 U.S. Vice-President Kamala Harris
`
`05-04-2022
`
`U.S, Secretary of State Anthony Blinken
`
`06-01-2022
`
`U.S. Labor Secretary Marty Walsh
`
`06-15-2022
`
`Dr. Anthony Fauci
`
`06-2022
`
`U.S. Senator Wicker for 3% time (02-2022)
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 17 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page17 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`USS. Senate Majority Leader CPHC/ CHA rles Schumer
`07-10-2022
`07-21-2022 U.S. President Joseph Biden
`
`10-22-2022: CDC Director Rochelle Walensky
`
`70. Public Health Officials now acknowledgethefallacy of claims of protection
`
`afforded by vaccines against Covid-19.
`a. Dr. Déborali Birx: (Former White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator):
`
`“I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection and I think we
`
`overplayed the vaccines”.
`
`a
`
`
`svoutucbe/Ba¥qTislA
`
`
`b. Dr.Anthony:Fauci:.
`
`“We know that people get infected and then get reinfected and people get
`
`vaccinated, and they get infected. So, immunity isn’t measured in decades or
`
`lifetimes. It’s measured in several months.”
`
`https:/Avww.marketwatch.com/articles/Anthon -fauci-covid-19-biden:
`
`
`
`immunity-51658437525?shtied=nf-rss
`
`71. As ofAugust 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (hereinafter,
`“CDC”) guidance on Covid-t 9 protection changedto eliminate differentiation
`based on whether a person received vaccination and now concedethat so-called
`
`Covid-19 vaccines do not prevent those injected with same from contracting,
`suffering and/or spreading the Covid-19 disease.
`
`72. The majority of people now hospitalized for Covid-19 related issues have received
`
`vaccinations and caught the Covid-19 virus anyway.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 18 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 18 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`73. Defendants’ “Vaccine Policy” was based on false and deceptive claims that the
`vaccine was required to prevent employees from contracting the virus and spreading
`
`it to others, all of which was known by them.
`74. Increasingly, it is becoming clear that Covid-19 vaccines did not afford the
`protection to the person injected or those they came into contact with and, in fact,
`have both short and long-term adverse effects on the injected person.
`75. Defendants terminated/coerced retirement on Curtin for resisting being injected due
`to her sincerely held religious beliefs; and Defendants refused an Accommodation
`to Curtin by not affording the use of masks and periodic testing, stating same to be
`
`inferior to the vaccine.
`
`76. Defendants’ instant degradation ofmasks and periodic testing by labeling them as
`“inferior” and unacceptable accommodation, along with Defendants’ unrealistic
`reliance on experimental vaccines, place Defendants’ historical position in question
`and now expose seriousliberties taken by Defendants with the lives and well-being
`
`of Curtin, her family, and her contacts.
`77. As aresult of Defendants’ negligence, Curtin suffered damagesfinancially,
`
`emotionally, psychologically, and lost reputation.
`
`CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
`
`COUNT
`VIOLATION,OF M.G.L. CHAPTER151,AGE AND RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
`
`AND VIOLATION OF TITLE Vilen
`
`
`
`78. Curtin re-alleges the foregoing Paragraphs 1-77 as if set forth again here.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 19 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 19 of 94
`
`Date Filed 12/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`79, Curtin was very specific, honest and conveyedher sincerely held religious beliefs to
`
`Defendants.
`80. Curtin at all relevant times was engaged in protected activity under M.G.L. chapter
`
`151 and 42 USC § 2000¢ ef seq.
`81. UnderTitle VIL,it is unlawful for an employer to “fail or refuse to hire or to
`discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with
`respect to his compensation,‘terms, conditions, or privileges ofemployment,
`because of”that individual’s religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). An employer
`must “reasonably accommodate”an employee’s religious practice unless such
`accommodation would impose “undue hardship on the conduct ofthe employer’s
`business.” Id. § 2000e(j). To reiterate: The means to accommodate Curtin would
`not have cost additionally, as the policies, procedures and equipment were already
`in place since the beginning ofthe Covid-19 pandemic.
`82. Curtin at all relevant times was protected against discrimination due to her age.
`83. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. Sections 6101-6107) prohibits
`discrimination on the basis of age in programs andactivities receiving federal
`
`financial assistance.
`84. Discrimination is defined as prejudiced, unfair, or unequal treatment ofpeople based
`on their personal characteristics such as race, religion, disability, age, nation of
`
`origin, or gender.
`85. Underthe law,it is unlawful to discriminate against any individual age forty (40) or
`older with respect to any term, condition, or privilege of employment, including but
`not Hmited to recruitment, hiring,firing, layoff, etc.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document 9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 20 of 94
`Case 1:24-cv-10840-LTS Document9 Filed 04/23/24 Page 20 of 94
`
`Date Filed 42/19/2023 9:40 AM
`Superior Court - Middlesex
`Docket Number
`
`|
`86. Curtin was fifty-seven (57) years old when she was unlawfully, negligently, and
`wrongly terminated becauseofherage, and hersincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`87. The unlawful, arbitrary, and illegal termination of Curtin by the Defendants was
`
`based also on her age.
`
`88. The discriminatory actions of the Defendants resulted in the deterioration of skills,
`
`morale, and employer acceptability, placing Curtin in her older age,
`
`in a
`
`disadvantaged position within the work force.
`
`89. Defendants wrongly, arbitrarily, and caprictously denied Curtin’s request for a
`
`Religious Exemption and Accommodation from having to inject herselfwith the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine due to her age andher sincerely held religiousbeliefs.
`
`90. Defendants retaliated against’Curtin because she refused to be injected with the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine because of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`91. Defendants at all times knew, or should have known,that the Covid-i9 vaccine did
`
`not prevent contracting nor spreading of the disease.
`
`COUNT II
`VIOLATION OF THE UNITED STATES.CONSTITUTIONAL EQUAL PROTECTION
`
`AND ‘TREATMENT RIGHTS
`
`92. Curtin re-alleges the foregoing Par