Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 05/20/22 Page 1 of 33
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
`
`
`MELINDA CHALLENDER, JESSICA GREENE,
`
`BRITTANY KRITZ, DARNELL MUDGETT,
`MIKAELA SCHAEFER, and ASHLEY TRYLCH,
`On their own behalf and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No.
`
`Hon.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`NORTHWEST MICHIGAN SURGERY CENTER,
`L.L.C. d/b/a COPPER RIDGE SURGERY CENTER,
`
`
`
`Noah S. Hurwitz (P74063)
`Grant M. Vlahopoulos (P85633)
`Kara F. Krause (P85487)
`HURWITZ LAW PLLC
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`617 Detroit St., Ste. 125
`Ann Arbor, MI 48104
`(844) 487-9489
`Noah@hurwitzlaw.com
`Grant@hurwitzlaw.com
`Kara@hurwitzlaw.com
`
`
`There is no other pending or resolved civil action arising out
`of this transaction or occurrence alleged in the Complaint.
`
`COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Melinda Challender, Jessica Greene, Brittany Kritz, Darnell Mudgett, Mikaela
`
`Schaefer, and Ashley Trylch (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves and all other
`
`similarly situated individuals, by and through their attorneys, Hurwitz Law PLLC, state the
`
`following for their Complaint and Jury Demand against Defendant Northwest Michigan Surgery
`
`Center, L.L.C. d/b/a Copper Ridge Surgery Center (hereinafter, “Defendant”):
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 05/20/22 Page 2 of 33
`
`Religious freedom has been “zealously protected, sometimes even at the expense of other
`interests of admittedly high social importance.”
`
`
`Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 214 (1972).
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`There is no pandemic exception to the protections afforded by Title VII of the Civil
`
`Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”) and the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act (“ELCRA”). Defendant
`
`clearly did not understand this when it terminated Plaintiffs in retaliation for requesting a religious
`
`accommodation to the COVID-19 vaccine. Instead of engaging with Plaintiffs in the spirit of
`
`“bilateral cooperation,” Defendant denied their religious accommodation requests without
`
`justification.
`
`2.
`
`This action is also brought pursuant to the opt-in collective action provisions of the
`
`Fair Labor Standards Act (the “FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (sometimes referred to as an “opt-in”
`
`class action). Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of all other employees
`
`of Defendant, present and former, who were and/or are affected by the actions, pay schemes,
`
`policies and procedures of Defendant. In addition, Plaintiffs bring this action in their individual
`
`capacity, separate and apart from the collective action claims set forth herein.
`
`PARTIES AND JURISDICTION
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff Melinda Challender (“Plaintiff Challender”) was a Medical Records Clerk
`
`for Defendant. Plaintiff Challender submitted a religious accommodation request on November
`
`23, 2021, to which Defendant responded by terminating her on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff
`
`Challender is an individual residing in Traverse City, Michigan, which is located in Grand
`
`Traverse County.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Jessica Greene (“Plaintiff Greene”) was a Medical Records Clerk for
`
`Defendant. Plaintiff Greene submitted a religious accommodation request on November 23, 2021,
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 05/20/22 Page 3 of 33
`
`to which Defendant responded by terminating him her February 3, 2022. Plaintiff Greene is an
`
`individual residing in Traverse City, Michigan, which is located in Grand Traverse County.
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff Brittany Kritz (“Plaintiff Kritz”) was a Clinical Registered Nurse for
`
`Defendant. Plaintiff Kritz submitted a religious accommodation request on November 29, 2021,
`
`to which Defendant responded by terminating her on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff Kritz is an
`
`individual residing in Traverse City, Michigan, which is located in Grand Traverse County.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Darnell Mudgett (“Plaintiff Mudgett”) was an Operating Room Aid for
`
`Defendant. Plaintiff Mudgett submitted a religious accommodation request on November 29,
`
`2021, to which Defendant responded by terminating him on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff Mudgett
`
`is an individual residing in Traverse City, Michigan, which is located in Grand Traverse County.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff Mikaela Schaefer (“Plaintiff Schaefer”) was a Radiology Technician for
`
`Defendant. Plaintiff Schaefer submitted a religious accommodation request on November 18,
`
`2021, to which Defendant responded by terminating her on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff Schafer is
`
`an individual residing in Williamsburg, Michigan, which is located in Grand Traverse County.
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Ashley Trylch (“Plaintiff Trylch”) was an Operating Room Registered
`
`Nurse for Defendant. Plaintiff Trylch submitted a religious accommodation request on November
`
`29, 2021, to which Defendant responded by terminating her on February 3, 2022. Plaintiff Trylch
`
`is an individual residing in Traverse City, Michigan, which is located in Grand Traverse County.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant is a Michigan domestic limited liability company with its principal place
`
`of business in Traverse City, Michigan. Defendant’s registered agent is located in Plymouth,
`
`Michigan.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of Defendant’s violation of ELCRA and the Fair Labor
`
`Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201, et seq.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 05/20/22 Page 4 of 33
`
`11.
`
`12.
`
`This Court has general federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`Venue is proper in the Western District of Michigan pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391,
`
`as it is the district where the events giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims took place and where Defendant
`
`regularly conducts business.
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiffs submitted Charges of Discrimination with the Equal Employment
`
`Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) on March 29, 2022 and will amend this Complaint to add
`
`claims under Title VII upon receipt of an EEOC Right to Sue letter.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`COVID-19 and Defendant’s Response to
`the Center of Medicare and Medicaid Services Interim Final Rule
`
`By Spring 2020, the SARS-CoV2 (“COVID-19”) virus had spread to many nations,
`
`14.
`
`including the United States.
`
`15.
`
`In that timeframe, Defendant began implementing certain mitigation procedures for
`
`its workforce, such as wearing masks or other Personal Protective Equipment (“PPE”),
`
`maintaining minimum distances from other workers, and receiving body temperature checks. In
`
`addition, Defendant increased the cleaning and sanitation of its facilities.
`
`16.
`
`17.
`
`Defendant’s services never ceased during the COVID-19 pandemic.
`
`Defendant’s employees were required to enter Defendant’s facility regardless of
`
`vaccination status while donning PPE.
`
`18.
`
`On or about November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
`
`(“CMS”) issued an emergency regulation entitled “CMS Omnibus COVID-19 Health Care Staff
`
`Vaccination Interim Final Rule,” which requires that certain employers who are certified under the
`
`Medicare and Medicaid programs to issue a policy requiring all employees to be vaccinated against
`
`COVID-19 (the “CMS Mandate”)
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.5 Filed 05/20/22 Page 5 of 33
`
`19.
`
`Thereafter, on November 12, 2021, Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer, Tina
`
`Piotrowski (“Ms. Piotrowski”), sent an email to all staff with the subject heading, “COVID-19
`
`Exemption Form and vaccination card update.” The email announced Defendant’s compliance
`
`with the CMS Mandate.
`
`20. Ms. Piotrowski outlined the CMS Mandate’s timeline for employees to receive the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine. All staff were required to receive the first dose of a two-dose COVID-19
`
`vaccine or a one-dose COVID-19 vaccine prior to December 5, 2021 and be fully vaccinated by
`
`January 4, 2022.
`
`21. Ms. Piotrowski’s email claimed, “We are working on an official CRSC policy,”
`
`which foreshadowed Defendant’s own internal policy mandating COVID-19 vaccination.
`
`22. Ms. Piotrowski also acknowledged that the CMS Mandate carves out exemptions
`
`to the mandate based on sincerely held bona fide religious beliefs, observances, or practices and
`
`for medical conditions.
`
`23.
`
`Accordingly, Defendant elicited accommodation requests, and the last day to
`
`submit applications for religious or medical exemptions was November 30, 2021—just 18 days
`
`after Defendant announced it would implement a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
`
`Plaintiffs’ Employment and Religious Accommodation Requests
`
`24.
`
`Defendant’s exemption form asked four questions:
`
`(1)
`
`(2)
`
`(3)
`
`Please identify your sincerely held religious belief, practice
`or observance and describe how that prohibits you from
`receiving the COVID-19 vaccination;
`
`Please indicate the religious nature on which you object to
`the COVID-19 vaccine;
`
`accommodation or
`the particular
`identify
`Please
`modification
`to your position requirements you are
`requesting; and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.6 Filed 05/20/22 Page 6 of 33
`
`
`
`(4)
`
`How long you will require this exemption?
`
`All Plaintiffs submitted their religious accommodation requests detailing their
`
`25.
`
`sincerely held bona fide religious beliefs precluding vaccination.
`
`26.
`
`The sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs is not open to question. See Equal emp.
`
`Opportunity Comm’n v. Publix Super Markets, Inc., 471 F. Supp. 3d 684, 699 (M.D. Tenn. 2020);
`
`citing United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 185 (1965) (“[T]he truth of a belief is not open to
`
`question).
`
`27.
`
`Title VII’s definition of “religion” includes “all aspects of religious observance and
`
`practice, as well as belief.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j); see also 29 C.F.R. § 1605.1 (“In most cases
`
`whether or not a practice or belief is religious is not at issue… [R]eligious practices… include
`
`moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong which are sincerely held with the strength of
`
`traditional religious views.”).
`
`28.
`
`An individual’s testimony about his or her belief “must be given great weight” and
`
`is enough to show she has a bona fide religious belief. See e.g., Seeger, 380 U.S. at 184 (1965)
`
`(When dealing “with the beliefs of different individuals who will articulate them in a multitude of
`
`ways… the claim of the [party] that his [or her] belief is an essential part of a religious faith must
`
`be given great weight).
`
`29. Moreover, “[a]s long as a party’s beliefs are religiously asserted, it is not for the
`
`courts to challenge the truthfulness of such assertions simply because they developed ‘from
`
`revelation, study, upbringing, gradual evolution, or some source that appears entirely
`
`incomprehensible.” E.E.O.C. v. Alliant Techsystems, Inc., No. CIV.A. 98-0084-R, 1998 WL
`
`777015, at *6 (W.D. Va. Sept. 18, 1998) (quoting Hobbie v. Unemployment Comm’n of Fla., 480
`
`U.S. 136, 144 n. 9 (1987)).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.7 Filed 05/20/22 Page 7 of 33
`
`30.
`
`There is no factual predicate in the record to suggest that Plaintiffs lacked sincerity
`
`in their religious beliefs.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiffs’ requests for accommodation
`
`included scripture and anecdotal
`
`illustrations of their sincerely held religious beliefs precluding vaccination.
`
`32.
`
`For example, Plaintiff Schaefer submitted her religious accommodation request
`
`November 14, 2021. Plaintiff Schaefer wrote, in pertinent part:
`
`This vaccine is in conflict with my deeply held religious beliefs. My
`God has dictated that I am fearfully and wonderfully made, and
`receiving the COVID-19 vaccination would go against that belief.
`Psalm 139: 13-14. “For you created my inmost being; you knit me
`together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully
`and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full
`well.” Christ is my strength and my savior. I talk with Him and
`pray to Him throughout my days, as He walks besides me, guiding
`me in all I do. I trust in my God and His plan for me. I believe if I
`were to get Covid-19, I could fight it off because of His strength in
`me and the good health He has provided me…
`
`
`*
`*
`*
`I have been a member of Sacred Heart Roman Catholic Church in
`Elk Rapids, MI since I was a child. I attend most every weekend
`with my husband and 10 month old daughter, with both of our
`parents beside us. I was baptized and received first communion as
`a Catholic. My husband and I were married at Sacred Heart and our
`daughter was baptized May 2, 2021 and became a child of God and
`a member of Sacred Heart as well…
`
` 1
`
` Corinthians 6:19-20. “Do you not know that your bodies are
`temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received
`from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price.
`Therefore honor God with your bodies.” As a practice catholic I do
`not agree with abortion and know that the COVID-19 vaccine uses
`fetal cell in lines in research, testing and production. Fetal cell lines
`were used to develop and test the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
`Additionally fetal cell lines are being used in the production of the
`Johnson & Johnson vaccination also. I would feel immoral about
`putting a vaccine inside my body that has any association with the
`abortion of babies. My body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit and
`must be honored as such, so I am very conscious of what I put into
`my body.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.8 Filed 05/20/22 Page 8 of 33
`
`
`Plaintiff Schaefer’s accommodation request also provided ample notice of her
`
`33.
`
`pregnancy-related condition (i.e., as a breastfeeding mother) and her desire for reasonable
`
`accommodation. She stated:
`
`Psalm 127:3. Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward
`from him. As a breastfeeding mother, I am very worried about
`receiving the COVID-19 vaccine . . . [T]his vaccine is not even
`authorized for children under the age of five . . .
`
`Employees are entitled to reasonable accommodations for pregnancy-related
`
`34.
`
`conditions, such as breastfeeding.
`
`35.
`
`“A pregnant employee may be entitled to reasonable accommodation under the
`
`ADA for limitations resulting from pregnancy-related conditions…” Enforcement Guidance on
`
`Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues, EQUAL EMP. OPPORTUNITY COMM’N
`
`(2015), https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/enforcement-guidance-pregnancy-discrimination-
`
`and-related-issues#IIB.
`
`36.
`
`Further, on November 22, 2021, Plaintiff Challender submitted a three-page letter
`
`entitled, “Notice of my Deeply Held Religious Beliefs and Convictions.” Plaintiff Challender
`
`wrote, in pertinent part:
`
`My deeply held religious beliefs and convictions come from my love
`for HaShem (the Creator of
`the Universe) and for His
`commandments, decrees, ordinances, and statutes as taught in the
`Jewish Torah and Tanakh . . . I believe our bodies have been
`designed by our Creator to operate in a certain way and vaccines are
`diametrically opposed to that way… Genesis 1:26 states: “Let us
`make Man in Our image, after Our likeness.” Verse 27 states: “So
`Elohim created Man in His image, in the image of Elohim He
`created him; male and female He created them.” And verse 31 states
`“And Elohim saw all that He had made, and behold it was very
`good.” This means that man was created with everything he needed
`to survive this world healthy and happy. Vaccines, by their very
`design and nature, corrupt our bodies’ natural defenses against
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.9 Filed 05/20/22 Page 9 of 33
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`diseases, viruses, bacteria, etc. and therefore is a corruption of the
`body itself…
`
`
`
`Psalm 139: 13-16 states that the Creator created our minds and
`fashioned us win our mother’s womb, that we are “awesomely and
`wondrously made” and that “His work is “wonderful.” The
`the 6th
`Scriptures also states, “though shall not murder,”
`commandment of the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13; Deut.
`5:17). To take a human being’s life at the most vulnerable and
`helpless stage of their lives in their mother’s womb is not only out
`and out murder, but then harvest the victim’s body for parts for use
`in vaccines and other products takes it to a whole new level… To
`allow such a product made from this heinous act to be injected into
`my body would be an outrage!
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`37.
`
`*
`
`*
`
`*
`
`To love HaShem with all my mind, soul, and strength, and to keep
`His Commandments is the very essence of my deeply held religious
`beliefs and convictions. The knowing or willing violation of any of
`his Commandments is rebellion and sin, and carries consequences.
`(Exodus 20:1-14, Deuteronomy 5; 6:4-5; 10:12; 11:1, Leviticus 20,
`etc.).
`
`Plaintiff Greene submitted her religious accommodation request on November 23,
`
`2021. Plaintiff Greene wrote, in pertinent part:
`
`My sincerely held religious beliefs are based on a Christian
`Worldview. I pray on a daily basis that I wouldn’t have to make this
`decision, and that my sincerely held religious beliefs are not
`discriminated against. No two people walk the same path with God
`even though we may be part of the same religious/denomination
`does not mean that our religious convictions are 100% the same. I
`hold myself to my own personal morals, ethics and religious views.
`God teaches us that our bodies are a temple of the Holy Spirit, and
`we are to treat them as such. The COVID shots are an unclean
`mechanism for altering my God given temple (body). All three of
`the currently available COVID shots are derived from or developed
`with, or tested with fetal cell lines. I will not be subjected to a
`treatment that directly violates my sincerely held belief in the
`sanctity of life or alter my temple (body) in ways that go against my
`religious beliefs. I will not betray my God, my relationship with
`Him, or my sacred values.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.10 Filed 05/20/22 Page 10 of 33
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Kritz submitted her religious accommodation request on November 27,
`
`2021. Plaintiff Kritz wrote, in pertinent part:
`
`I feel that there is a sincere disregard for my beliefs when it comes
`to the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. It is my obligation to protect
`my body, the temple that God made to be, from being injected with
`experimental ingredients such as fetal tissue, or any type of cell
`lines, and other foreign substances that were not originally intended
`for use in my body. I firmly believe my body was made perfectly
`as it is. “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the
`spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God,
`him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple
`ye are.” Corinthians 3:16-17. In addition, I would prefer to live my
`life making my own decisions not based on coercion, manipulation,
`or intimidation by others, “… I send you forth as sheep in the midst
`of wolves: be ye therefore wise of serpents, and harmless as doves.”
`Matthew 10:16.
`
`Furthermore, as part of this religious exemption, I request being able
`to do my job and not be treated differently for my beliefs, just as I
`do not treat anybody else differently in the workplace for their
`beliefs. This is not only part of my constitutional rights, but also the
`Golden Rule, which I embody wholeheartedly. And, I hope that by
`continuing to wear masks during work hours just like everybody
`else, that this alone will suffice. In conclusion, this is an
`unfathomable requirement that would bring dishonor to my
`body/temple of God.
`
`Plaintiff Trylch submitted her religious accommodation request on November 28,
`
`39.
`
`2021. Plaintiff Trylch wrote, in pertinent part:
`
`I have prayed about how to respond to this directive, and in light
`receiving a COVID-19 vaccine would violate my sincerely held
`religious beliefs. As a baptized Christian I believe life begins at
`conception and ends at natural death. I believe that my body belongs
`to God and is the temple of the Holy Spirit. “Do you not know that
`your bodies are temples of the holy spirit, who is in you, whom you
`have received from God? You are not your own, you were bought
`at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”(1 Cor 6: 19-20).
`
`As a Christian I fear God, and follow His word. “Do you not know
`that you are God’s temple and that God’s spirit dwells in you? If
`anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy him. For God’s
`temple is holy, and you are that temple.” (1 Cor 3:16-17) The
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.11 Filed 05/20/22 Page 11 of 33
`
`COVID-19 vaccines are in direct conflict with my deeply held
`religious beliefs against using fetal cell lines in my body. Fetal cell
`lines are derived from aborted fetuses. I do not believe in abortion.
`Abortion is murder. God says, “You shall not murder.” (Exodus
`20:13) I respectfully refuse to inject these fetal cell line vaccines into
`my body. My spiritual and religious foundation has instilled pro-life
`and anti-abortion values in my beliefs. COVID-19 vaccines use fetal
`cell lines in research, testing, and production. Fetal cell lines were
`used to develop and test both the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines. Fetal
`cell lines are being used in the production of the Janssen vaccine.
`My Lord is the only vaccine I need for protection from COVID-19.
`God has graciously blessed me with a healthy immune system which
`will help me fight off any sickness I may encounter and in turn give
`me a natural immunity. Going against His Holy guidance would be
`a sin.
`
`Religious exemption is not only a right but consequential to a
`believer who has fully put their trust in the Lord Jesus Christ to heal
`them. Listening to the Holy Spirit in times of guidance is key to
`giving life to the word of God. This notion gives the true inner
`strength and heart of the believer to remain steadfast and
`unmovable.
`
`All Plaintiffs sought to make daily decisions, including those regarding vaccination
`
`40.
`
`and other medical decisions, through faith-based reasoning.
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs sincerely held religious beliefs precluded them from taking the COVID-
`
`19 vaccine.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiffs’
`
`accommodation
`
`requests
`
`also proposed
`
`several
`
`reasonable
`
`accommodations, including mask wearing, social distancing, daily and/or weekly testing, and
`
`working remotely in lieu of vaccination.
`
`43.
`
`Consistent use of a face mask or respirator is associated with lower odds of
`
`infection. See Kristin L. Andrejko et al., Effectiveness of Face Mask or Respirator Use in Indoor
`
`Public Settings, CTRS. FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (2022), available at
`
`https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7106e1.htm.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.12 Filed 05/20/22 Page 12 of 33
`
`44.
`
`None of the proposed accommodations were ever discussed with Plaintiffs, let
`
`alone seriously considered.
`
`45.
`
`On November 30, 2021—the deadline for Defendant’s employees to submit
`
`accommodation requests—a nationwide preliminary injunction was entered against the CMS
`
`Mandate, which temporarily ceased all implementation or enforcement of it. See Louisiana v.
`
`Becerra, No. 3:21-CV-03970, 2021 WL 5609846, at *17 (W.D. La. Nov. 30, 2021)
`
`46.
`
`Although all Plaintiffs submitted their religious accommodation requests in a
`
`timely manner before the November 30, 2021 deadline, Defendant delayed making its
`
`determinations until January 2022 as a result of the CMS Mandate being enjoined.
`
`47.
`
`All Plaintiffs remained unvaccinated and worked in Defendant’s facility for the
`
`entire month of December 2021 with no ill effects on Defendant’s operations or worsening in the
`
`health of Defendant’s employees and patients.
`
`Defendant’s Vaccine Mandate and Religious Discrimination
`
`48.
`
`On December 2, 2021, Ms. Piotrowski sent an email to all staff with a subject
`
`heading entitled “UPDATED CRSC Covid Vaccine Policy.” The message announced that
`
`Defendant was creating its own COVID-19 policy (the “Policy”), which substantially mirrored the
`
`requirements under the CMS Mandate.
`
`49. Ms. Piotrowski declared, “I know this has been a difficult time for many of you and
`
`there have been some difficult decisions made. We appreciate all that you are doing to stay in
`
`compliance with our policies . . . In light of the recent judicial stay of the CMS Covid Vaccine
`
`Mandate on 11/30/21, CRSC has revised our policy. The main change to the policy is that we will
`
`extend the deadline one week until December 13[, 2022]. On December 13, [2022,] all staff
`
`reporting to work will need to comply with the policy.”
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.13 Filed 05/20/22 Page 13 of 33
`
`50.
`
`All employees were required to receive, at a minimum, the first dose of a primary
`
`series or a single dose COVID-19 vaccine, meaning the first dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine
`
`or the only dose of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine by December 31, 2021 and a second dose by
`
`January 10, 2022.
`
`51.
`
`However, the Policy implied that denial of the accommodation request was a
`
`foregone conclusion: “Exemptions may be appropriate in certain limited circumstances, but no
`
`exemption will be provided to any employee . . . who requests an exemption solely to evade
`
`vaccination.” Of course, not desiring vaccination is the reason an employee files a religious and/or
`
`medical accommodation request.
`
`52.
`
`The Policy’s “Scope” provides: “This policy pertains to all CRSC employees,
`
`licensed practitioners, students, trainees, and volunteers, and includes individuals who provide
`
`care, treatment, or other services for the facility and/or its patients under contract or other
`
`arrangements regardless of work site, whether working in-person or remotely, but excludes
`
`individuals who provide services 100% remotely and do not have any direct contact with patients
`
`or other staff.”
`
`53.
`
`The Policy’s “Purpose” states: The purpose of this [P]olicy is to establish
`
`guidelines for COVID-19 vaccination for all CRSC employees to protect the health and safety of
`
`CRSC’s patients and employees.
`
`54.
`
`Defendant’s premise strains credulity because Defendant (a) welcomes
`
`unvaccinated patients and visitors onto premises; and (b) does not require patients who require
`
`treatment at Defendant’s facility to be vaccinated, even though these individuals interact with
`
`Defendant’s staff; and (c) does not require construction workers who visit Defendant’s premises
`
`to be vaccinated, even though they interact with Defendant’s staff as well.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.14 Filed 05/20/22 Page 14 of 33
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`Defendant pressured employees to be vaccinated.
`
`Defendant ostracized unvaccinated employees by providing vaccinated employees
`
`with additional compensation in the form of gift cards and $500.00 bonuses for all full-time staff.
`
`57.
`
`An email from Ms. Piotrowski from December 3, 2021, provides: “I am happy to
`
`share some exciting news! The physician owners and Board have approved a special bonus for all
`
`staff who have submitted a copy of their COVID-19 vaccine card on file or have received at least
`
`the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine and provide a copy of their card . . . Full-time team members
`
`will receive a $500.00 bonus, part-time will receive $250.00 and PRN (who have worked hours in
`
`the past four pay periods) $100.00. The bonus payment will be distributed . . . as an extra paycheck
`
`separate from your normal payroll…”
`
`58.
`
`Defendant’s Policy was absolute; it offered no alternative, such as for periodic
`
`testing, mask wearing, social distancing, etc., even for employees who have already had COVID-
`
`19 and still possess natural immunity from the virus.
`
`59.
`
`Employees must choose vaccination or termination. “Forcing individuals to choose
`
`between their faith and their livelihood imposes an obvious and substantial burden on religion . . .
`
`vaccine mandates . . . presents a crisis of conscience for many people of faith. It forces them to
`
`choose between the two most profound obligations they will ever assume—holding true to their
`
`religious commitments and feeding and housing their children. To many, this is the most
`
`horrifying of Hobson’s choices.” Sambrano v. United Airlines, Inc., 19 F.4th 839, 841 (5th Cir.
`
`2021).
`
`60. Meanwhile, vaccinated employees in the workplace became hostile against
`
`Plaintiffs and other unvaccinated individuals. Plaintiffs endured offensive remarks from
`
`colleagues regarding their vaccination status.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.15 Filed 05/20/22 Page 15 of 33
`
`61.
`
`Defendant’s aggression towards unvaccinated individuals, including patients,
`
`fostered an unwelcoming environment and interfered with services. On December 15, 2021,
`
`Pre/Post Operation Team Leader Brian Wisniewski sent a message to his unit entitled, “Respect.”
`
`Mr. Wisniewski wrote:
`
`I’ve had a few people from different departments, as well as patients,
`approach me asking that we are mindful of the words we use when
`speaking about vaccines and vaccine status. Everyone has a right to
`do what they feel best for themselves, and everyone has a right to
`have their opinions, but we can respect each other and our visitors
`enough to not speak negatively towards someone who isn’t
`vaccinated, especially if we don’t know their rationale for their
`choice. Please be aware that your words can be hurtful and let’s
`show respect to everyone. Thanks everyone.
`
`Nevertheless, offensive commentary towards Plaintiffs and unvaccinated individuals continued.
`
`62.
`
`On December 23, 2021, Plaintiff Kritz sent an email to Defendant’s Human
`
`Resources Manager regarding a discriminatory comment she overheard at work. Plaintiff Kritz
`
`wrote:
`
`I wanted to make you aware of something I overheard today that
`totally went against the email Brian sent out about respect for non-
`vaccinated employees . . . This is a coworker that knew my
`vaccination status when she said it . . . It felt like a punch in the gut.
`I have enough respect for all my coworkers not to mention or make
`statements like that about a particular belief or opinion. It felt very
`inappropriate to me, and by responding in that way to an email that
`was sent out to validate the feelings of myself and other
`unvaccinated coworkers, it just heightened my feelings of being
`disrespected . . . It feels like discrimination to me, and as my
`exemption states, I want to be treated like everyone else in the
`workplace and not feel singled out or ostracized.
`
`Human Resources never responded.
`
`63.
`
`On January 6, 2022, Defendant revised the Policy. Again, Defendant’s main
`
`revision was to extend the date for employees to receive, at a minimum, the first dose of a primary
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00459 ECF No. 1, PageID.16 Filed 05/20/22 Page 16 of 33
`
`series or a single dose COVID-19 vaccine. This time, however, employees had until January 27,
`
`2022.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant revised its Policy in anticipation of denying Plaintiffs’ religious
`
`exemption requests the following day on January 7, 2022.
`
`65.
`
`On January 7, 2022, Defendant sent Plaintiffs identical letters denying their
`
`requests for religious accommodation to the Policy, wherein Defendant claimed that exempting
`
`employees from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine posed an undue hardship.
`
`66.
`
`The denial letter stated, in pertinent part:
`
`This letter is to inform you that we reviewed your request for a
`religious exemption and determined that:
`
`(a)
`
`You stated a “sincerely held religious belief” that made you
`eligible
`for consideration of whether a
`reasonable
`accommodation could be offered.
`
`
`(b)
`
`
`(c)
`
`
`(d)
`
`Your request for accommodation(s) was not approved as
`requested based on CRSC’s determination that it is unable to
`reasonably accommodate your religious beliefs without
`imposing an undue hardship on operations.
`
`[Defendant] further determined that it is not able to offer
`alternative accommodations without undue hardship.
`
`[Defendant] has an obligation to ensure that it minimizes the
`risk of transmission to at-risk individuals including its
`patients and staff, as required by CMS. In determining a
`finding of undue hardship, CRSC reviewed the essential
`functions of your job description and took into account a
`number of other factors and considerations.
`
`
`The identical denial letters reflect that the Exemption Review Committee met on
`
`67.
`
`Decemb