UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
`
`
`Michelle Emich,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
` vs
`
`Mayo Clinic Health System—Southwest
`Region, a Minnesota non-profit corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`Court File No. 26-CV-____
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Michelle Emich (“Plaintiff” or “Plaintiff Emich”), makes the following
`allegations for her complaint against the Defendant Mayo Clinic Health System—
`Southwest Region (“Defendant Mayo” or “Defendant”).
`INTRODUCTION
`1. In October, 2021, Defendant Mayo mandated that all of its employees,
`receive the Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of continuing their employment
`(“Vaccine Mandate”). Many of Defendant’s employees, including Plaintiff, objected to
`receiving these vaccinations because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs. Plaintiff
`filed a request for a religious exemption with Defendant to be exempt from taking the
`Covid-19 vaccination. Defendant denied the requested exemption. In addition,
`Defendant failed to undertake an individual interactive process as required for evaluating
`religious exemption requests.
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`2. Based on Defendant’s implementation of the Vaccine Mandate and its
`refusal to grant Plaintiff’s request for a religious exemption, Plaintiff brings these claims
`under Title VII and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, for religious discrimination.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`3. Plaintiff has fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of Title VII of the
`Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA, including filing of Charges with the EEOC or the
`Minnesota Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”), and the receipt of a Probable Cause
`Determination, all in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).
`4. This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it raises
`claims pursuant to federal statute, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This Court further has
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§1367.
`5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo as it is a non-
`profit corporation operating in and located in the State of Minnesota.
`6. Defendant Mayo is subject to the provisions of Title VII because Defendant
`Mayo 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).
`7. 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.
`
`
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`PARTIES
`8. Plaintiff Emich is a Minnesota resident who worked for Defendant Mayo as
`a registered nurse for approximately five years.
`9. Defendant Mayo is a Minnesota non-profit corporation.
`FACTS
`10. During the pandemic in 2020 and 2021, Plaintiff worked diligently, while
`unvaccinated, and performed all duties Defendant Mayo requested of her.
`11. When Covid-19 vaccines first became available in December 2020
`Defendant encouraged, but did not require its employees to be vaccinated, and Plaintiff
`continued to work throughout 2020 and 2021 while unvaccinated.
`12. Defendant recognized in November 2020, in the words of Dr. Gregory
`Poland, head of Mayo’s Vaccine Research Group, that “we can’t mandate that people
`take a vaccine, it’s their right not to take one.”
`13. Again, in December 2020 Defendant recognized that “vaccination is
`voluntary.”
`14. Defendant recognized the important work that all of its employees were
`doing—the unvaccinated and the vaccinated—and on September 28, 2021 the President
`and CEO of Mayo Clinic (Gianrico Farrugia, M.D.), along with the Chief administrative
`Officer (Jeff Bolton) wrote to 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.
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`15. However, just two weeks later, on October 13, 2021, Defendant
`implemented its Vaccine Mandate. The Vaccine Mandate stated that “all Mayo Clinic
`staff members” must get vaccinated with one of the Covid-19 vaccines or else the
`employees would be considered “noncompliant,” later “placed on unpaid leave,” and
`eventually “terminated.” The Vaccine Mandate applied to “all staff, including remote
`workers,” of which Defendant had many. Recognition of the important work performed
`by the unvaccinated employees disappeared only two weeks after being celebrated.
`16. Litigation was commenced against Defendant Mayo in Federal Court in
`early October 2021, alleging the Vaccine Mandate would harm employees. Defendant
`argued in opposition that Plaintiffs alleging to be harmed as a result of the newly
`implemented Vaccine Mandate, had no justiciable controversy, no standing, and the
`Court had no subject matter jurisdiction, because Defendant argued that it would grant
`nearly all requests for religious exemptions. Mayo argued few or no employees would
`actually be terminated or suffer any negative consequences as a result of Defendant’s
`Vaccine Mandate. Defendant argued that “the only competent record evidence shows
`that current Mayo employees’ declinations [requests for exemption to vaccine] will not
`be ‘denied,’” and that “Mayo has granted 90% (27 of 30) of new employees’ requests for
`religious exemptions.” Def. Mayo Memo in Opp. To Mot. For TRO, filed October 8,
`2021.1
`
`1 Mary Roe 1, et al., v. Allina Health Systems, et al., (including Mayo Clinic), Case 0:21-
`cv-02127, filed October 8, 2021. Defendant Mayo also wrote that it “has not terminated
`or threatened to terminate any employee for failing to obtain Covid-19 vaccination or
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`17. Defendant succeeded in that action, convincing the Court there was no
`subject matter jurisdiction, because unvaccinated employees had not been terminated as
`of that time (October 2021), and likely would not be terminated because of Defendant’s
`generous granting of religious exemptions. Because of Defendant’s representations to the
`Court, Defendants in that case obtained dismissal without prejudice of the Complaint in
`that case.
`18. Shortly after achieving victory in Court on the basis that it had generously
`granted 90% of the requests for religious exemptions, Defendant then switched to a new
`position that it would grant only a “small number” of the requests for religious
`exemptions. Defendant wrote in October 2021: “it is anticipated that a small number of
`staff will have qualifying religious exemption.” (emphasis added). Further, Defendant
`declared: “[o]nly a small number of staff are expected to qualify for a religious
`exemption.” Exhibit 6, (emphasis added).
`19. Defendant’s Vaccine Mandate required all staff to be vaccinated against
`Covid-19, and that if they were not already vaccinated or only partially vaccinated, they
`would have to become vaccinated by December 3, 2021, or be terminated.
`
`seeking an exemption,” pp. 5-6; “all but one [of the plaintiffs] have requested exemptions
`that, if granted, will allow them to remain unvaccinated and employed,” pp. 7-8; “they
`[unvaccinated Mayo employee plaintiffs] have not suffered any harm and may never
`suffer any harm,” p. 8, 10; “Plaintiffs cannot secure standing with vague allegations that
`exemptions under some (unidentified) vaccination policies are ‘narrow’ and ‘limited,’” p.
`11; and “rank speculation that an exemption could be denied does not confer standing.”
`P. 11. (emphasis in original).
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`20. On October 25, 2021, Defendant sent a communication to its employees
`outlining the steps to comply with the Covid-19 vaccination policy. Beginning on
`December 3, 2021, Defendant issued Final Written Warnings to noncompliant staff with
`instructions on complying by January 3, 2022, or be terminated. Exhibit 5.
`21. Defendant also recognized that some of its employees would have religious
`objections to taking the vaccine, and accordingly, Defendant announced that there were
`both medical and religious exemptions from the Vaccine Mandate. Defendant even
`provided “forms” for such applications.
`22. But Defendant printed and distributed the message that it would only grant
`a “small number” of the religious exemptions, as it and its related corporations
`simultaneously argued the opposite in Federal Court in Minnesota. Exhibit 6.
`23. Defendant 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). Exhibit 6. Defendant thus put itself in the position
`of deciding the sincerity of the religious belief of its employees, including Plaintiff and,
`whether those beliefs were “religious” or not, and “sincere” or not. Defendant exercised
`this determination of the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs without interviewing the
`Plaintiff or discussing with Plaintiff her religious beliefs.
`24. Defendant 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 vaccine, known
`allergy to a vaccine component, or a preexisting and clinically diagnosed fear of
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`needles.” Exhibit 6. Other medical conditions were preemptively discounted, or
`disregarded, and its physicians were ordered to ignore their clinical judgment (in
`violation of their oath and ethical duties as physicians) and limit their medical
`exemptions to these issues only.
`25. The pre-determined limitations on their religious and medical exemption
`policies were supposed to be concealed because Defendant 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). Exhibit 6.
`26. Consistent with Defendant Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff requested a
`religious exemption from Defendant that Defendant denied. Plaintiff also submitted a
`request for reconsideration, which Defendant Mayo also denied, without even talking to
`the Plaintiff about her religious beliefs. Defendant Mayo did not provide Plaintiff with
`the criteria it used in evaluating her request for a religious exemption, nor did Defendant
`Mayo provide specific information regarding the reasons for the denial of Plaintiff’s
`request for a religious exemption.
`27. Plaintiff is a Christian who believes that she was created in the image and
`likeness of God with bodily autonomy to make decisions about what medicines, vaccines
`and other materials she puts into her body. Plaintiff believes her body is a Temple of the
`Holy Spirit and is sacred, and that she must care responsibly for her body, honor God
`with it, and not defile it. She believes she must not be coerced or mandated to take
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`injections of medicines. She believes God will save her regardless of diseases she may
`be exposed to, and she must not allow any unwanted or dangerous substances into her
`body. She also believes that she is to use her body for God’s purposes, and should not
`engage in medical treatments that she believes could be detrimental to her body or go
`against God’s plan and purpose for her. To receive the vaccine would violate her
`sincerely held religious beliefs, be sinful to her, and force her to live with regret and in
`conflict the rest of her life. She believes God, through prayer instructed her not to take
`the vaccine. (See attached hereto as Exhibit 1, true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s
`November 6, 2021 Religious Accommodation Request Form.
`28. On November 21, 2021, Defendant Mayo issued a denial of Plaintiff’s
`Request for a Religious Accommodation. (See attached hereto as Exhibit 2 a true and
`correct copy of Defendant’s November 21, 2021 Denial of Plaintiff’s Request for a
`Religious Accommodation).
`29. Defendant Mayo’s November 21, 2021 denial of Plaintiff’s Request for an
`Accommodation was the same boilerplate denial Defendant used on all other requests for
`religious accommodations, including the following 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.
`Exhibit 2.
`
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`30. In its form denial letter (Exhibit 2), Defendant announced that it would
`accept appeals of its uniform denial decisions. “If you would like to submit additional
`clarifying information, you may submit a reconsideration request here.”
`31. Defendant required appeals to be made within 48 hours. The denials were
`frequently e-mailed and not hand delivered despite the fact that the employees’ jobs were
`at stake. Many employees did not have access to work e-mail at their homes, and
`therefore may not have even gotten the notice of the denial of their request for the
`religious exemption until they returned to work, after the 48 hours had run. Other
`employees were on vacation, or engrossed in work or family responsibilities when the
`notice of denial of their request for religious exemption came, and thus failed to make an
`appeal with the 48-hour period.
`32. Plaintiff followed the appeal process and submitted a Religious
`Accommodation Reconsideration Request Form on November 23, 2021. (See attached
`hereto as Exhibit 3 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s November 23, 2021 Religious
`Accommodation Reconsideration Request Form).
`33. On December 1, 2021, Defendant issued a denial of Plaintiff’s Request for
`Reconsideration. (See attached hereto as Exhibit 4 a true and correct copy of
`Defendant’s December 1, 2021 Denial of Plaintiff’s Request for Reconsideration).
`Defendant again issued identical denial letters to nearly every employee who appealed.
`The transmittal email messages stated: “Unfortunately, the additional information you
`provided did not change the outcome as it did not meet the criteria for a religious
`accommodation.”
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`34. Defendant did not engage in an interactive process to evaluate the requests
`for exemptions. Defendant also did not provide information about its process for
`determining whether it believed Plaintiff’s religious beliefs were sincerely held or not, or
`whether Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs would be accommodated either.
`35. Both the original denial of the religious exemption and the denial of the
`request for reconsideration contained this warning at the bottom: “Do not disseminate,
`distribute, forward, or copy the content of this notification.” See, Exhibits 2 and 4.
`36. On December 3, 2021 Defendant issued a Final Written Warning to
`Plaintiff, warning her that if she was “not fully vaccinated” by January 3, 2022, her
`“employment will end.” Plaintiff refused to receive the vaccine, and Defendant Mayo
`terminated Plaintiff’s employment on January 3, 2022 based on her refusal to take the
`Covid-19 vaccine. See attached hereto as Exhibit 5 a true and correct copy of
`Defendant’s January 3, 2022 Corrective Action Form, Termination.
`37. Defendant’s termination of Plaintiff represented a complete change in
`Defendant’s company policies, and a switch from its representations to the Court in the
`Federal Court litigation.
`38. During Plaintiff’s employment with Defendant Mayo, Plaintiff had
`received positive job performance reviews from Defendant Mayo including that she had
`performed her duties, and that she had the capabilities and capacity to continue
`performing her duties.
`39. Plaintiff proposed a reasonable accommodation to continue working as she
`had for the prior four and one-half years of her employment, and year and a half during
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`the COVID-19 pandemic, without having subjected Defendant to undue hardship.
`Defendant Mayo did not respond to her request for accommodation.
`40. Plaintiff filed a charge of religious discrimination with the State of
`Minnesota’s Department of Human Rights (“MDHR”) on or about April 30, 2022. See
`attached hereto as Exhibit 7 a true and correct copy of the Charge of Discrimination filed
`with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights.
`41. On or about July 8, 2024 the MDHR found that “Probable Cause exists” to
`believe that respondent [Mayo] engaged in an unfair discriminatory practice. See
`attached hereto as Exhibit 8 a true and correct copy of correspondence from MDHR
`dated July 8, 2024, along with the Order and Memorandum.
`42. Defendant Mayo requested the MDHR reconsider its Probable Cause
`determination on or about August 9, 2024.
`43. The MDHR affirmed the Probable Cause determination by correspondence
`and Order dated September 16, 2024. See attached hereto as Exhibit 9 a true and correct
`copy of the correspondence and Order.
`44. The Plaintiff and Defendant were invited to “consider resolving this matter
`through a conciliation process,” but the parties did not agree to conciliation. See attached
`hereto as part of Exhibits 9, 10 a true and correct copy of the MDHR’s letters regarding
`conciliation.
`45. On April 2, 2025 the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
`Commission mailed a notice of Determination that the “investigation establishes
`reasonable cause to believe that the Respondent [May] discriminated against the
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`Charging Party based on her religion when she was denied a religious accommodation
`and discharged.” See attached hereto as Exhibit 11, a true and correct copy of the
`Determination dated April 2, 2025.
`46. On February 5, 2026 the United States Equal Employment Opportunity
`Commission sent a Notice of Right to Sue to Plaintiff providing Plaintiff to file a lawsuit
`“Within 90 days of your receipt of this notice.” See attached hereto as Exhibit 12 a true
`and correct copy of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission letter
`dated February 5, 2026.
`47. Defendant created an ad hoc panel to review exemption requests such as
`that the Plaintiff submitted, but Defendant kept the identity of the panelists secretive, so
`as to prevent examination of the guidelines and criteria Defendant used in evaluating the
`requests for religious exemptions. Defendant wrote: “individual names [of the ad hoc
`panelists] are confidential and will not be shared.”
`48. Plaintiff has sincerely held religious beliefs, and submitted a request for
`exemption, but Defendant accepted few religious exemptions, despite the fact that the
`vaccinated and unvaccinated people contracted and transmitted both the Delta and
`Omicron variants at similar rates.
`49. Defendant’s forms for requesting religious exemptions were written in a
`deceptive way to force applicants into accepting false statements as true, and then trying
`to force applicants for religious exemptions into admitting “inconsistencies” that
`Defendant could use to deny the request for religious exemptions.
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`50. As a result of Defendant Mayo’s policy on restricting religious and medical
`exemptions, qualified people such as Plaintiff were denied exemptions for refusing the
`Covid-19 vaccination, and then Defendant terminated Plaintiff and other employees.
`51. Plaintiff had worked for Defendant for over one and one-half years during
`the Pandemic prior to the Vaccine Mandate, and Plaintiff had fully performed her
`employment duties and even obtained positive and glowing job performance reviews,
`without being discriminated against.
`52. Plaintiff has not been determined to have transmitted Covid-19 to other
`employees or patients.
`53. Plaintiff is familiar with persons who have taken the Covid-19 vaccines and
`become ill shortly after taking the vaccines.
`54. Defendant engaged in no case-by-case analysis or individualized interactive
`process to discuss Plaintiff’s exemption requests or possible accommodations. In
`response to requests for explanation or information, Defendant 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.”
`55. Rather than engaging in a legitimate interactive process, respecting the
`sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, or attempting reasonable accommodation,
`Defendant 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
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`consistently held belief, and/or clearly defined the conflict between
`their religious belief and receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`Exhibit 2.
`
`56. Defendant actually specifically disavowed an individual interactive process
`by writing: “Specific feedback on individual requests will not be provided,” and “it is not
`possible to provide individual feedback.”
`57. Plaintiff sought further clarification on Defendant’s criteria for determining
`whether a religious belief constituted a “sincerely held religious belief,” and Defendant’s
`basis for determining that Plaintiff did not have a “sincerely held religious belief.”
`However, Plaintiff was only given generalized, identical language in the letters.
`58. Defendant further instructed its staff to “endorse the vaccine or say
`nothing.”
`59. The Plaintiff submitted a good-faith statement of her sincerely-held
`religious beliefs, with explanations of how her faith constrained her from accepting the
`Covid-19 vaccination. Defendant’s ad hoc panel nevertheless denied Plaintiff’s request
`for an exemption and made no effort to accommodate her request for a religious
`exemption.
`60. Defendant, in issuing its Vaccine Mandates, instructed that all of its
`employees must be “fully vaccinated,” despite the fact that the phrase “fully vaccinated”
`has included receiving one shot, or two shots, and then discussion of three shots, and
`even additional or annual shots.
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`61. Defendant issued the Vaccine Mandate mandating its employees, including
`Plaintiff, take the Covid-19 vaccine despite accumulating evidence that the Covid-19
`vaccine does not provide protection as long lasting as had been previously represented,
`does not prevent infection or transmission, but only allegedly reduces the severity of
`Covid-19 if a person contracts Covid-19.
`62. On August 6, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated that
`vaccines against Covid-19 did not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 variants
`(Virus).2 This followed the CDC’s updated guidance and Dr. Walensky’s comments on
`July 27, 2021, recommending that everyone wear a mask in indoor public settings in
`areas of substantial and high transmission, regardless of vaccination status. This decision
`was made with the data and science available to CDC at the time, including that “those
`data were published in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR),
`demonstrating that Delta infection resulted in similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in
`vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High viral loads suggest an increased risk of
`transmission and raised concern that, unlike with other variants, vaccinated people
`infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”3 (emphasis added).
`
`2 https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html. (last
`accessed November 8, 2022).
`3 Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on Today’s MMWR,
`Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (July 30, 2021),
`https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0730-mmwr-covid-19.html (emphasis added).
`See also, https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html.
`(last accessed November 8, 2022); https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0811-
`covid-guidance.html. (last accessed November 8, 2022).
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`63. Dr. Deborah Birx, the former White House Covid Response Coordinator,
`admitted in July 2022: “I knew these vaccines were not going to protect against infection.
`And I think we overplayed the vaccines …”. Separately Dr. Birx also admitted: “When
`we make broad statements, when we say to people that these vaccines are going to
`protect against infection – one, it wasn’t studied, …”.
`64. Vaccination does not prevent infection or transmission of Covid-19, and the
`CDC ceased differentiating between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals several
`years ago.4
`65. While many, including the President, claimed that the Covid-19 Pandemic
`was a pandemic of the unvaccinated, after Defendant implemented its Vaccine Mandate,
`the majority of people who contracted Covid-19 were vaccinated to one extent or another.
`66. Studies indicate that people who took the Covid-19 vaccine are actually
`more likely to be hospitalized than people with natural immunity.
`67. The number of patients hospitalized because of Covid-19 positive status
`was overstated because many were hospitalized for other causes, not because of Covid-
`19.
`68. Similarly, the number of people who were counted as having died from
`Covid-19 were overstated because many of them died with Covid-19, not from Covid-19.
`69. The number of Covid-19 deaths were also overstated by upwards of 25%,
`or even more, because many of those who died had multiple co-morbidities.
`
`4 https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2022/p0811-covid-guidance.html. (last accessed
`November 8, 2022).
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 16 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`70. Dr. Deborah Birx stated “[b]ut let’s be very clear: 50% of the people who
`died from the Omicron surge were older, vaccinated.”
`71. The VAERS system has documented that the vaccines themselves, have
`numerous harmful side effects associated with them. Some of these harmful side effects
`are included in the lists of side effects described right in the vaccine literature for each of
`the available vaccines.
`72. Thus, the extent of Covid-19 infections, the severity of the Covid-19
`infection, 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 did as set forth above.
`73. Early on in the Covid-19 pandemic, and before any vaccines were
`available, Defendant Mayo provided free testing to determine “how many Mayo Clinic
`staff have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2.” Defendant Mayo subsequently
`stopped providing this testing because the demonstrated superiority of natural immunity
`to vaccinated immunity, might have encourage its employees to decline the vaccine.
`74. Rather than disclosing the results of its determination on the numbers of
`Defendant’s “staff” that “have developed antibodies against SARS-Co-V-2,” or disclosing
`studies on the “duration of immunity after Covid-19,” (which some studies have asserted
`are many times more effective than vaccine immunity), Defendant has not made public
`this information and instead issued the Vaccine Mandate.
`75. Further, Defendant quit providing the antibody testing—whether free or
`paid—which deprived Defendant of important information as to whether the vaccine was
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 17 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`necessary for its employees in the first instance, whether Defendant’s employees needed
`accommodation, and whether Defendant would incur any hardship by continuing to
`employ unvaccinated employees.
`76. The State of Minnesota ceased to be under a state-declared “emergency”
`over three months before Defendant instituted its Vaccine Mandate, because Governor
`Timothy Walz officially ended the State’s emergency effective June 30, 2021.
`77. On March 8, 2022, Defendant announced it would suspend the testing
`program portion of the Vaccine Mandate, and Defendant suspended the testing program
`effective March 14, 2022. As a result, Defendant’s remaining unvaccinated employees
`were treated similarly to vaccinated employees.
`78. After terminating Plaintiff, and in some cases before Defendant terminated
`Plaintiff and other employees, Defendant began hiring other, unvaccinated employees.
`79. The following seriatim list of facts which have been gathered by Plaintiffs
`suing Defendant and its related entities, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of the
`exemption process are as follows:
` The exemption process, and particularly the appeal process were under an
`unnecessary short timeframe negatively affecting the quality of the
`exemption submissions. There was no reason for the unnecessary shortness
`of the timeframe. During that period, Delta and Omicron were the
`dominant variants in October 2021/January 2022, and the Defendant and
`the CDC were aware that the Covid-19 vaccine did not materially prevent
`infection, or transmission of those Covid-19 variants during that time
`period.
`
` The antibody testing to determine prior Covid-19 infection, and infection
`resistance that the CDC determined was many times superior to vaccinated
`immunity was terminated over the objection of the workforce, and
`demonstrated that the purpose of the Vaccine Mandate was not to further
`CASE 0:26-cv-01971-JMB-JFD Doc. 1 Filed 03/20/26 Page 18 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`19
`patient safety. The refusal to acknowledge that Covid-19 recovered
`immunity was superior to vaccinated immunity demonstrated that the
`process was not created with patient safety being a primary concern.
`
` Defendant Mayo terminated a mother of two daughters who introduced her
`daughters to their religious faith, while granting the religious exemptions of
`her lower paid daughters.
`
` Defendant Mayo terminated numerous spouses who went to church with
`their fellow spouse while granting the religious exemption of the other
`spouse, and in one such instance, and on information and belief, their
`exemption requests contained the exact same language.
`
` Defendant Mayo terminated some parishioners at a parish while granting
`the religious exemptions of others who attended the exact same parish.
`
` Defendant Mayo’s lack of an interactive process favored superior writers
`over inferior writers, something which has absolutely no bearing on the
`sincerity of an exemption proponent’s religious faith.
`
` Workers who were working remotely during their entire tenure, and who
`were absolutely no risk to their colleagues, or patients, were terminated,
`providing direct evidence that the entire exemption process was absurd and
`conducted in bad faith.
`
` Within two months of terminating Plaintiff, Defendant Mayo was again
`hiring unvaccinated employees, demonstrating further that the purported
`reasons for the vaccine mandate were not patient safety and that the stated
`reasons for Plaintiff’s terminations were a pretext.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Religious Discrimination and Failure to Accommodate under
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
`80. Plaintiff restates and realleges all previous allegations as if fully set-forth
`herein.
`81. Defendant is