Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 05/23/23 Page 1 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`KRISTEN PELL,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Hon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
`HURWITZ LAW PLLC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48103
`(844) 487-9489
`noah@hurwitzlaw.com
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`NOW COME Plaintiff Kristen Pell (“Plaintiff”), by and through the
`
`undersigned attorneys, and state the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Kristen Pell was terminated by Defendant after requesting a religious
`
`1.
`
`accommodation to be exempt from Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Ms.
`
`Pell timely submitted a request for deferral for the COVID-19 vaccine because she
`
`was trying to conceive, which was accepted through June 30, 2022. However, on
`
`February 8, 2022, Defendant informed Ms. Pell that instead of by June 30, 2022, she
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`KRISTEN PELL,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Hon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
`HURWITZ LAW PLLC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48103
`(844) 487-9489
`noah@hurwitzlaw.com
`
`
`
`ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`NOW COME Plaintiff Kristen Pell (“Plaintiff”), by and through the
`
`undersigned attorneys, and state the following:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Kristen Pell was terminated by Defendant after requesting a religious
`
`1.
`
`accommodation to be exempt from Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Ms.
`
`Pell timely submitted a request for deferral for the COVID-19 vaccine because she
`
`was trying to conceive, which was accepted through June 30, 2022. However, on
`
`February 8, 2022, Defendant informed Ms. Pell that instead of by June 30, 2022, she
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 05/23/23 Page 2 of 14
`
`would need to receive both doses of the vaccine by March 18, 2022 and submit
`
`documentation by April 1, 2022. She was also informed that Defendant “made the
`
`decision whereby additional exemption, including religious exemption requests will
`
`NOT be an option.” Ms. Pell decided to submit a religious accommodation request,
`
`as her sincerely held religious beliefs constrain her from receiving the vaccine.
`
`Defendant denied this request, and Ms. Pell was then forced either abandon her
`
`religious accommodation beliefs and receive the vaccine or be terminated. Despite
`
`the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) telling employers to
`
`“ordinarily assume that an employee’s request for religious accommodation is based
`
`on sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance,” Defendant did the
`
`opposite. Defendant terminated Ms. Pell based on Defendant’s subjective standard
`
`of religiosity.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`Kristen Pell resides in Jackson, Michigan.
`
`Defendant Trinity Health Corporation is a domestic for-profit
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`corporation incorporated in Michigan.
`
`4.
`
`The Eastern District of Michigan has jurisdiction over the Title VII of
`
`the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”)
`
`claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 05/23/23 Page 3 of 14
`
`5.
`
`Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) because it is the judicial district in which Defendant is
`
`incorporated and where the incidents described in this Complaint took place.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff received a Notice of Right to Sue from the U.S. Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 1, 2023.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`Defendant’s Mandatory Vaccine Policy
`
`7.
`
`Defendant announced its COVID-19 vaccination mandate on July 8,
`
`2021.
`
`8.
`
`The deadline for employees to receive the first dose of the vaccine was
`
`September 21, 2021.
`
`9.
`
`The employees were to submit exemption requests or proof of
`
`vaccination by August 20, 2021.
`
`Plaintiff’s Religious Accommodation Requests
`
`10. After Defendant announced its mandate, Plaintiff promptly submitted
`
`and was approved for a deferral of the COVID-19 vaccination because she was
`
`trying to conceive.
`
`11. On October 19, 2021, when Plaintiff’s deferral was approved, she was
`
`given the new deadline of June 30, 2022.
`
`12. However, on February 8, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiff further
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 05/23/23 Page 4 of 14
`
`communication informing her that her deadline was now March 18, 2022, and that
`
`she needed to submit proof of vaccination by April 1, 2022.
`
`13. Additionally, Defendant asserted that it “made the decision whereby
`
`additional exemption, including religious exemption requests will NOT be an
`
`option.”
`
`14. Despite Defendant’s unlawful stipulation, Plaintiff submitted a
`
`religious accommodation request as her sincerely held religious beliefs constrain her
`
`from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`15. Plaintiff’s religious objections to the vaccine were straightforward and
`
`similar to those accepted by Defendant.
`
`16. On June 27, 2022, Defendant denied Plaintiff’s request for religious
`
`accommodation.
`
`17. Defendant did not describe the “specific criteria” for Plaintiff’s
`
`sincerely held religious beliefs were evaluated on.
`
`18. Plaintiff was terminated from employment on July 8, 2022.
`
`19. Under the law, religious practices “include moral or ethical beliefs as
`
`to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of traditional
`
`religious views.” 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1.
`
`20. Defendant assumed insincerity when the opposite should have been
`
`true – see Guidance, supra (“[T]he employer should ordinarily assume that an
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 05/23/23 Page 5 of 14
`
`employee’s request for religious accommodation is based on sincerely held religious
`
`belief, practice, or observance.”)
`
`21. The fact that an employee submits to some vaccines but not others in
`
`no way negates the sincerity of his or her beliefs. See id. (“[E]mployees need not
`
`be scrupulous in their observance.”); Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind. Employment Sec.
`
`Div., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981) (holding that religious beliefs “need not be
`
`acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others” to merit protection).
`
`22.
`
`“If the employer denies the employee’s proposed accommodation, the
`
`employer should explain to the employee why the preferred accommodation is not
`
`being granted.” Id.
`
`23. Defendant did not explain why it could not accommodate Plaintiff.
`
`24. Generally, the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs “is not open
`
`to question.” United States v Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965). Title VII’s statutory
`
`definition of “religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and practice, as
`
`well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
`
`25. Defendant evaded any sort of “bilateral cooperation,” Ansonia Bd. of
`
`Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 69 (1986). “Bilateral cooperation is appropriate in
`
`the search for an acceptable reconciliation of the needs of the employee’s religion
`
`and the exigencies of the employer’s business.” Id.
`
`26. Defendant’s accommodation process was arbitrary.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 05/23/23 Page 6 of 14
`
`27. Defendant did not explore available reasonable alternatives to the
`
`vaccine.
`
`Defendant Did Not Base Its Decision on Undue Hardship,
`Nor Could It Establish Undue Hardship
`
`28. The prohibition against religious discrimination imposes a “duty” on
`
`employers to accommodate sincere religious beliefs, absent “undue hardship.”
`
`Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison, 432 U.S. 63, 74 (1977).
`
`29. The employer, not the employee, bears the burden of showing “that it
`
`is unable to reasonably accommodate the employee’s religious beliefs without
`
`incurring undue hardship.” McDaniel v. Essex Intern., Inc., 571 F.2d 338, 341 (6th
`
`Cir. 1978).
`
`30. An employer does not satisfy its burden of proving undue hardship
`
`“merely by showing that an accommodation would be bothersome to administer or
`
`disruptive of the operating routine.” Draper v. United States Pipe & Foundry Co.,
`
`527 F.2d 515, 520 (6th Cir. 1975). The operative word is “undue,” meaning that
`
`“something greater” than a mere hardship is required. Id.
`
`31. Defendant cannot satisfy its burden of proving undue hardship.
`
`32. Defendant’s allegations are based in religious animus rather than
`
`science.
`
`33. Plaintiff was more than willing to comply with all safety protocols,
`
`even though she had no proximity to her coworkers.
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 05/23/23 Page 7 of 14
`
`34. Any allegation of undue hardship lacks scientific backing and, in fact,
`
`directly contravene scientific evidence supporting the effectiveness of practices such
`
`as handwashing and wearing respirators in preventing infection and death. Stella
`
`Talic et al., Effectiveness of public health measures in reducing the incidence of
`
`covid-19, SARS-CoV-2 transmission, and covid-19 mortality: systematic review and
`
`meta-analysis, Brit. Med. J (2021).
`
`COUNT I
`Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION–FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE
`
`35. Plaintiff restates the foregoing paragraphs as set forth fully herein.
`
`36. Title VII prohibits an employer from discriminating against an
`
`employee “because of such individual’s . . . religion.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-
`
`2(a)(1). Title VII’s definition of “religion” includes “all aspects of religious
`
`observance and practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).
`
`37. Plaintiff can establish prima facie cases of discrimination by showing
`
`(1) she holds sincere religious beliefs that conflict with an employment requirement;
`
`(2) she informed her employer of same; and (3) she was disciplined for failing to
`
`comply with the employment requirement.” Yeager v. FirstEnergy Generation
`
`Corp, 777 F.3d 362, 363 (6th Cir. 2015).
`
`38. Plaintiff holds sincere religious beliefs that conflict with Defendant’s
`
`vaccine mandate.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 05/23/23 Page 8 of 14
`
`39. Plaintiff informed Defendant of the same.
`
`40. Plaintiff was disciplined for failing to comply with the vaccine
`
`mandate.
`
`41. Defendant evaded any sort of “bilateral cooperation,” Ansonia Bd. of
`
`Educ. v. Philbrook, 479 U.S. 60, 69 (1986).
`
`42. Defendant could have instituted multiple reasonable accommodations
`
`without undue hardship, including sanitizing, disinfecting, handwashing, respirator-
`
`wearing, and regular testing.
`
`43. Defendant never explained why Plaintiff could not be accommodated.
`
`44. Defendant never explained why no accommodations could have
`
`worked.
`
`45. Due to her termination, Plaintiff has suffered emotional and physical
`
`distress, mental and physical anguish,
`
`loss of
`
`reputation, humiliation,
`
`embarrassment, and the physical effects associated therewith; and Plaintiff will
`
`continue to suffer in the future.
`
`46. Plaintiff has been denied employment, placed in financial distress,
`
`suffered a loss of earnings and benefits, suffered a loss of health insurance coverage,
`
`and suffered a loss of and impairment of their earning capacity and ability to work.
`
`47. Defendant’s actions were intentional and/or reckless.
`
`COUNT II
`Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 05/23/23 Page 9 of 14
`
`
`
`DISPARATE TREATMENT DISCRIMINATION
`
`48. Plaintiff restates the foregoing paragraphs as set forth fully herein.
`
`49.
`
`“To assert a successful claim of religious discrimination . . . a plaintiff
`
`must either present direct evidence of discrimination, or, in the absence of direct
`
`evidence, present a prima facie case of indirect discrimination by showing (1) they
`
`were a member of a protected class, (2) they experienced an adverse employment
`
`action (3) they were qualified for the position, and (4) they were replaced by a person
`
`outside of the protected class or were treated differently than similarly situated
`
`employees.” Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508, 515 (6th Cir. 2007).
`
`50. Plaintiff espoused religious beliefs and is therefore a member of a
`
`protected class.
`
`51. Defendant directly discriminated against Plaintiff by terminating them
`
`after they stated their sincerely held religious beliefs that conflicted with
`
`Defendant’s subjected standard of religiosity.
`
`52. Defendant allowed other unvaccinated employees without Plaintiff’s
`
`same religious beliefs to be exempted from Defendant’s vaccine mandate policy.
`
`53.
`
`It is undisputed that Plaintiff was qualified for the position.
`
`54. Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated employees with
`
`different religious beliefs who were allowed to continue working despite not being
`
`vaccinated.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 05/23/23 Page 10 of 14
`
`55. Plaintiff was terminated and replaced with a person of different
`
`religious beliefs.
`
`56. Plaintiff has suffered emotional and physical distress, mental and
`
`physical anguish, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, and the physical
`
`effects associated therewith because of the denial of their requests and will so suffer
`
`in the future.
`
`COUNT III
`VIOLATION OF ELCRA, MCL 37.2101, et seq.
`DISPARATE TREATMENT AND INTENTIONAL DISCRIMINATION
`57. Plaintiff incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference herein.
`
`
`
`58. Plaintiff holds sincere religious beliefs that conflict with Defendant’s
`
`COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
`
`59. Plaintiff informed Defendant how these sincerely held religious beliefs
`
`conflicted with Defendant’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
`
`60.
`
`“To assert a successful claim of religious discrimination . . . a plaintiff
`
`must either present direct evidence of discrimination, or, in the absence of direct
`
`evidence, present a prima facie case of indirect discrimination by showing that the
`
`employee (1) was a member of a protected class; (2) experienced an adverse
`
`employment action; (3) was qualified for the position; and (4) was replaced by a
`
`person outside of the protected class or that the employee was treated differently
`
`than similarly situated employees.” Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d 508, 515 (6th Cir.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 05/23/23 Page 11 of 14
`
`2007).
`
`61. Defendant directly discriminated against Plaintiff based on termination
`
`after the employee espoused sincerely held religious beliefs that conflicted with
`
`Defendant’s policy.
`
`62. Defendant allowed other unvaccinated employees without Plaintiff’s
`
`same religious beliefs to be exempted from Defendant’s vaccine mandate policy.
`
`63. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs qualify the employee as a
`
`member of a protected class.
`
`64. Plaintiff was qualified for the position.
`
`65. Plaintiff was treated differently than similarly situated employees with
`
`different religious beliefs who were allowed to continue working despite being
`
`unvaccinated.
`
`66. Plaintiff was terminated and replaced with a person of different
`
`religious beliefs.
`
`67. Defendant also terminated Plaintiff based on Defendant’s own
`
`subjective standard of religiosity, thus directly discriminating against Plaintiff’s
`
`unique sincerely held spiritual beliefs.
`
`68. EEOC Guidance states that (“[t]he definition of ‘religion’ under Title
`
`VII protects both traditional and nontraditional religious beliefs . . . including those
`
`that may be unfamiliar to employers.”)
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 05/23/23 Page 12 of 14
`
`69. The law on religious discrimination states that religious beliefs need not
`
`be “acceptable, logical, consistent or comprehensible to others” and the law “leaves
`
`little room for a party to challenge the religious nature of an employee’s professed
`
`beliefs.”). E.E.O.C. v. Union Independiente de la Autoridad de Acueductos y
`
`Alcantarillados de Puerto Rico, 279 F.3d 49, 56 (1st Cir. 2002).
`
`70. Defendant defied the law when it determined that some religious beliefs
`
`of its employees were valid and while others were bogus.
`
`71.
`
`In discovery, Plaintiff will be able to investigate which types of
`
`religious beliefs Defendant found were acceptable and which types of religious
`
`beliefs Defendant discriminated against, thereby establishing evidence probative of
`
`discriminatory intent.
`
`72. Plaintiff has suffered emotional and physical distress, mental and
`
`physical anguish, loss of reputation, humiliation, embarrassment, and the physical
`
`effects associated therewith because of the termination and will so suffer in the
`
`future.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the following relief:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Compensatory damages for monetary and non-monetary loss;
`
`Exemplary and punitive damages;
`
`Prejudgment interest;
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 05/23/23 Page 13 of 14
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`Reasonable attorney’s fees; and
`
`Such other relief as in law or equity may pertain.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`HURWITZ LAW, PLLC
`
`
`
`/s/ Noah S. Hurwitz
`Noah Hurwitz (P74063)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48103
`(844) 487-9489
`noah@hurwitzlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-11217-FKB-APP ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 05/23/23 Page 14 of 14
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASETERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`SOUTHERN DIVISION
`
`
`KRISTEN PELL,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TRINITY HEALTH CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Hon.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
`HURWITZ LAW PLLC
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`340 Beakes Street, Suite 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48103
`(844) 487-9489
`noah@hurwitzlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Plaintiff Kristen Pell (“Plaintiff”), by and through her attorneys Hurwitz Law,
`
`PLLC, hereby demand a trial by jury, for all issues so triable.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: May 23, 2023
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully Submitted,
`HURWITZ LAW, PLLC
`
`/s/ Noah S. Hurwitz
`Noah Hurwitz (P74063)
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
