`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sherry Ihde;
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` vs
`
`The Mayo Clinic; a Minnesota non-profit
`corporation
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Court File No. 22-CV-1327
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Sherry Ihde makes the following allegations for her complaint against the
`
`Defendant the Mayo Clinic.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff Sherry Ihde (“Plaintiff Ihde”) is 47 years old and worked as the
`
`supervisor of Defendant the Mayo Clinic’s (“Defendant Mayo”) Bacteriology Lab
`
`through February 21, 2022. Plaintiff Ihde had been employed with Defendant Mayo
`
`continuously since December 21, 1998.
`
`2.
`
`In October, 2021, Defendant Mayo mandated that all its employees receive
`
`the Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of continuing their employment (“Vaccine
`
`Mandate”). Many of Defendant Mayo’s employees, including Plaintiff Ihde, objected to
`
`receiving these vaccinations because of her sincerely-held religious beliefs. Plaintiff Ihde
`
`requested a religious accommodation from Defendant Mayo to exempt her from taking
`
`the Covid-19 vaccine in order that she could continue her employment. Defendant Mayo
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`granted Plaintiff Ihde her request for a religious exemption from taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccine on November 24, 2021.
`
`3.
`
`However, in December 2021, Defendant Mayo, as part of its Vaccine
`
`Mandate policy, stated that those employees who received a religious or medical
`
`exemption would have to submit to weekly Covid-19 testing after receiving a religious or
`
`medical exemption. Rather than undertake an individual interactive process as required
`
`for evaluating an accommodation of religious objection to taking the Covid-19 vaccine,
`
`Defendant Mayo required Plaintiff Ihde to undergo weekly Covid-19 testing.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde then filed a further request for a religious accommodation to
`
`exempt her from undergoing weekly Covid-19 testing. Once again, Defendant Mayo
`
`failed to undertake an individual interactive process as required for evaluating an
`
`accommodation of a religious objection to undergoing weekly Covid-19 testing. As a
`
`result of Defendant Mayo’s human resources department’s failure to undertake an
`
`individual interactive process to accommodate Plaintiff Ihde’s religious objection to
`
`undergoing weekly Covid-19 testing, Plaintiff Ihde on her own contacted her supervisor
`
`to seek an accommodation from weekly testing. On January 12, 2022, in an email sent at
`
`8:55 a.m., Plaintiff Ihde’s supervisor, Nicole Kang, approved Plaintiff Ihde’s request for
`
`an accommodation to work remotely during the time period Defendant Mayo would
`
`require Plaintiff Ihde to undergo weekly testing for Covid-19. However, later that same
`
`day, at 5:10 p.m., Defendant Mayo’s human resources department sent Plaintiff Ihde an
`
`email stating that her request for a religious accommodation to undergo weekly testing
`
`for Covid-19 was denied. Despite working for Defendant Mayo for 23 years, Defendant
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`Mayo terminated Plaintiff Ihde on February 21, 2022 because of Plaintiff Ihde’s refusal
`
`to undergo weekly testing. Finally, 15 days after Plaintiff Ihde’s termination, Defendant
`
`Mayo suspended its requirement that those who received a religious or medical
`
`exemption submit to weekly testing demonstrating that the terminations were
`
`unnecessary or a pretext.
`
`5.
`
`Based on Defendant Mayo’s actions, Plaintiff brings claims under Title VII
`
`for religious discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act based on Defendant
`
`Mayo mandating a vaccine and testing, related state claims under the Minnesota Human
`
`Rights Act for religious discrimination and disability discrimination and breach of
`
`contract.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff has fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), including
`
`the filing of a Charge with the EEOC, and the receipt of a right-to-sue letter from Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) following closure of the EEOC file, all
`
`in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).
`
`7.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it raises
`
`claims pursuant to federal statute, under 28 U.S.C. §1331. This Court further has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367.
`
`8.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant the Mayo Clinic as an
`
`entity as it is a non-profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Mayo Clinic is subject to the provisions of Title VII and the
`
`ADA because Defendant Mayo Clinic employs more than fifteen employees in each of
`
`twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42 U.S.C.
`
`§2000e (b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`10. Venue is proper in the District of Minnesota under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
`
`because the actions giving rise to this cause of action occurred in Minnesota, and
`
`Defendant Mayo Clinic conducts business in the State of Minnesota.
`
`PARTIES
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff Sherry Ihde is a former employee of Defendant Mayo. Plaintiff
`
`Ihde resides in Zumbro Falls, Minnesota.
`
`12. Defendant Mayo is a Minnesota non-profit corporation headquartered in
`
`Minnesota which operates medical facilities in Minnesota.
`
`FACTS
`
`13.
`
`Plaintiff Sherry Ihde is a Minnesota resident who worked for Defendant
`
`Mayo for 23 years. In 2021, Defendant Mayo employed Plaintiff Ihde as the supervisor
`
`in its Bacteriology Lab in Rochester, Minnesota. Plaintiff Ihde’s job duties required her
`
`to supervise the Bacteriology Lab. Two assistant supervisors reported to Plaintiff Ihde.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde’s work primarily required her to work at her computer and have meetings
`
`with individuals which meetings could be held remotely via Zoom (or other computer
`
`meeting application) or by phone. Plaintiff Ihde did not have contact with patients.
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde is a Christian who believes, based on her interpretation of
`
`Scripture, that her body is a Temple to the Holy Spirit and it violates her conscience to
`
`take the vaccine. Plaintiff Ihde believes frequent medical testing for Covid-19 also
`
`violates her religious beliefs.
`
`15. Defendant Mayo recognized the important work that all of its employees
`
`were doing—the unvaccinated and the vaccinated—during the Covid-19 pandemic. On
`
`September 28, 2021, the President and CEO of Defendant Mayo, Gianrico Farrugia,
`
`M.D., along with the Chief Administrative Officer, Jeff Bolton, wrote to Defendant
`
`Mayo’s employees:
`
`“On behalf of the leaders of Mayo Clinic’s sites and shields, thank you for the
`compassionate care you provide to our patients, your excellent service to Mayo
`Clinic, and the supportive and collaborative environment you create for all of our
`colleagues. We truly appreciate you and your efforts to live our values every
`day.”
`
`16. However, just two weeks later, Defendant Mayo implemented its Vaccine
`
`Mandate which provided that “all Mayo Clinic staff members” must get vaccinated or
`
`they would be considered “noncompliant,” later “placed on unpaid leave,” and eventually
`
`“terminated.” The Vaccine Mandate applied to “all staff, including remote workers.”
`
`Thus, appreciation of the important work performed by unvaccinated employees
`
`disappeared only two weeks after being celebrated.
`
`17. Defendant Mayo announced the Vaccine Mandate on October 13, 2021.
`
`Defendant Mayo’s Vaccine Mandate required all staff to become vaccinated against
`
`Covid-19, and that if they were not already vaccinated or only partially vaccinated, they
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`would have to become vaccinated or be approved for a medical or religious exemption by
`
`December 3, 2021, or be terminated.
`
`18. On October 25, 2021, Defendant Mayo sent a communication outlining the
`
`steps to comply with the Vaccine Mandate. Beginning on December 3, 2021, Defendant
`
`Mayo issued Final Written Warnings to noncompliant staff with instructions on
`
`complying by January 3, 2022, or be terminated.
`
`19. Defendant Mayo announced that it would accept from its employees
`
`requests for both medical and religious exemptions from the Vaccine Mandate, and did
`
`allow for employees to apply for “medical and religious exemptions” to the Vaccine
`
`Mandate, and even provided “forms” for such applications.
`
`20. However, what Defendant Mayo gave with one hand, it took away with the
`
`other by proclaiming that “it is anticipated that a small number of staff will have
`
`qualifying religious exemption.” (emphasis added) It further wrote: “applications for a
`
`religious exemption will be denied if the panel determines the applicant does not
`
`demonstrate a sincerely held religious belief, (emphasis added). Further, Defendant
`
`Mayo declared: “[o]nly a small number of staff are expected to qualify for a religious
`
`exemption.” (emphasis added)
`
`21. Defendant Mayo thus put itself in the position of deciding the sincerity of
`
`the religious belief of the Plaintiffs and, whether a belief was “religious” or not.
`
`22. Defendant Mayo also expressed limitations to the “medical exemption” to
`
`the Vaccine Mandate by stating: “The only absolute medical contraindications to
`
`vaccination for COVID-19 are severe or immediate reaction to a prior dose of the
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`vaccine, known allergy to a vaccine component, or a preexisting and clinically diagnosed
`
`fear of needles.” Other medical conditions were preemptively discounted or disregarded.
`
`23.
`
`The pre-determined limitations on its religious and medical exemption
`
`policies were supposed to be kept in the dark, as the Defendant Mayo wrote to the high
`
`ranking personnel who were to implement the policies: “This message is intended for
`
`regional supervisors, managers and other leaders, so please do not share broadly.”
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`24. After Defendant Mayo implemented its Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Ihde
`
`applied for a religious accommodation to taking the Covid-19 vaccine. As set forth
`
`above, Plaintiff Ihde is a Christian and submitted her application to Defendant Mayo
`
`stating that Plaintiff Ihde’s religious beliefs prevented her from taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccine.
`
`25. On November 24, 2021, Defendant Mayo notified Plaintiff Ihde that
`
`Defendant Mayo had approved her request for a religious accommodation from taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`26.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff Ihde also attempted to submit a request for a medical
`
`accommodation to taking the Covid-19 vaccine to Defendant Mayo. Plaintiff Ihde had
`
`taken an influenza vaccine in 2008 and developed a reaction to the vaccine which
`
`ultimately required her to be hospitalized. Since 2008, Plaintiff Ihde has not taken any
`
`further influenza vaccinations or any vaccination she had not had prior to 2008 because
`
`of the severe reaction she had to the influenza vaccination in 2008.
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`27. However, Defendant Mayo’s Vaccine Mandate policy restricted medical
`
`exemptions to taking the Covid-19 vaccine to individuals who either had taken the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine and developed a severe reaction to the vaccine or individuals who had
`
`a condition which would react to one of the components to the Covid-19 vaccine (or had
`
`a phobia to needles). Moreover, Defendant Mayo’s policy required a physician to sign
`
`the medical exemption form. Plaintiff Ihde met with three Defendant Mayo physicians to
`
`have them approve Plaintiff Ihde’s request for a medical exemption based on previous
`
`severe reaction to an influenza vaccine. Each of Defendant Mayo’ physicians refused to
`
`sign the medical exemption because Plaintiff Ihde did not meet the criteria contained in
`
`Defendant Mayo’s medical exemption policy stated above. Plaintiff Ihde was concerned
`
`that similar to her reaction to the influenza vaccine in 2008 which required
`
`hospitalization, Plaintiff Ihde could develop a severe reaction to the newly developed
`
`Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`28.
`
`Pursuant to Defendant Mayo’s Vaccine Mandate policy, if Defendant Mayo
`
`approved a religious exemption for an employee to exempt the employee from taking the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant Mayo required such employees, including Plaintiff Ihde, to
`
`subject themselves to weekly Covid-19 testing. Pursuant to Defendant Mayo’s Vaccine
`
`Mandate policy, the purpose of the testing was to ensure that individuals who had
`
`received a religious or medical exemption to the Vaccine Mandate would not contract
`
`Covid-19 and expose themselves to others at Defendant Mayo’s facilities. Defendant
`
`Mayo’s policy however was illogical. By December, 2021, research had demonstrated
`
`that individuals who had received the Covid-19 vaccine could still contract Covid-19 and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`be infectious to others. In addition, weekly testing would not prevent exempt employees
`
`from spreading the Covid-19 virus at Defendant Mayo because such employees could
`
`contract Covid-19 and become infectious immediately after taking a test and receiving a
`
`negative result and expose individuals at Defendant Mayo during the time period between
`
`taking that test and taking the next weekly Covid-19 test. Finally, less than 4% of
`
`Defendant Mayo’s employees had not taken the Covid-19 vaccine by January, 2022.
`
`Therefore, Defendant Mayo’s policy of just testing the unvaccinated exempt individuals
`
`was not effective in preventing the spread of Covid-19.
`
`29. Moreover, Plaintiff Ihde also had a religious objection based on her
`
`Christian beliefs to undergo weekly testing for Covid-19. On January 9, 2022, Plaintiff
`
`Ihde submitted to Defendant Mayo a religious accommodation request based on her
`
`Christian beliefs to undergoing weekly testing for Covid-19. Plaintiff Ihde’s Christian
`
`religious beliefs prevented her from undergoing the weekly testing for Covid-19.
`
`30. Despite the requirement that Defendant Mayo undertake an individualized
`
`and interactive effort to accommodate a religious objection to the weekly testing,
`
`Defendant Mayo made no effort to undertake an individualized and interactive effort to
`
`accommodate Plaintiff Ihde’s religious accommodation request.
`
`31. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Ihde undertook an effort to seek out another
`
`mechanism to accommodate her religious objection to weekly testing. Plaintiff Ihde
`
`discussed with her supervisor at Defendant Mayo, Nicole Kang, to seek a religious
`
`accommodation for Plaintiff Ihde to work remotely. As Plaintiff Ihde’s supervisor,
`
`Defendant Mayo employee Kang would be in the best position to know whether Plaintiff
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`Ihde working remotely in her position as supervisor of the Bacteriology Lab would cause
`
`any undue hardship to Defendant Mayo. Plaintiff Ihde’s supervisor Kang concluded it
`
`would not and approved Plaintiff Ihde’s request for a religious accommodation to work
`
`remotely. More specifically, on January 12, 2022, at 8:55 a.m., Defendant Mayo’s
`
`supervisory employee Kang sent Plaintiff Ihde an email stating that Plaintiff Ihde was
`
`approved to work remotely. The email stated in its entirety as follows:
`
`Hi Sherry,
`
` A
`
` formal note to approve the full WFA (ie., “Work from Anywhere”) set-
`up for you. Please feel free to take the monitors in your office for additional
`displays in addition to your laptop dock and any accessories needed. Please
`let me know if anything additional could be ordered to assist with your
`WFA set-up at home.
`
`Thank you,
`Nicole
`
`
`32. Despite Defendant Mayo’s supervisory employee Kang approving Plaintiff
`
`Ihde to work remotely, later on January 12, 2022, Defendant Mayo denied Plaintiff Ihde’s
`
`request to accommodate her religious objection to undergoing weekly testing for Covid-
`
`19 in an email sent at 5:10 p.m. In discussions Plaintiff Ihde had with Kevin Ryan,
`
`employed with Defendant Mayo’s Human Resources Department, Ryan told Plaintiff
`
`Ihde that Defendant Mayo would not even consider her religious accommodation request
`
`appeal to forego weekly Covid-19 testing. Nonetheless, Plaintiff Ihde appealed
`
`Defendant Mayo’s denial of her request for an accommodation. Consistent with Mr.
`
`Ryan’s statement to Plaintiff Ihde, Defendant Mayo never responded to Plaintiff Ihde’s
`
`appeal.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`33. After Defendant Mayo denied Plaintiff Ihde’s request for a religious
`
`accommodation for testing, Defendant Mayo placed Plaintiff Ihde on administrative leave
`
`on January 20, 2022. On February 21, 2022, Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Ihde.
`
`Defendant Mayo also determined that Plaintiff Ihde could never be rehired by Defendant
`
`Mayo or any of its affiliates. Given that Defendant Mayo owns or controls most of the
`
`medical facilities surrounding Rochester, Minnesota, it is virtually impossible for
`
`Plaintiff Ihde to obtain employment in her field without moving her residence.
`
`34. Only 15 days later, on March 8, 2022, Defendant Mayo announced that it
`
`had suspended its requirement that those employees who had received either a religious
`
`or medical exemption to the Vaccine Mandate would have to undergo weekly testing.
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde received a Right to Sue letter from the EEOC.
`
`36. During her employment with Defendant Mayo, Plaintiff Ihde had received
`
`positive, even glowing job performance reviews and several promotions by Defendant
`
`Mayo. Plaintiff Ihde could have retired within 7 years of her termination date with 30
`
`years of service with Mayo. When she was terminated on February 21, 2022, she was
`
`marked as not eligible for rehire.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde’s religious beliefs had been recognized as sincere in
`
`November 2021, but later were deemed by Mayo to be not sincere only two months later,
`
`leading to the denial of her request for a religious exemption and subsequent termination.
`
`38. On a January 18, 2022 Zoom meeting, Defendant Mayo’s Chair of Practice
`
`Administration, Roshanak Didehban, stated that Defendant Mayo did not believe some
`
`employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs were sufficiently “consistent” and that these
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs were not “[a] sincerely held belief across all
`
`aspects of life.”
`
`39. Defendant Mayo created an ad hoc panel to review religious and medical
`
`accommodation requests to the Vaccine Mandate. Defendant Mayo denied most requests
`
`for religious accommodation, with the exception that some were granted, but conditioned
`
`upon submission to invasive, supervised weekly testing, and some were granted to
`
`younger, lower paid employees while those of older employees were denied.
`
`40. As a result of the Defendant Mayo’s policy on restricting religious and
`
`medical exemptions, very few people qualified for those exemptions, resulting in mass
`
`terminations for those, including Plaintiff Ihde, who refused the vaccination and weekly
`
`testing.
`
`41.
`
`The denials of the requests for religious and medical exemptions all
`
`contained the same boilerplate language:
`
`”Thank you for submitting your request for religious exemption. The information
`you provided was carefully considered. While this may not be the news you were
`hoping to receive, your religious accommodation has not been approved. Based
`on the information provided, your request did not meet the criteria for a religious
`exemption accommodation.”
`
`42.
`
`There was no case-by-case analysis or individualized interactive process to
`
`discuss each employees’ exemption request or possible accommodation. In response to
`
`requests for explanation or information, Defendant Mayo wrote: “HR is not able to share
`
`what criteria was used to review/approve the exemption. A small team of employees
`
`reviewed each request and based on what was provided to them from each individual
`
`employee is what was used in the approval/denial decision.”
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`43. Rather than engage in a legitimate interactive process, respect the sincerity
`
`of Plaintiff Ihde’s religious beliefs, or attempt reasonable accommodation, Defendant
`
`Mayo used more boilerplate language to justify its pre-determined result:
`
`“Generally, denials occur because the requestor has not clearly stated their
`sincerely held belief, demonstrated it is a sincerely and consistently held belief,
`and/or clearly defined the conflict between their religious belief and receiving the
`COVID-19 vaccine.”
`
`44. Defendant Mayo actually specifically disavowed an individual interactive
`
`process by writing: “Specific feedback on individual requests will not be provided, … it
`
`is not possible to provide individual feedback.”
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff sought further clarification on Defendant Mayo’s criteria for
`
`determining whether a religious belief constituted a “sincerely held religious belief,” and
`
`the basis for Mayo determining that the employee did not have a “sincerely held religious
`
`belief,” but the Plaintiff was denied information beyond the generalized, identical
`
`language in the letters, and a reference to employees’ beliefs generally not being
`
`sufficiently “consistent” across “all aspects of life.”
`
`46. Defendant Mayo did not provide information about its process for
`
`determining whether the employees sincerely held religious beliefs would be
`
`accommodated either.
`
`47. Both the original denial of the religious exemption and the denial of the
`
`requests for reconsideration contained this warning at the bottom: “Do not disseminate,
`
`distribute, forward, or copy the content of this notification.”
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`48. Defendant Mayo staff were further instructed to “endorse the vaccine or
`
`say nothing.”
`
`49. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Ihde’s employment on February 21,
`
`2022 based on her refusal to obtain a Covid-19 vaccine, or to submit to testing.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde submitted good-faith statements of her sincerely-held
`
`religious beliefs, with explanations of how her faith constrained her from accepting
`
`Covid-19 testing. Defendant Mayo refused to consider Plaintiff Ihde’s requests and in
`
`fact told her the requests would not be considered.
`
`51.
`
`The vaccine is being mandated for the employees to be “fully vaccinated,”
`
`despite the phrase “fully vaccinated” having a definition that has changed from one shot,
`
`to two shots, then three shots, then four shots, and even discussion of a fifth shot or
`
`annual shots.
`
`52.
`
`The vaccines are being mandated despite accumulating evidence that the
`
`vaccines do not provide protection as long lasting as had been previously represented, do
`
`not prevent infection or transmission, but only allegedly reduce the severity of Covid-19
`
`if one contracts it.
`
`53. While many claimed that the Covid-19 pandemic was a pandemic of the
`
`unvaccinated, now the overwhelming majority of people getting COVID were vaccinated
`
`to one extent or another.
`
`54.
`
`In fact, the numbers of Covid-19 positive hospital patients was also
`
`overstated.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Thus, the extent of Covid-19 infections, the severity of the Covid-19
`
`infection, and the efficacy of the vaccines, and the time-length of vaccine protection may
`
`all have been overstated, contributing to an over exuberance in mandating vaccines, and
`
`punishing the unvaccinated, as Defendant Mayo has done as set forth above.
`
`56.
`
`Early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, and before any vaccines were
`
`available, Defendant Mayo itself provided free testing to determine “how many Mayo
`
`Clinic staff have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2.”
`
`57. Rather than disclosing the results of its determination on the numbers of
`
`Defendant Mayo’s “staff” that “have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2,” or
`
`disclosing studies on the “duration of immunity after COVID-19,” Defendant Mayo has
`
`not made public this information and has instead has issued its Vaccine Mandate.
`
`58. After Defendant Mayo carried out most of the terminations between
`
`January 3, 2022 and Plaintiff Ihde’s termination on February 21, 2022, Defendant Mayo
`
`announced it was suspending weekly testing of the unvaccinated on March 8, 2022.
`
`Thus, remaining unvaccinated employees are now treated similarly to vaccinated
`
`employees.
`
`59. Unvaccinated employees such as Plaintiff Ihde would no longer be forced
`
`to test weekly, and would no longer be terminated for objecting to testing, which
`
`Defendant Mayo only 15 days after her termination has now determined is unnecessary.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Religious Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under Title VII of the Civil
`Rights Act of 1964
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 59 as if fully set-forth
`
`herein.
`
`61. Defendant Mayo is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e(b).
`
`62.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde is an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(f).
`
`Plaintiff Ihde has a sincerely held religious belief which prevented her from
`
`either receiving the Covid-19 vaccine or submitting to weekly testing for Covid-19. The
`
`Plaintiff Ihde’s beliefs arise under Christianity.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff informed Mayo of the conflict between her religious belief and the
`
`Vaccine Mandate.
`
`65.
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of
`
`religion. Id. § 2000e-2. Title VII further requires covered employers to provide
`
`reasonable accommodation to their employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs. Id. §
`
`2000e(j).
`
`66.
`
`Title VII prohibits Defendant Mayo from scrutinizing what it believes to be
`
`the sincerity of Plaintiff Ihde’s religious beliefs, or whether Plaintiff Ihde’s exercise of
`
`her beliefs is logical or as consistent as Defendant Mayo believes they should be.
`
`67. Guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and
`
`decisions of the federal courts require that requests for reasonable accommodation be
`
`considered based on their individual, particularized circumstances, and that any claim of
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`undue hardship or “direct threat” by the employer be assessed on a case-by-case basis
`
`rather than through application of a blanket rule.
`
`68.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde, in her request for accommodation from the Defendant
`
`Mayo’s Vaccine Mandate, made an individualized request for accommodation.
`
`69.
`
`In response to the Plaintiff Ihde’s request for reasonable accommodation of
`
`her sincerely-held religious beliefs, Defendant Mayo and its ad hoc panel applied a
`
`uniform, blanket rule in rejecting Plaintiff Ihde’s request for accommodation in violation
`
`of both Title VII and the EEOC’s persuasive guidance on reasonable accommodation.
`
`70.
`
`In fact, Defendant Mayo’s supervisor for Plaintiff Ihde, Kang, had
`
`approved for Plaintiff Ihde to work remotely to accommodate Plaintiff Ihde’s request for
`
`a religious accommodation from Defendant Mayo’s weekly testing. Nonetheless,
`
`Defendant Mayo’s human resources department later summarily rejected Plaintiff Ihde
`
`working remotely.
`
`71. Despite the Plaintiff Ihde’s consistent requests for Defendant Mayo to
`
`engage in dialogue, Defendant Mayo refused throughout to engage in the interactive
`
`process, and instead rejected Plaintiff Ihde for generalized reasons using a form letter.
`
`72. Defendant Mayo’s actions constitute discrimination on the basis of religion
`
`and failure to accommodate, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000(e)-2 and 2000(e)(j).
`
`73. Because of Defendant Mayo’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff Ihde has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer economic and other damages in amounts to be proven at trial,
`
`including front pay, back pay, emotional distress damages, compensatory damages,
`
`punitive damages, and attorney fees in excess of $75,000.
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`State law religious discrimination claim under MHRA 363A.08
`
`Plaintiff Ihde restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 73 as if fully set-
`
`74.
`
`forth herein.
`
`75. Minn. Stat. Sec. 363A.01, et seq. prohibits discrimination in employment
`
`based on religion.
`
`76. Defendant Mayo is an “employer” within the meaning of Minn. Stat.
`
`363A.01.
`
`77.
`
`78.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde is an “employee” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. 363A.01.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde has a sincerely held religious belief which prevented her from
`
`undergoing weekly testing for the Covid-19 virus.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde informed Defendant Mayo of the conflict between her
`
`religious belief and weekly testing for the Covid-19 virus.
`
`80. Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion
`
`and further requires covered employers to provide reasonable accommodation to their
`
`employees’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`81. Minn. Stat. 363A.01 et seq. prohibits Defendant Mayo from scrutinizing
`
`what it believes to be the sincerity of Plaintiff Ihde’s religious beliefs, or whether
`
`Plaintiff Ihde’s exercise of her beliefs is logical or as consistent as Defendant Mayo
`
`believes they should be.
`
`82.
`
`In response to the Plaintiff Ihde’s request for reasonable accommodation of
`
`her sincerely-held religious beliefs, Defendant Mayo and its ad hoc panel applied a
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 19 of 24
`
`
`
`uniform, blanket rule in rejecting Plaintiff Ihde’s request for a reasonable
`
`accommodation. The religious exemptions granted were frequently those of employees
`
`with less seniority and therefore at a lower wage.
`
`83. Despite the Plaintiff Ihde’s requests for Defendant Mayo to engage in
`
`dialogue, Defendant Mayo refused throughout to engage in the interactive process, and
`
`instead rejected Plaintiff for generalized reasons, using an identical form letter.
`
`84. Defendant Mayo’s actions constitute discrimination on the basis of religion
`
`and failure to accommodate, all in violation of Minn. Stat. sec. 363A.01 et seq.
`
`85. Because of Defendant Mayo’s unlawful actions, Plaintiff Ihde has suffered
`
`and continues to suffer economic and other damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`including front pay, back pay, emotional distress damages, compensatory damages,
`
`punitive damages, and attorney fees in excess of $75,000.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under
`the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101
`et seq.
`
`
`
`86.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde restates and realleges paragraphs 1 through 85 as if fully set
`
`forth herein.
`
`87. Defendant Mayo is an “employer” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12111(5)(A).
`
`88.
`
`Plaintiff Ihde is an “employee” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §
`
`12111(4).
`
`
`
`19
`
`
`
`CASE 0:22-cv-01327-ECT-ECW Doc. 1 Filed 05/17/22 Page 20 of 24
`
`
`
`89.
`
`The ADA, at 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(a), prohibits employers from
`
`requiring current employees to undergo medical examinations or inquires unless it is job
`
`related and consistent with business necessity.
`
`90. Defendant Mayo’s Vaccine Mandate violated 42 U.S.C. § 12112 (d)(4)(a)
`
`by requiring Plaintiff Ihde to undergo weekly Covid-19 testing. Defendant Mayo’s
`
`Vaccine Mandate policy requirement to undergo weekly Covid-19 testing was neither job
`
`related nor consistent with business necessity because Plaintiff Ihde’s supervisor had
`
`approved Plaintiff Ihde to work remotely.
`
`91. As a result of Defen