Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.6 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 36
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit A
`
`

`

`. ,
`Appi-oved, SBAO
`
`j-kir1d !:>&/1 ·/er.(? /
`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.7 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 36
`ft,,--2./ J::.57 .P,<1
`Original - Court
`2nd Copy-Plaintiff/?
`/ -4 - I'
`I A . /
`3rd Copy -Re tum
`1st Copy- Defendant
`
`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`WAYNE COUNTY
`
`SUMMONS
`
`Court address: 2 Woodward Ave .• Delroit Ml 48226
`
`Plaintiff's name(s), address(es), and telephone no(s)
`Ryan, Ramano
`
`Plaintiffs attorney, bar no., address, and telephone no
`
`David C. Peters 48648
`PO Box 51787
`Livonia, Ml 48151-5787
`
`CASE NO.
`21-016917-CD
`Hon.David J. Allen
`
`Court telephone no.: 313-224-0250
`
`V
`
`Defendant's name(s)1 address(es). and telephone no(s).
`Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
`
`Instructions: Check the items below that apply lo you and provide any required information. Submit this funn lD lhea:,,;tc:ie;kai:D;,~
`your complaint and, if necessary, a case inventory addendum (form MC 21 ). The summons section will be: rm,;,YEd t-1mac:e:U:a~-
`
`Domestic Relations Case
`D There are no pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the family division of the amm=t ~ frefa+--if:;-cr 1a;:iey
`members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint.
`D There is one or more pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the iamily division oflhe dn::w:COOl!t imol-ag !!i:e fa;;:Jfym
`family members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint. I have separalelyli!ed a~ cooii!lereakaseii;,-~
`(form MC 21) listing those cases.
`·
`D It is unknown if there are pending or resolved cases within the jurisdiction of the iamily division of the circuit court invol'.ing lhelatiily
`or family members of the person(s) who are the subject of the complaint.
`
`Civil Case
`D This is a business case in which all or part of the action includes a business or commercial dispute under MCL 600.8035
`D MDHHS and a contracted health pla~ may have a right to recover expenses in this case. I certify that notice and a copy di the
`Icomplaint will be provided to MDHHS and (if applicable) the contracted health plan in accordance with MCL 400.106(4).
`Ell There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out of the same transaction or occurrence as alleged in the complaint
`D A civil action between these parties or other parties arising out of the transaction or occurrence alleged in the complaint has
`
`been previously filed in D this court, D, _______________________ Court,
`
`where it was given case number ________ and assigned to Judge ________ .
`
`The action D remains D is no longer pending.
`
`Summons section completed by court clerk.
`
`SUMMONS
`
`'
`~OTICE TO THE DEFENDANT: In the name of the people of the State of Michigan you are notified:
`1. You are being sued.
`2. YOU HAVE 21 DAYS after receiving this summons and a copy of the complaint to file a written answer with the court and serve a
`copy on the other party or take other lawful action with the court.(28 days if you were served by mail or you were served outside
`this state).
`··
`•
`If you do not answer or take other action within the time allowed, judgment may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the
`complaint.
`4. If you require special accommodations to use the court because of a disability or if you require a foreign language interpreter to help
`you fully participate in court proceedings, please contact the court immediately to make arrangements.
`
`3.
`
`Issue date
`12/8/2021
`
`Expiration date•
`3/9/2022
`
`Court clerk
`Angila Mayfield
`
`This summons is invalid unless seived on or before its expiration date. This document must be sealed by the seal of the court.
`
`Cathy M. Garrett- Wayne County Clerk.
`
`SUMMONS
`
`MGR 1.109(0), MGR 2.102(8), MGR 2.103, MGR 2.104, MGR 2.105
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.8 Filed 12/20/21 Page 3 of 36
`SUMMONS
`Case No.: 21-01 6917-CD
`
`I
`
`TO PROCESS SERVER: You are to serve the summons and complaint not later than 91 days from the date of filing or the date of
`expiration on the order for second summons. You must make and file your return with the court clerk. If you are unable to complete
`service you must return this original and all copies to the court clerk.
`
`PROOF OF SERVICE
`
`CERTIFICATE/ AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE/ NONSERVICE
`
`.
`
`OFFICER CERTIFICATE
`
`OR
`
`0 AFFIDAVIT OF PROCESS SERVER
`
`I certify that I am a sheriff, deputy sheriff, bailiff, appointed
`court officer, or attorney for a party (MCR 2.104[AJ[2]), and
`!hf!:
`(notarization not required)
`ISi I served personally a copy of the summons and complaint.
`D I served by registered or certified mail (copy of return receipt attached) a copy of the summons and complaint,
`togetherwith ___ ~~ - - , - - - - - -~ , , - ,~~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`List all documents served with the Summons and Complaint
`
`Being first duly sworn, I state that I am a legally competent
`adult, and I am not a party or an officer of a corporate party
`(MCR 2.103[Al), and that:
`(notarization required)
`
`______________________________________ on the defendant(s):
`
`Defendant's name
`
`Complete address(es) of service
`
`Day, date, time
`
`D I have personally attempted to serve the summons and complaint, together with any attachments, on the following defendant(s) and
`have been unable to complete service.
`
`Defendant's name
`
`Complete address(es) of service
`
`Day, date, time
`
`I declare under the penalties of perjury that this proofof service has been examined by me and that its contents are true to the best of my
`information, knowledge, and belief.
`
`Service fee
`$
`
`Miles traveled
`$
`
`Incorrect address fee Miles traveled
`$
`
`$
`
`Fee
`$
`
`Fee
`$
`
`Total fee
`$
`
`Signature
`
`Name (type or print)
`
`Subscribed and sworn to before me on - -~ - - - - - (cid:173)
`Date
`My commission expires: -~ - - - - - - (cid:173)
`Date
`
`Signature:
`
`Notary public, State of Michigan, County of
`
`Title
`________________ County, Michigan.
`
`Deputy court clerk/Notary public
`
`ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE
`
`I acknowledge that I have received service of the summons and complaint, together with - - - -~ - - - - - - - - - - (cid:173)
`Attachments
`_____________________ on ------=c----,---,----0----------------
`Day, date, time
`
`on behalf of
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.9 Filed 12/20/21 Page 4 of 36
`
`STATE OF MICHIGAN
`
`IN THE 3RD JUDICIAL cmcmT
`
`COUNTY OF WAYNE
`
`CASE NUMBER: 21-016917-CD
`
`HON. DAVID J. ALLEN
`
`RYAN ROMANO, on behalf of HIMSELF
`individually and for all others similarly situated
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-CD
`
`vs.
`
`BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD
`OF MICHIGAN, a Michigan Corporation
`
`Defendant
`- - - - - - - - - - - - !
`Dave Peters
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Pacific Justice Institute
`Metro Detroit Office
`PO Box 51787
`Livonia, MI 48154-1787
`Email: dpeters@pji.org
`Phone: (734) 743-5352
`- - - - - - - - - - - !
`
`"Title Vil does not contemplate asking employees to sacrifice their jobs to observe their religious
`practices." Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 721 F.3d 444, 456 (7th Cir. 2013)
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.10 Filed 12/20/21 Page 5 of 36
`
`T/zere are 110 other prior filings in t/zis Circuit Court illvolving t/zese parties and/or i11volvi11g
`t/ze same transaction and occurre11ce giving rise to t/zis claim.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DAMAGES
`
`Now comes the plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated who
`
`Complain against the above captioned Defendant for the following reasons:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a Title VII class action brought to remedy a pattern of religious discrimination by
`
`the Defendant BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MCHIGAN (hereafter "BCBSM")
`
`against employees who requested religious accommodations from the Defendants
`
`governmental inspired mandate that its employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`2.
`
`This action seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief before Plaintiffs are
`
`permanently fired from their jobs.
`
`3.
`
`In accordance with the now reversed governmental OSHA mandates, the Plaintiffs are
`
`scheduled to be placed on unpaid administrative leave on or about December 10, 2021,
`
`and will be permanently terminated on or about January 4, 2022 if they refuse to submit
`
`to the COVID-19 Vaccine.
`
`4.
`
`BCBSM has refused to comply with its obligations under Title VII of the Civil Rights
`
`Act of 1964, (Pub. L. 88-352), codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. ("Title VII"), and has
`
`informed certain employees, including your named Plaintiff, that their requests for
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.11 Filed 12/20/21 Page 6 of 36
`
`religious exemptions were denied, that they will be suspended without pay on December
`
`10, 2021 and they will be considered to have "voluntarily resigned" (i.e., they will be
`
`terminated) on January 4, 2022.
`
`5.
`
`BCBSM's actions have left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of their religious beliefs or losing their livelihoods.
`
`6.
`
`BCBSM's actions Violate Title VII and the First Amendment to the United States and
`
`Michigan Constitution by denying reasonable accommodations for religious exemptions.
`
`7.
`
`BCBSM's actions violate due process, public policy, equity, fairness, and common sense
`
`which alone give this court authority to act.
`
`8.
`
`Under Title VII, if an employee seeks a religious accommodation American employers
`
`cannot summarily impose employer-preferred workplace rules which abridge an
`
`employees sincerely held religious beliefs without genuine and good-faith dialogue and
`
`consideration of proposed accommodations and objective evidence.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Defendant BCBSM is a Michigan Nonprofit Corporation associated with Blue Cross
`
`Blue Shield with offices located in Detroit, Michigan.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff, individually, is a Michigan resident who works remotely for the Defendant in
`
`Wayne County out of the Detroit, Michigan BCBSM office located at the Renaissance
`
`Center in Detroit, Michigan.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff is a representative member of the class of employees and contractors at BCBSM
`
`who:
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.12 Filed 12/20/21 Page 7 of 36
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Were threatened with suspension without pay for refusing the COVID-19
`vaccination.
`
`Were threatened with permanent termination for refusing the COVID-19
`vaccination.
`
`Offered BCBSM a written religious exemption request to receiving the
`COVID-19 vaccination.
`
`Were denied their religious exemption request to receiving the COVID-19
`vaccination.
`
`Some unknown class members have other and additional reasons for
`refusing the COVID-19 vaccination including natural immunity and
`medical exemptions.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs all have sincerely held religious beliefs and have made a personal decision,
`
`after prayer and contemplation and in some cases consultations with religious authorities,
`
`and heartfelt research that the vaccine is not the correct choice for them to personally put
`
`into their bodies.
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held beliefs that knowingly using a medicine or vaccine that was
`
`derived in whole or in part from the use of aborted fetal cells is contrary to their religious
`
`beliefs and practices.
`
`12.
`
`Some Plaintiffs also have natural immunity in addition to having sincere religious beliefs
`
`and failing to exempt them from the vaccine requirements is arbitrary and capricious with
`
`no support in law, fact, or science.
`
`13.
`
`As of the time of writing this Complaint, there were at least 140 peer reviewed research
`
`studies which show Natural Immunity is equal to or superior to Vaccinated Immunity.'
`
`CLAIMS
`
`1 For a complete list of research that is current as of December 7, 2021, see https:Ubrownstone.org/articles/79-
`research-studies-affirm-naturally-acquired-immunity-to-covid-19-documented-linked-and-quoted/
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.13 Filed 12/20/21 Page 8 of 36
`
`14.
`
`Title VII requires the employer to reasonably accommodate an employees sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs and does not permit an employer to deny a requested accommodation
`
`because of "increased risk."
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Fundamentally, the idea that employees seeking religious accommodation
`may be terminated merely upon a claim of "increased risk" is flawed as a
`matter oflaw.
`
`Under Title VII the employer's burden is to show "undue hardship"-and
`merely "increased" does not without more equal "undue." See, e.g.,
`Adeyeye v. Heartland Sweeteners, LLC, 721 F.3d 444, 455 (7th Cir. 2013)
`("Title VII requires proof ... of hardship, and 'undue' hardship at that.");
`Anderson v. Gen. Dynamics Convair Aerospace Div., 589 F.2d 397,402
`(9th Cir. 1978) ("Undue hardship means something greater than
`hardship.").
`
`showing "undue" hardship and is therefore insufficient to satisfy
`BCBSM's statutory responsibility to identify undue hardship.
`
`The Defendants apparent reliance on "increased risk" is an attempt to
`import a wholly new legal standard, not countenanced by any statute, rule,
`regulation or case, to justify summarily discharging employees seeking
`religious exemptions.
`
`The law sensibly imposes a qualitative/quantitative, evidence-based
`standard. See, e.g., Nottelson v. Smith Steel Workers D.A.L.U. 19806
`which was not met in this case.
`
`15.
`
`To be clear, Plaintiffs do not concede they pose any increased risk whatsoever. C.F. AFL-
`
`CIO, 643 F.2d 445,452 (7th Cir. 1981) (rejecting "conjectural" undue hardship claim);
`
`Brown v. Gen. Motors Corp., 601 F.2d 956, 961 (8th Cir. 1979) (speculation not
`
`sufficient to discharge burden to prove undue hardship); Anderson, 589 F.2d at 402
`
`("Undue hardship cannot be proved by assumptions nor by opinions based on
`
`hypothetical facts."); Drazewski v. Waukegan Dev. Ctr., 651 F. Supp. 754, 758 (N.D. Ill.
`
`1986) (speculation does not meet undue hardship standard).
`
`a.
`
`Defendants claims regarding undue hardship are predicated on State action,
`specifically the threatened OSHA mandates and federal executive department
`pressure.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.14 Filed 12/20/21 Page 9 of 36
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`£
`
`g.
`
`Defendants claims regarding undue hardship are predicated on State actions that
`the courts have consistently overruled including a 5th Circuit nationwide
`injunction and a number of other rulings.
`
`Courts have consistently declared that the federal mandates upon which the
`Defendants in the case at bar hang their "undue hardship" claim is
`unconstitutional and should not be relied upon.
`
`The science does not support the proposition that the COVID 19 Vaccine protects
`against the spread of SARS COV-2.
`
`The science does support the proposition that the Vaccine provides at least some
`temporary protection for the vaccine recipient from death or serious consequences
`of the disease.
`
`The personal protection of an individual Plaintiff is insufficient cause to waiTant
`terminations and the denial of religious and medical exemptions.
`
`The personal protection of an individual Plaintiff is insufficient cause to waiTant
`terminations and the refusal to provide reasonable accommodations for such
`exemptions.
`
`16.
`
`Title VII requires the Defendants and Plaintiffs to engage in an interactive process to
`
`determine mitigation strategies to accommodate a Plaintiff's sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`While an interactive process was apparently engaged with a meeting
`between 1he Plaintiffs and the supervisors, the process was done in a
`biased and/or unfair way.
`
`Defendants have failed to reasonably accommodate the Plaintiffs sincerely
`held religious beliefs.
`
`17.
`
`Basic principles of law and equity require an adverse action taken by an employer or
`
`other individuals to comport with reason, justice, to not be arbitrary or capricious, and to
`
`be the least restrictive alternative to achieving the compelling interests of the employer.
`
`a.
`
`The COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate is unsupported by scientific inquiry,
`reason, and logic and is thus arbitrary and capricious.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.15 Filed 12/20/21 Page 10 of 36
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`No science supports the proposition that the COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate
`achieves the narrow goal of preventing the spread of SARS COV-2.
`
`There are many less restrictive alternatives to prevent the spread of SARS
`COV-2 and accommodate the Plaintiffs including masking, distancing,
`working from home, and other measures that fall well short of summaiy
`termination.
`
`18.
`
`There is apparently no dispute from BCBSM that each of the COVID-19 vaccines
`
`currently available in the United States were developed or tested using cell lines derived
`
`from aborted babies.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs' beliefs regarding their obligation to treat their bodies as the "temple of the
`
`Holy Spirit" and to not participate in practices which could encourage the taking of
`
`innocent life are consistent with widely held Christian religious beliefs and shared by
`
`each of the Plaintiffs.
`
`20.
`
`BCBSM has not challenged the sincerity of the Plaintiffs religious beliefs.
`
`21.
`
`The claim that the Vaccine protects other people and ameliorates the spread of SARS
`
`COV-2 is false and the entire precipice that forms this belief and all the actions supported
`
`by this belief is false and the actions taken in response are arbitrary and capricious.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`For years now we have been ordered to "follow the science" and in this case the
`science clearly and conclusively shows via number of papers that the vaccine
`does not prevent the spread of SARS-COV-2.
`
`As of the writing of this Complaint on or about December 7, 2021, there is not a
`single study published showing that the vaccinated are less of a threat to spread
`SARS COV-2 than the unvaccinated and in fact all studies clearly show a higher
`viral load in the vaccinated vs. the unvaccinated.
`
`One study found that the viral load in the pharynx of the vaccinated was 251
`times the viral load in the pharynx of the unvaccinated.2
`
`2 https:ljpeckford42.wordpress.com/2021/0S/31/scientists-fully-vaccinated-carry-251-times-the-covid-viral-load(cid:173)
`as-unvaccinated/
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.16 Filed 12/20/21 Page 11 of 36
`
`d.
`
`Thus, the claim that BCBSM is "protecting" their employees by firing the
`disobedient who have religious views is a false flag and a red herring that is
`wholly unsupported by the science.
`
`22.
`
`Defendants have violated Title VII, 42 USC Section 2000e and parallel State statutes
`
`under Title VII including the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights Act.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`h.
`
`i.
`
`The Plaintiffs have each submitted a request for a religious accommodation
`pursuant to the requirements of Title VII.
`
`Defendant has failed to articulate with particularity what the undue hardship on
`the corporation is as to any of the Plaintiffs.
`
`Defendant has given the Plaintiffs an ultimatum of ta!cing the vaccine in violation
`of faith-based conscience or being placed on unpaid leave as of December 10,
`2021 and being summarily terminated from their jobs on January 4, 2021.
`
`This ultimatum is an adverse employment action that has been taken against each
`plaintiff.
`
`Defendants did not engage in a meaningful review of the request for a religious
`accommodation as required of employers under Title VIL
`
`Defendants did not offer reasonable accommodations to the Plaintiffs before
`terminating them or threatening to terminate them.
`
`Plaintiffs have filed complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity
`Commission. Each of the complaints are still pending.
`
`They seek injunctive relief so that their requests for religious accommodation can
`be individually accessed in accordance to each individual's job duties.
`
`For those that have natural immunity, required vaccination is not an
`accommodation, is arbitrary, capricious, and dangerous to those employees who
`have contracted and recovered from COVID-19.
`
`23.
`
`Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm unless this court grants their request for an
`
`injunction preventing their final termination.
`
`a.
`
`The Plaintiffs have and will suffer irreparable harm which includes loss of
`employment, status, prestige, lost wages, lost seniority, future employment, and
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.17 Filed 12/20/21 Page 12 of 36
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`other monetary and nonmonetary damages as a consequence of following their
`sincerely held religious beliefs in denying the COVID-19 Vaccine.
`
`Plaintiffs will suffer iITeparable by the loss of their religious liberty if they take
`the vaccine or loss of employment if they do not.
`
`At least one court in Chicago has ruled that you cannot "unvaccinated" a person
`and so forcing an unwanted vaccine on a population is itself a form of irreparable
`harm ruling: "An award of back pay or reinstatement cannot undo a vaccine.
`Nothing can.".3
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`a.
`
`Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief against the Defendant BCBSM enjoining the
`
`termination of Plaintiffs and requiring it to provide an individualized assessment of each
`
`of the Plaintiffs' requests for religious accommodation and articulating for each plaintiff
`
`what undue hardship, if any, is imposed on the organization if an accommodation is
`
`granted;
`
`Economic damages against the Defendant;
`
`Nominal damages against all Defendants
`
`Attorneys' fees
`
`Costs of suit;
`
`Any and all other appropriate relief to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`~s
`
`Dave Peters, JD, MS, PhD, Esq.
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`3 Cook County District Judge Raymond Mitchell in Police Unions vs. City of Chicago Case No. CH-05276.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.18 Filed 12/20/21 Page 13 of 36
`
`STATE OF MICIIlGAN
`
`IN THE 3RD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`
`COUNTY OF WAYNE
`
`CASE NUMBER: 21-016917-CD
`HON. DAVID J. ALLEN
`
`RYAN ROMANO, on behalf of HIMSELF
`individually and for all others similarly situated
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`BLUE CROSS BLUE SIIlELD
`OF MICIIlGAN, a Michigan Corporation
`
`Defendant
`- - - - - - - - - - - - /
`Dave Peters
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Pacific Justice Institute
`Metro Detroit Office
`PO Box51787
`Livonia, MI 48154-1787
`Email: dpeters@pji.org
`Phone: (734) 743-5352
`- - - - - - - - - - - /
`
`PLAINTIFF's MOTION AND APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY
`INJUNCTION AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON
`IMPOSITION OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`NOW COMES THE PLAINTIFFS, by counsel, and for their Motion state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff is an employee of the Defendant BCBSM who works remotely and is a class
`
`representative of all BCBSM employees who are about to be terminated by virtue of
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.19 Filed 12/20/21 Page 14 of 36
`
`having submitted a request for religious exemption to the COVID 19 Vaccination and
`
`having same wrongfully denied in violation of Title VII, the Elliot Larsen Civil Rights
`
`Act, and the 1st Amendments to the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
`
`2.
`
`In response to governmental demands and pressure, Defendant, acting as an agent for the
`
`government, notified Plaintiffs in October, 2021 that they must submit to the COVID
`
`Vaccine or they would be placed on unpaid leave in December of 2021 and permanently
`
`fired on January 4, 2022.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff and the other class members have been advised that the employer will consider
`
`the refusal to submit to the COVID Vaccine by January 4, 2021 to be a "Voluntary Quit"
`
`from their employment.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff and the other class members tendered a religious exemption request with the
`
`Defendant on or about November, 2021 based on their sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`5.
`
`As of the time of filing this matter, Plaintiffs were zealously pursuing their rights and
`
`were not dilettante in any way with the matter being filed at the earliest time the case
`
`became ripe for adjudication.
`
`6.
`
`Some of the class members have already contracted COVID and have antibodies to the
`
`infection.
`
`7.
`
`There are legitimate and important questions of procedure, law and equity for this court
`
`to decide.
`
`8.
`
`To prevail in their Motion for Injunction, Plaintiffs must show 4 elements: 1).
`
`Likelihood of prevailing on the merits; 2). Irreparable Harm will accrue unless the court
`
`grants the request; 3). Balance of Equities favors the injunction; and 4). Granting the
`
`injunction is in the public interest.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.20 Filed 12/20/21 Page 15 of 36
`
`9.
`
`The likelihood of prevailing on the merits is largely subsumed in TRO and Injunction
`
`Requests with the issue of irreparable harm meaning Plaintiff cannot prevail on the merits
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`of an equitable request for injunction absent a showing of irreparable harm.
`
`Plaintiffs have already been irreparably harmed by the actions of the Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs have all been put on unpaid leave from their jobs and will all be terminated on
`
`January 4, 2022 from their jobs and will suffer irreparable, nonmonetary harm to their
`
`reputation, work history, status, prestige, lost wages, lost seniority, future employment,
`
`and other monetary and nonmonetaiy dainages.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs are not merely concerned about a mere job that can be replaced but a career that
`
`has been built over a lifetime of work and effort.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff's careers are built on relationships with other medical providers, and satisfied
`
`patients, and the actions of Defendant in placing Plaintiffs on unpaid disciplinary leave,
`
`are irrevocable harms to the Plaintiff's reputation and future work environments and said
`
`harms are ongoing and cannot be monetarily compensated.
`
`14.
`
`Said breaches and other harms are caused by the Defendants violations of Title VII
`
`specifically in denying the Plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation for their sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs.
`
`15.
`
`The underlying legal justification for Defendants continuing violations of Title VII are
`
`federal pressure from OSHA regulations which have been enjoined by the 5th Circuit.
`
`16. With the 5th Circuit Injunction, there is no compelling or legal justification for the
`
`Defendants violation of Plaintiffs religious freedom to reject the injection of substances
`
`into their bodies which violates their sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.21 Filed 12/20/21 Page 16 of 36
`
`Wherefore, Plaintiff's pray this Honorable Court to:
`
`1. GRANT its Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
`
`2. ENJOIN the Defendant from terminating the medical employees on January 4, 2022.
`
`3. FIND that the Defendants violated the required review for Religious Exemptions under
`
`Title VII which envisions an interactive process to determine whether any hardships can be
`
`accommodated;
`
`3. SCHEDULE an Evidentiary Hearing to determine if a permanent Injunction should be
`
`issued against terminating medical employees of the Defendant whose sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs have not been properly weighed and considered;
`
`4. DECREE that workers without patient contact cannot be forced to get a Vaccine to
`
`protect patients.
`
`4. ORDER that based on the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence, common sense,
`
`and many years of human history, that natural immunity is at least equal to Vaccinated
`
`"immunity."
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`
`/5
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.22 Filed 12/20/21 Page 17 of 36
`
`I •
`
`STATE OF MICIDGAN
`
`IN THE 3Ro JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
`
`COUNTY OF WAYNE
`
`CASE NUMBER: 21-016917-CD
`HON. DAVID J. ALLEN
`
`RY AN ROMANO, on behalf of HIMSELF
`individually and for all others similarly situated
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`BLUE CROSS BLUE SIDELD
`OF MICIDGAN, a Michigan Corporation
`
`Defendant
`- - - - - - - - - - - - !
`Dave Peters
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`Pacific Justice Institute
`Metro Detroit Office
`POBox51787
`Livonia, MI 48154-1787
`Email: dpeters@pji.org
`Phone: (734) 743-5352
`- - - - - - - - - - - - !
`
`PLAINTIFF's BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION AND APPLICATION FOR
`PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND FOR EVIDENTIARY HEARING ON
`IMPOSITION OF A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`Pursuant to MCR 3.310 Plaintiff brings suit and applies to this Honorable Court for an
`
`Evidentiary Hearing on Ordering a Preliminary Injunction, and such other equitable relief as the
`
`Court deems appropriate.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.23 Filed 12/20/21 Page 18 of 36
`
`FACTS
`
`Plaintiff is a class representative of those employees of the defendant who have:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Been notified that they are required to submit to the COVID 19 vaccination.
`
`Raised religious and other exemption requests objecting to the vaccine by virtue
`
`of their sincerely held religious beliefs and other reasons.
`
`3.
`
`Been denied their religious exemption and other requests.
`
`Defendant BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN is a Division of Blue Cross
`
`Blue Shield with offices throughout the State of Michigan.
`
`On or about October and November of 2021, all Plaintiffs were notified by their
`
`employer/contractor that they were required to submit to the COVID Vaccination or else they
`
`would be terminated from their positions.
`
`During the time period of October and November 2021, Plaintiffs each filed a request for
`
`religious exemption to the COVID Vaccine through an administrative process established by the
`
`Employer/Defendant. No valid determination was ever made regarding the sincerity of their
`
`religious beliefs. Instead, the Defendant refused to consider the validity of the Plaintiffs request,
`
`or evaluate the sincerity of their religious beliefs as required by the U.S. and Michigan
`
`Constitutions, case precedent, Title VII, and Elliot Larsen.
`
`Plaintiffs will show that this determination and the manner in which it was made violates
`
`the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, case law and precedent, Title VII, and
`
`basic equitable principles of due process, fairness, equity, and justice.
`
`Clearly, this "Private" mandate which has the same due date as the court rejected OSHA
`
`mandates (January 4, 2022) is, at least in part, influenced by, and reliant upon, the fear of the
`
`Federal Mandate. While extraordinary times do indeed call for extraordinary measures, there is
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-12966-SJM-JJCG ECF No. 1-1, PageID.24 Filed 12/20/21 Page 19 of 36
`
`no pandemic exception to the Bill of Rights. Congress shall make no law respecting the
`
`establishment of religion and may not infringe upon or hinder the practice of religion while
`
`private parties acting under color of federal mandates, are equally bound under Title VII to avoid
`
`infringing or even disproportionately impacting the practices ofreligious observers. The
`
`Vaccine Mandate enforced with draconian job terminations dispropo1iionately impacts Christian
`
`believers and infringes on the practice of their religion. Defendants attempts to justify their
`
`actions as "private decisions" even while following the precise dates and timetables of the
`
`enjoined federal mandates weigh against the claim that Title VII money damages are the only
`
`remedy.
`
`LAW- TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER REQUEST
`
`Decisions on granting or denying a temporary restraining order are within the discretion
`
`of the district trial court (Psychological Services of Bloomfield, Inc. v. Blue Cross & Blue
`
`Shield. 144 Mich. App. 182,375 N.W.2d 382. 1985 Mich. App. LEXIS 2798).
`
`This court must also consider four ( 4) factors: 1) whether the moving party demonstrates
`
`a strong likelihood of success on the merits; 2) whether the moving party would suffer
`
`irreparable injury without the order; 3) whether the order would cause substantial harm to others;
`
`and 4) whether the public interest would be served by the order (Chirco Title Agency. Inc. v.
`
`Tocco. 2015 Mich. App. LEXIS 969). These four (4) factors are not separate but interrelated
`
`concerns that must be balanced together.
`
`Plaintiffs have met each of these requirements. Plaintiffs have filed a Complaint alleging
`
`tl1ey will suffer irreparable injury. Plaintiffs will all be fired from their jobs if they refuse to
`
`submit to the COVID Vacc