Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 1 of 80. PageID #: 1583
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`JONATHAN BOBNAR,
`
`
`
`
`
`ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS
`LP,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vs-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 1:22-cv-2258
`
`
`JUDGE PAMELA A. BARKER
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND
`ORDER
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Jonathan Bobnar’s (“Bobnar”) Motion for Partial
`
`Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 33), filed on May 1, 2024, to which Defendant AstraZeneca
`
`Pharmaceuticals LP (“AstraZeneca”) filed an Opposition on May 31, 2024 (Doc. No. 39). Bobnar
`
`filed a Reply in support of his Motion on June 6, 2024. (Doc. No. 40.)
`
`Also pending is AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36), filed on May
`
`6, 2024, to which Bobnar filed an Opposition on May 21, 2024 (Doc. No. 37). AstraZeneca filed a
`
`Reply in support of its Motion on June 11, 2024. (Doc. No. 41.)
`
`For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Bobnar’s Motion for Partial Summary
`
`Judgment (Doc. No. 33) and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART AstraZeneca’s Motion
`
`for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 36).
`
`I.
`
`Undisputed Material Facts1
`
`
`1 In their statements of facts, the parties cite to Bobnar’s testimony given in response to questions about, for example,
`additional specifics concerning his beliefs. (Doc. Nos. 33-1, 36-1.) While the Court recognizes that the parties’
`statements of facts in large part accurately reflect the record, in determining whether AstraZeneca discriminated against
`Bobnar based on his religion, the Court is constrained to consider only the information that AstraZeneca “knew at the
`time of [his termination].” Cousin v. United States, 230 F. Supp. 3d 475, 490 (E.D. Va. 2017) (“[A]s in other employment
`discrimination contexts, the Court’s task is to assess the employment decision from the perspective of the employer at the
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 2 of 80. PageID #: 1584
`
`
`
`
`
`The record demonstrates that there are no genuine issues of material fact. The material facts are
`
`set forth below.
`
`A.
`
`AstraZeneca and the Vaccine Mandate
`
`AstraZeneca is a global pharmaceutical company that, in pertinent part, markets and sells
`
`pharmaceutical products. (Nichols Dep. (Doc. No. 34-1) at Tr. 16–17.). At the time of Bobnar’s
`
`termination from AstraZeneca in 2022, AstraZeneca’s United States-based operations had an Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Policy (“EEO Policy”). (Bobnar Dep. (Doc. No. 44-1) Ex. 21; Bobnar
`
`Dep. at Tr. 220.) AstraZeneca’s EEO Policy provided that AstraZeneca “and its employees are
`
`prohibited from: Engaging in discrimination; [] Condoning or encouraging discrimination[; or ]
`
`Engaging in retaliation.” (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 21 at PageID# 1533.) AstraZeneca’s EEO Policy defined
`
`“discrimination” as “any decision relating to the terms or conditions of an individual’s employment
`
`
`time the decision was made.”) (citing DeJarnette v. Corning Inc., 133 F.3d 293, 299 (4th Cir. 1998)); Grace v. Ansul,
`Inc., 2001 WL 765132, at *3 (N.D. Ill. July 6, 2001) (“It is of course the universally-established law that it is the honest
`perception of the decisionmaker at the time of an adverse employment decision that controls whether or not prohibited
`discriminatory motives are at work.”); Turner v. Kan. City So. Ry. Co., 675 F.3d 887, 893 (5th Cir. 2012) (“The relevant
`perspective is that of the employer at the time of the adverse employment decision.”) (citation omitted); Warren v.
`Hollingsworth Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 2022 WL 72477, at *12 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 6, 2022) (examining “the plaintiff and
`comparators’ conduct and surrounding circumstances from the perspective of the employer at the time it took the adverse
`action” in race discrimination claim); Bertsch v. Overstock.com, 69 F. Supp. 3d 1245, 1270 (D. Utah 2014) (“This court
`is instructed to evaluate the facts from the perspective of the employer at the time of the adverse employment decision.”);
`Benitez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., 2022 WL 1283087, at *19 n.45 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 28, 2022) (noting that, in a Title
`VII case, “the employer meets its burden of production only if it presents not merely some statement of what the employer
`now says the reason was, but rather evidence of what the reason actually was at the time in question”); Prach v. Hollywood
`Supermarket, Inc., 2010 WL 3419461, at *5 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 27, 2010) (assessing reasonableness of accommodation
`“according to the facts as they existed at the time of the plaintiff’s employment”); Chandler v. Volunteers of Am., Se.,
`Inc., 126 F. Supp. 3d 1216, 1232 (N.D. Ala. 2015) (issue of fact as to retaliation where defendant’s employee “only
`discovered [plaintiff’s] alleged violation after [plaintiff’s] discharge” (emphasis in original)); Hoff v. Performance Food
`Grp., Inc., 2009 WL 4672732, a *3 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 1, 2009) (finding employer lacked knowledge of disability where “his
`deposition testimony revealed that he was unable to walk more than 150 feet without resting” because plaintiff did not
`make physical limitation known to defendant at time of termination); Garcia v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 2009 WL 10696443,
`at *2 n.4 (D.N.M. Jan. 9, 2009) (“Because the alleged misrepresentation was only revealed during discovery, it could not
`have been a basis for Garcia’s firing and is therefore not material.”); Hudson v. Chicago Transit Auth., 375 F.3d 552, 560
`(7th Cir. 2004) (citing prior case in which “comments made by decisionmakers before or near the time they make a
`challenged employment decision were held to be sufficient to sustain a plaintiff’s discrimination claims”). Therefore, for
`purposes of evaluating Bobnar’s Title VII claims, the Court will not consider the cited testimony to the extent that it
`introduces new facts not known to AstraZeneca at the time of Bobnar’s termination.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 3 of 80. PageID #: 1585
`
`
`
`
`
`with, or performance of work for, AstraZeneca which is based upon, or influenced by, the individual’s
`
`. . . religion . . . .” (Id. at PageID# 1531.) AstraZeneca’s EEO Policy defined “retaliation” as an
`
`action taken with the purpose or effect of “adversely affecting his or her status or conditions of
`
`employment as a company employee, because he or she has, in good faith, exercised rights or fulfilled
`
`obligations under [the] policy, such as by reporting or opposing any conduct prohibited by this policy
`
`. . . .” (Id. at PageID# 1532.)
`
`The EEO Policy instructed employees to “promptly report any incidents of discrimination or
`
`retaliation that [they] have been subjected to, have become aware of, or have observed.” (Id.) The
`
`EEO Policy further encouraged employees to “feel[] comfortable reporting the prohibited conduct to
`
`his or her supervisor.” (Id. at PageID# 1533.) The Policy noted that AstraZeneca would investigate
`
`all reports of violations of the Policy “in a fair, timely, and thorough manner.” (Id. at PageID# 1534.)
`
`AstraZeneca began requiring employees to disclose to AstraZeneca their vaccination status in
`
`mid-2021. (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 173–74.) However, AstraZeneca’s internal document, “Reactive
`
`Guidance for Customer-Facing Personnel,” informed employees that they had discretion to complete
`
`or comply with a customer’s request for proof of their individual vaccination or testing status. (Wood
`
`Dep. (Doc. No. 34-2) Ex. A; Wood Dep. at Tr. 33.)
`
`On January 31, 2022, AstraZeneca’s North American Governance Committee (“Governance
`
`Committee”) announced that AstraZeneca’s United States-based employees would be required to
`
`receive a vaccine for COVID-19 (“the Mandate”). (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 172; Nichols Dep. Ex. K at
`
`PageID# 576.) The Governance Committee announced that AstraZeneca’s United States-based
`
`employees would be “asked to provide proof of vaccination.” (Nichols Dep. Ex. K at PageID# 576.)
`
`The announcement provided that it was AstraZeneca’s “intention [] to move as close as possible to
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 4 of 80. PageID #: 1586
`
`
`
`
`
`all employees being vaccinated” to “ensure the safety of our employees and of our workplaces, the
`
`Healthcare Providers [HCPs] we work with and patients.” (Id.) Importantly, the announcement
`
`outlined an accommodation process:
`
`Individuals who are unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccine based on applicable law,
`such as those who cannot get vaccinated due to a medical or religious reason, can
`submit a request for a reasonable accommodation regarding the vaccination
`requirement. Unvaccinated employees seeking a reasonable accommodation will be
`required to submit a formal request, along with appropriate supporting documentation.
`AstraZeneca will closely review each request and may require additional information
`after reviewing the initial request. . . . Details about how to apply for an
`accommodation will be provided in a separate email.
`
`For employees who are not vaccinated and who are granted an exemption to the
`vaccine requirement for qualifying reasons, the primary accommodation will remain
`weekly COVID-19 PCR testing. This is required for those entering any AstraZeneca
`US site or operating in any field-based role.
`
`(Id.) Lastly, the announcement provided that “[f]ailure to comply with the vaccination mandate
`
`or with the terms of any approved accommodation will result in disciplinary action up to and
`
`including termination of employment.” (Id.)
`
`As indicated by the Governance Committee’s announcement, on February 15, 2022,
`
`AstraZeneca’s Human Resources Department (“HR”)2 sent to all U.S.-based employees an email
`
`containing instructions on how to either provide proof of full vaccination (for vaccinated employees)
`
`or to request an exemption (for unvaccinated employees). (Criddle Dep. (Doc. No. 34-3) Ex. C;
`
`Criddle Dep. at Tr. 31–32; Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 223–24.) The email explained that employees who
`
`were not fully vaccinated at the time of the email were “required to be fully vaccinated or seek a
`
`medical, religious or applicable state exemption” and fully complete any exemption request by
`
`
`2 Nichols’ team, as well as Andrea Criddle, a People Services Lead at AstraZeneca, administered the mailbox from which
`the email originated. (Criddle Dep. at Tr. 31–32.)
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 5 of 80. PageID #: 1587
`
`
`
`
`
`February 28, 2022. (Criddle Dep. Ex. C at PageID# 682). The email further advised that “members
`
`of the [Human Resources] and [Safety, Health, & Environment] teams will not be able to assist with
`
`individual circumstances regarding exemptions.” (Id. at PageID# 681; Criddle Dep. at Tr. 33). The
`
`email additionally provided that “[e]ach exemption request will be carefully considered in compliance
`
`with applicable laws.” (Criddle Dep. Ex. C at PageID# 681.)
`
`As to the religious accommodation requests, the email instructed employees to fill out and
`
`provided a link for a Religious Accommodation Request Form (“Request Form”) and directed
`
`employees to send a completed form to AstraZeneca via email. (Id. at PageID# 682.) The email also
`
`restated that, if an accommodation is granted, the accommodation will take the form of weekly
`
`COVID-19 PCR testing. (Id.) If an employee did not comply with the vaccination mandate by March
`
`31, 2022, or with the terms of any approved accommodation, the email advised employees that they
`
`would be subject to “disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.” (Id.;
`
`Criddle Dep. at Tr. 35.) Bobnar, as an AstraZeneca employee, understood that as of February 15,
`
`2022, if he did not prove that he was vaccinated or receive an approved exemption, he would be
`
`separated from AstraZeneca. (Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 223.)
`
`AstraZeneca’s Request Form, titled “The Religious Reasonable Accommodation Form,”
`
`indicated that AstraZeneca has “obligations to provide appropriate reasonable accommodation to
`
`qualified persons whose sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from getting a COVID-19
`
`vaccine.” (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1545.) The Request Form explained that completion of
`
`the form was “the first step in an interactive process” by which AstraZeneca would “determine
`
`whether [the employee was] qualified for a reasonable accommodation and further whether there
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 6 of 80. PageID #: 1588
`
`
`
`
`
`[were] any available accommodations that would enable [the employee] to perform [his job] . . . and
`
`meet [AstraZeneca’s] operational and safety needs.” (Id.; Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 229–30.)
`
`AstraZeneca’s Request Form asked employees to: (1) “describe the nature of [their]
`
`objection(s) to [AstraZeneca’s] COVID-19 vaccination requirement”; (2) state “[h]ow long [they]
`
`have [] held the religious belief underlying [their] objection,” along with the “name of [their] religion”
`
`and whether they are “a member of a place of worship (church, synagogue, mosque, etc.)”; (3)
`
`“explain how the religious belief that prevents [them] from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine affects
`
`other areas of [their] li[ves,] [f]or example, [whether they] have [] received other vaccines in the
`
`past,” and “[i]f so, [] explain how [their] religious belief prevents [them] from getting the COVID-
`
`19 vaccine but not other vaccines”; and (4) whether they have “ever requested a religious
`
`accommodation previously, either on [their] own behalf or on behalf of a family member, such as a
`
`child who was subject to a school’s vaccination requirements.” (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID#
`
`1545–46.) The purpose of the third question was not to find a “conflict” between an employee’s
`
`religious beliefs and the COVID requirement, but rather to understand and “have more context” as to
`
`the “actual religious tenet belief that actually prevents getting the COVID-19 vaccine.” (Nichols
`
`Dep. at Tr. 38–39.)
`
`The Request Form also invited employees to “attach any supporting documentation that may
`
`be helpful in evaluating [the Request Form],” which “may include a website with information on
`
`[their] religious beliefs or practices, or a letter from a religious leader describing [their] specific
`
`religious beliefs and/or the tenets of the religion that limits or restricts [them] from being vaccinated”
`
`(Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1546.) According to Nichols, the questions in the Request Form
`
`allowed for “quite a bit of latitude” for employees to describe the nature of their religious beliefs.
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 7 of 80. PageID #: 1589
`
`
`
`
`
`(Nichols Dep. at Tr. 160.) Lastly, the Request Form required employees to verify that they
`
`understood the request may not be granted “if the request is not reasonable, if it poses a direct threat
`
`to the health and/or safety of others and/or to [them], or if it creates an undue hardship” for
`
`AstraZeneca. (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1546.)
`
`At all times relevant to this dispute, Andrew Nichols (“Nichols”) was AstraZeneca’s “Head
`
`of People Services – Americas.” (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 1.) Nichols was responsible for around
`
`15,000 AstraZeneca employees, or nearly 80% of its total 80,000 headcount. (Nichols Dep. at Tr.
`
`16, 18.) Nichols is involved with AstraZeneca’s Human Resources team (“HR”), managing “a lot of
`
`the execution work for HR.” (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 17.) Nichols made the final decision as to whether
`
`to approve or deny COVID-19 vaccine accommodation requests. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 12; Nichols
`
`Dep. at Tr. 177–78.) In making these decisions, Nichols reviewed guidance from the United States
`
`Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, “other
`
`public health authorities,” and AstraZeneca’s attorneys. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 12; Nichols Dep. at
`
`Tr. 96, 178.) Nichols evaluated each Request Form that AstraZeneca received and, based on the
`
`above guidance, “would make the decision on whether the individual was qualified for an
`
`accommodation.” (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 12; Nichols Dep. at Tr. 56–57). If Nichols determined,
`
`based on AstraZeneca’s legal team “that also reviewed every religious request individually,” that
`
`more information may be necessary to decide whether an individual was qualified for a religious
`
`accommodation, HR would send “follow-up questions to the employee” based on the information
`
`they provided in the Request Form. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 8; Nichols Dep. at Tr. 59.) Nichols
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 8 of 80. PageID #: 1590
`
`
`
`
`
`reviewed every religious accommodation request individually, and nobody on his team took any notes
`
`during this process. (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 21, 149, 183.)3
`
`As of October 2023, in total, AstraZeneca received 800 accommodation requests concerning
`
`the vaccine mandate, 666 of which were religious requests. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 17; Nichols
`
`Decl. (Doc. No. 36-9) at ¶¶ 6–9.)4 AstraZeneca approved 445 of these 666 religious accommodation
`
`requests and 56.72% of the 134 medical requests it received, resulting in a religious request approval
`
`rate of 66.82% and an overall accommodation approval rate of 65.1%. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J. at ¶ 17;
`
`Nichols Decl. at ¶¶ 6–9.)
`
`B.
`
`Bobnar’s Employment with AstraZeneca
`
`Bobnar began employment with AstraZeneca as a Diabetes Sales Specialist in February 2014.
`
`(Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 167–68.) Bobnar was promoted to Respiratory Specialty Representative in
`
`November 2017, and then to Biologics Sales Specialist in May 2021. (Id.; Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at
`
`PageID# 1545.)
`
`Shortly after Bobnar became a Biologics Sales Specialist, Bobnar began to report to District
`
`Sales Manager Joshua Wood (“Wood”). (Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 170; Wood Dep. at Tr. 19.) At the time,
`
`Andrea Criddle (“Criddle”) was a People Services Lead with AstraZeneca’s HR department. (Criddle
`
`Dep. at Tr. 8.) Bobnar’s job was to market specialty AstraZeneca products in the “Cleveland West”
`
`
`3 A copy of a Declaration from Nichols in Wilhoit v. AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, Case No. 22-cv-1634-GBW (D.
`Del. Oct. 30, 2023) (ECF No. 48) is included as Exhibit J to Nichols’ deposition transcript. (Nichols Dep. Ex. J at
`PageID# 569–75.)
`
`4 A copy of Nichols’ Declaration is attached to AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. No. 36-9.) In its
`Motion for Summary Judgment, AstraZeneca cites Nichols’ Declaration as an “Affidavit,” even though the document is
`a Declaration. (Doc. No. 36-2 at PageID# 784.)
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 9 of 80. PageID #: 1591
`
`
`
`
`
`territory, which covered 40 to 50 office locations for 80 to 100 key customers, mainly healthcare
`
`providers. (Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 163, 173–74.)
`
`As a Biologics Sales Specialist, Bobnar hosted speaker programs where a specialist “would
`
`come in and talk about the disease state” or the AstraZeneca product specifically. (Id. at Tr. 180;
`
`Wood Dep. (Doc. No. 34-2) at Tr. 23–24.) Bobnar’s specialty focus was on pulmonary; allergy; ear,
`
`nose, and throat; pharmacy directors and all supporting staff. (Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 175.) Sixty percent
`
`of the healthcare providers Bobnar called upon were pulmonologists, and most of the remaining forty
`
`percent were allergists. (Id. at Tr. 199.) Bobnar’s specialty product was Fasenra, which was used to
`
`treat patients with severe asthma. (Id. at Tr. 174.) Bobnar, as an AstraZeneca “representative” and
`
`“ambassador of the AstraZeneca brand,” described himself as “on the front lines” while marketing
`
`AstraZeneca products to pulmonologists who were “on the front line of treating COVID patients.”
`
`(Id. at Tr. 183–84, 186.) These pulmonologists were “too exhausted to attend” speaker programs and
`
`“didn’t want to come to a dinner program and expose other physicians.” (Id. at Tr. 184.)
`
`Bobnar would meet with providers in their offices, lunchrooms, cafeterias, and sometimes the
`
`hallway in between patients, though he would never have to interact with them in the presence of a
`
`patient. (Id. at Tr. 177.) Bobnar preferred to have in-person meetings with providers as opposed to
`
`meeting them virtually, as doing so was “easier” and “always [] better.” (Id. at Tr. 175–76, 182.).
`
`Thus, since becoming a Biologic Sales Specialist, 95% of Bobnar’s work had involved “face-to-face”
`
`visits with customers. (Id. at Tr. 172; Wood Dep. at Tr. 21–22.) Throughout the time Bobnar
`
`conducted in-person visits, he was not aware of any providers in his territory having a policy requiring
`
`sales representatives to “be vaccinated to visit them in person.” (Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 192–93.)
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 10 of 80. PageID #: 1592
`
`
`
`
`
`Beyond visiting customers, however, biologic sales specialists such as Bobnar would fill out
`
`expense reports, speak with physicians, and enter data. (Id. at Tr. 18–19.) This work was largely
`
`capable of being done remotely. (Id. at Tr. 19.)
`
`Prior to AstraZeneca’s mandate, Bobnar and other unvaccinated AstraZeneca employees
`
`underwent weekly COVID-19 PCR testing. (Criddle Dep. at Tr. 24; Wood. Dep. at Tr. 30; Bobnar
`
`Dep. at Tr. 195.) At some point in 2021, Bobnar tested positive for COVID-19. (Bobnar Dep. at Tr.
`
`198.) In the week before he tested positive, Bobnar had interacted in-person with providers. (Id.)5
`
`C.
`
`Bobnar Applies for a Religious Accommodation
`
`In a series of texts on February 25, 2022, Bobnar texted Wood that he was having an attorney
`
`look at his accommodation request. (Wood. Dep. at Tr. 50; Wood Dep. Ex. D at PageID# 624.)
`
`Bobnar expressed via text his sentiment that “the level of harassment [AstraZeneca is] going to is
`
`beyond words” and that “AstraZeneca has clearly picked what they are willing to discriminate
`
`against.” (Wood Dep. Ex. D at PageID# 626.)
`
`In a Declaration, Bobnar asserts that his texts messages to Wood constituted a complaint about
`
`discrimination and harassment. (Bobnar Decl. (Doc. No. 37-1) at ¶ 1.)6 Wood did not tell HR,
`
`including Nichols, about what Bobnar had texted him. (Wood Dep. at Tr. 73.) Nichols also never
`
`
`5 In its Motion for Summary Judgment, AstraZeneca represents that Bobnar said he was “sure” he got COVID from a
`“customer’s office.” (Doc. No. 36-1 at PageID# 762.) However, the quoted passage of the transcript does not stand for
`this, and by the Court’s search, Bobnar did not say he was “sure” of the source of COVID in his deposition. In a letter
`Bobnar allegedly sent to AstraZeneca on April 27, 2022 (discussed below), Bobnar did indicate that he contracted COVID
`“[a]s a result” of his visits to a pulmonary office wherein healthcare providers would walk over from a COVID ICU “and
`shake my hand and sit down to eat with me.” (Bobnar Decl. Ex. A-1 at PageID# 933.)
`
`6 A copy of Bobnar’s Declaration is attached to Bobnar’s Opposition to AstraZeneca’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
`(Doc. No. 37-1.)
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 11 of 80. PageID #: 1593
`
`
`
`
`
`discussed with Wood or spoke with him about Bobnar’s texts before making a decision on Bobnar’s
`
`request, and Wood was never asked for input. (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 79; Wood Dep. at Tr. 60–61.)
`
`On February 28, 2022, Bobnar emailed his Religious Exemption Form (“Bobnar’s Request”)
`
`to AstraZeneca.7 (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1544; Bobnar Dep. at Tr. 229–30.) In Bobnar’s
`
`Request, he explained that he objected to AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate as follows:
`
`“I choose to exercise my right, which is protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964-Title VII, to
`
`demand a religious exemption to the requirement that I receive a COVID- 19 vaccine. This demand
`
`for an exemption is based on my deeply held religious beliefs pursuant to my reliance on teachings
`
`by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Bible.” (Id. at PageID# 1545, 1547.)
`
`Bobnar described the basis of his sincerely held religious belief as follows:
`
`The Bible says, “Therefore, to him that knows to do good, and does not do it, to him it is
`sin” (James 4:17, NKJV). My personal convictions are inspired by my study and
`understanding of the Bible, and personally directed by the true and living God. I am
`personally convicted, through prayer and meditation, by the Holy Spirit that I should not
`receive any of the COVID-19 vaccines. I believe that I am required to search the Scripture
`myself for related truths. Romans 15:4 says “For everything that was written in the past
`was written to teach us”. [sic] I also believe that I am called to seek personal guidance
`from the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38-39; Romans 8). The Holy Spirit has guided me not to take
`any of the vaccines for Covid-19. I also believe that God is the author and sustainer of
`life. Altering life as he has created it is sinful.
`
`
`(Id. at PageID# 1547.) Bobnar discussed the length of time that he has held his religious belief:
`
`I am non-denominational born again follower of Jesus Christ and since a very young age
`I have always believed what the Bible says. Job 33:4: states: “The Spirit of God has made
`me; the breath of the Almighty gives me life.” I also believe what David wrote in the book
`of Psalms. Psalm 139:13-14 states “for it was You who created my inward parts; you knit
`me together in my mother’s womb. I will praise You because I have been fearfully and
`wonderfully made”. [sic] God has uniquely made me with great reverence and I am set
`apart for His glory.
`
`
`7 Bobnar attached an additional statement to his email because the PDF form “would not allow [him] to expand properly
`to accommodate [his] answers.” (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1544.)
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 12 of 80. PageID #: 1594
`
`
`
`
`
`(Id.) Bobnar further indicated that he “attended Christian schooling as well as a Christian
`
`University for my undergrad. Throughout those years to the present I have attended church
`
`regularly as well as been an active member leading small group, Bible studies and mentoring high
`
`school students. My beliefs and lifestyle impact every area of my life as I am lead by the Spirit
`
`and honor God with my body, time, and resources.” (Id.)
`
`Bobnar explained how his religious beliefs affect other areas of his life as follows:
`
`1 Corinthians 6:19-20 says, “ ... Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you,
`whom you have from God. You are not your own, for you were bought with a price.
`So glorify God in your body.” I am solely responsible to God for my body—how I
`treat it, how I use it, how I take care of it, and what I put into it. My body is considered
`a “sacred temple” that is devoted to God for sacred purposes. I am called to honor God
`with my mind, body, and heart. After prayerful conviction and scriptural meditation,
`the Spirit of God has told me not to take any of the COVID vaccines, therefore it
`would be dishonoring and sinful to God for me to put something into my body for
`which I had a conscientious objection. Therefore, on religious ground I would be
`violating a sacred trust to honor God with my body if I were to allow the COVID
`vaccine to be injected into my body. I believe that Satan tempts us and God uniquely
`gives us convictions and tests our hearts throughout different scenarios in our lives.
`Deuteronomy 8:2 states: “that He might humble you, testing you to know what was in
`your heart, whether you would keep His commandments or not”. God has given me
`this conviction and I am following his commandment to me as I am led by the Holy
`Spirit.
`
`
`(Id.) Lastly, Bobnar indicated that he had never made a religious accommodation request before and,
`
`as supporting documentation, provided links to the website of Christ Community Chapel and quoted
`
`twenty-five passages from the Bible.8 (Id. at PageID# 1546, 1548–49.)
`
`D.
`
`AstraZeneca Requests Follow-Up Information
`
`On March 17, 2022, AstraZeneca’s HR team sent Bobnar an email informing him that
`
`AstraZeneca had evaluated his Request and, through Nichols’ review, determined that additional
`
`
`8 The twenty-five passages are fully set forth in Bobnar’s Request and are incorporated by reference as though fully
`rewritten herein. (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 25 at PageID# 1548–49.)
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 13 of 80. PageID #: 1595
`
`
`
`
`
`information was necessary. (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 27; Nichols Dep. at Tr. 56.) In particular, AstraZeneca
`
`requested that Bobnar provide additional information responsive to the following prompt:
`
`Your request mentions that you cannot get vaccinated because of your beliefs that your
`body is a temple and that you are prohibited from putting harmful substances into your
`body. To help us understand your religious beliefs better, can you confirm whether,
`for the period while you have held these religious beliefs, you have smoked cigarettes,
`consumed alcohol, received any tattoos or used any legal recreational drugs? If yes,
`please describe why these activities do not violate your religious belief that your body
`should not be subjected to anything that may harm it.
`
`(Bobnar Dep. Ex. 27 at PageID# 1554.)
`
`According to Nichols, AstraZeneca sent the request to give Bobnar an opportunity to “add
`
`more context” so that AstraZeneca could “understand more deeply the actual religious tenets and
`
`beliefs that were preventing [Bobnar from] getting the COVID-19 vaccine, understand more the life
`
`and lifestyle preventing vaccination.” (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 47–48, 61, 63.) Nichols testified that this
`
`follow-up was “specifically tailored” as a question that “aimed to get more additional [sic]
`
`information and context.” (Id. at Tr. 63.) Nichols further explained that Bobnar never said, and
`
`Bobnar’s response did not indicate, that the Holy Spirit told him to not take the COVID vaccine
`
`because it was harmful. (Id. at Tr. 47, 62.)9
`
`On March 23, 2022, Bobnar sent AstraZeneca the following response:
`
`As I mentioned in my original statement, God has told us that our bodies are to glorify
`him and are a temple for His Spirit. As I mentioned:
`
`
`I have been convicted by the Holy Spirit to not receive any of the covid
`1.
`vaccines.
`2.
`I am responsible to honor God with my body and all of my life choices.
`
`
`
`9 In his Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Bobnar contends that Nichols testified that, “when necessary, [Nichols
`sent] an employee ‘tailored follow-up questions.’” (Doc. No. 33-1 at PageID# 301.) However, the quoted passage does
`not support the proposition that Nichols sent tailored follow-ups “when necessary.” (Nichols Dep. at Tr. 115.)
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:22-cv-02258-PAB Doc #: 45 Filed: 11/26/24 14 of 80. PageID #: 1596
`
`
`
`
`
`As a result, as a follower of Jesus Christ led by the Spirit there are many things I abstain
`from in my life including but not limited to the ones mentioned in the question above.
`I abstain from putting things in or on my body that I have been told not to either from
`scripture or by conviction of the Holy Spirit. Gods view of “harmful substances” looks
`different for believers as it does for those who do not believe.
`
`
`(Nichols Dep. Ex. B. at PageID# 533.) Bobnar also provided three passages from Scripture relating
`
`to “sexual immorality,” “orgies and drunkenness,” “quarreling and jealousy,” and passing
`
`judgment.10 (Id. at PageID# 533–34.)
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Bobnar’s Request is Denied
`
`On March 31, 2022, AstraZeneca denied Bobnar’s accommodation request, explaining in an
`
`email that Bobnar was “not qualified for a reasonable accommodation.” (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 28; Bobnar
`
`Dep. at Tr. 249.) AstraZeneca’s email also explained that, where the request poses undue hardship,
`
`including “business disruption/increased costs resulting from illness-related absences,” AstraZeneca
`
`is entitled to deny accommodation requests. (Bobnar Dep. Ex. 28 at PageID# 1556.) The email
`
`further informed Bobnar that AstraZeneca “expect[ed] that [Bobnar] will come into compliance with
`
`[its] mandate.” (Id.) Specifically, AstraZeneca informed Bobnar that he had to become fully
`
`vaccinated and receive at least one dose of a vaccine by April 22, 2022. (Id. at PageID# 1557; Nichols
`
`Dep. at Tr. 85–86.) AstraZeneca informed Bobnar that if he chose not to get vacc