Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JANELLE RECESKI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
`COMPANY and CELGENE
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff Janelle Receski (“Dr. Receski” or “Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`files this Complaint in Civil Action.
`
`I. PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Receski is an adult individual residing in Washington County, Pennsylvania.
`
`Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal executive offices at 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Celgene Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
`
`Summit, NJ.
`
`4.
`
`In 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company acquired Celgene Corporation and since
`
`then Celgene Corporation has been a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and together
`
`they are referred to in this Complaint as “BMS.”
`
`5.
`
`At all times pertinent hereto, BMS has been engaged in an industry affecting
`
`commerce and has had 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar
`
`weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
`
`2:23-CV-883
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`FILED ELECTRONICALLY
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`
`))
`
`))
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JANELLE RECESKI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB
`COMPANY and CELGENE
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT IN CIVIL ACTION
`
`Plaintiff Janelle Receski (“Dr. Receski” or “Plaintiff”), by and through undersigned counsel,
`
`files this Complaint in Civil Action.
`
`I. PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Receski is an adult individual residing in Washington County, Pennsylvania.
`
`Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal executive offices at 345 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10154.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant Celgene Corporation is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in
`
`Summit, NJ.
`
`4.
`
`In 2019, Bristol-Myers Squibb Company acquired Celgene Corporation and since
`
`then Celgene Corporation has been a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, and together
`
`they are referred to in this Complaint as “BMS.”
`
`5.
`
`At all times pertinent hereto, BMS has been engaged in an industry affecting
`
`commerce and has had 15 or more employees for each working day in each of 20 or more calendar
`
`weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.
`
`2:23-CV-883
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 2 of 21
`
`II. JURISDICTION
`
`6.
`
`The jurisdiction of this Court over the matters set forth in this Complaint is founded
`
`upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 1001 et seq., and 42 U.S.C. §
`
`2000e-5(f)(3).
`
`III. VENUE
`
`7.
`
`Venue herein is proper under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1391(b) and 42 U.S.C.A. §
`
`2000e-5(f)(3).
`
`8.
`
`Both Bristol-Myers Squibb and Celgene Corporation are corporate residents of
`
`Pennsylvania, do business therein, and the alleged unlawful employment practices were committed
`
`within the Western District of Pennsylvania where Plaintiff lives and worked remotely during her
`
`employment with BMS.
`
`IV. ADMINISTRATIVE EXHAUSTION
`
`9.
`
`On June 1, 2022, Dr. Receski filed a complaint with the U.S. Equal Opportunity
`
`Employment Commission (“EEOC”) alleging discrimination on the bases of religion, disability, age,
`
`and harassment docketed as EEOC No. 533-2022-01834.
`
`10.
`
`11.
`
`The complaint was cross-filed with the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission.
`
`The EEOC issued a right to sue notice on February 27, 2023, and this Complaint is
`
`filed within 90 days of receipt of that notice.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiff will move to amend to add exhausted claims under the Pennsylvania Human
`
`Relations Act once the one year waiting period has expired.
`
`V. FACTS
`
`13.
`
`Dr. Receski has sincerely held religious beliefs and is a practicing Roman Catholic.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 3 of 21
`
`14.
`
`Dr. Receski and her family belong to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Cecil, PA which
`
`is part of Corpus Christi Parish in Washington County, PA.
`
`15.
`
`Dr. Receski attends weekly Mass, receives the Sacraments of Holy Eucharist and
`
`Confession, sends her children (who are being raised Catholic) to Catholic school, and donates to
`
`the Church and her children’s school.
`
`16.
`
`Dr. Receski is a registered pharmacist and a distinguished scientific liaison in the
`
`pharmaceutical industry in which she has worked for over 20 years.
`
`17.
`
`Dr. Receski received a Bachelor of Science – Pharmacy from Purdue University, a
`
`Masters of Business Administration from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, and a Doctor of
`
`Pharmacy from the University of Kansas.
`
`18.
`
`From 2000 to 2007, Dr. Receski worked for InterMune, Inc. as a Senior Medical
`
`Science Liaison.
`
`19.
`
`From 2007 to 2014, Dr. Receski worked for Amgen, Inc. as a Senior Regional
`
`Medical Liaison Hematology.
`
`20.
`
`In 2015, Dr. Receski was hired by BMS as a Medical Science Liaison in Hematology
`
`and promoted in 2017 to Senior Medical Liaison.
`
`21.
`
`Dr. Receski worked for BMS from January 2015 until her termination on December
`
`6, 2021.
`
`22.
`
`During employment with BMS, Dr. Receski was involved in certifying medical
`
`centers for BMS CAR-T drugs (immunotherapy).
`
`23.
`
`Dr. Receski performed well and received positive performance evaluations every year
`
`and numerous “bravo” awards and retention bonuses.
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 4 of 21
`
`24.
`
`In November 2020, BMS provided Dr. Receski a cash award for her continued
`
`positive performance in the amount of $93,279 to be paid out 50% in November 2021 and 50% in
`
`November 2022.
`
`25.
`
`In offering the cash award, BMS Vice President of Global Hematology Medical Dr.
`
`Diane O. McDowell thanked Dr. Receski for the “value” she brings to BMS and her “dedication to
`
`our hematology patients.”
`
`26.
`
`Due to the wrongful termination, Dr. Receski never received the November 2022
`
`payment.
`
`27.
`
`From approximately July 2018 until May 2021, Dr. Receski reported to Marianne
`
`Park as her front-line supervisor.
`
`28.
`
`Dr. Park is an atheist and within the workplace has made statements critical of
`
`organized religions.
`
`29.
`
`From May 2021 until the December 2021 termination, Dr. Receski reported to Viet
`
`Ho as her front-line supervisor and Dr. Park as her second-line supervisor.
`
`30.
`
`Dr. Receski always was considered a remote worker; once the pandemic began in
`
`February 2020, Dr. Receski worked exclusively remotely from her home in the Western District of
`
`Pennsylvania and did not go out into the field (medical centers).
`
`31.
`
`In January 2021, Dr. Receski contracted COVID-19 and, as a result, had natural
`
`immunity against the disease.
`
`32.
`
`Beginning in April 2021, Dr. Receski agreed to and began weekly testing for
`
`COVID-19 by BMS.
`
`33.
`
`On August 23, 2021, BMS announced that its employees would have to declare
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 5 of 21
`
`their vaccination status.
`
`34.
`
`On September 7, 2021, BMS announced that US employees would be required to be
`
`fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or face disciplinary action up to and including termination.
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`In September 2021, Dr. Receski declared her COVID-19 status as unvaccinated.
`
`Immediately, on September 29, 2021, Dr. Receski requested a religious
`
`accommodation.
`
`37.
`
`On September 30, 2021, Dr. Receski submitted a Religious Accommodation Request
`
`form asking that she not have to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as it would violate her sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs, noting that Christians believe that the body houses the Holy Spirit and that her
`
`“religion” opposes abortion.
`
`38.
`
`Dr. Receski further wrote: “My sincerely held religious beliefs are that I am
`
`dishonoring my God if I alter my body (which is a temple of Christ) to participate in a medical
`
`intervention that would alter me physically such as the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I can not
`
`take a product that uses cells from an aborted fetus nor one that tests its product on aborted fetal
`
`tissue.”
`
`39.
`
`Dr. Receski signed the form attesting that her “religious beliefs and practices, which
`
`result in this request for a religious accommodation, are sincerely held.”
`
`40.
`
`Dr. Receski proposed that she be allowed to continue with her weekly COVID
`
`testing, practice social distancing, wear a mask, and work exclusively remote from home which she
`
`had been doing successfully for the prior nineteen (19) months.
`
`41.
`
`On October 27, 2021, BMS requested Dr. Receski to provide additional information
`
`regarding her request for religious accommodation.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 6 of 21
`
`42.
`
`As requested, on November 4, 2021, Dr. Receski answered BMS’s personally
`
`invasive questions (e.g., Have you ever smoked, consumed alcohol, taken recreational drugs? Do
`
`you have any tattoos?) about her accommodation request and signed a “Religious Exemption
`
`Attestation for Covid-19 Vaccine.”
`
`43.
`
`Dr. Receski further indicated that her religion did not prevent her from wearing a
`
`mask or from “doing regular (daily) antigen or PCR testing for COVID-19.”
`
`44.
`
`In the “Attestation,” BMS stated that “[w]e understand that your request, relates in
`
`who or in part, to an objection relating to the use of fetal cells in the testing and/or development of
`
`COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, although there has been some reporting about the use of fetal
`
`cells with respect to certain COVID-19 vaccines, the use of these cell lines is a standard process used
`
`in the testing and development of common medicines and consumer products. Below is a list of
`
`commonly used and available everyday medicines that fall into the same category as the Covid-19
`
`vaccine in their testing on fetal cell lines, but this list is not all inclusive as there are many medicines
`
`that fall into this category, as well as cosmetic products and food flavor enhancers: [Chart of
`
`products listing, inter alia, Tylenol, Ibuprofen, Benadryl, Claritin, Pepto Bismo, et cet.].”
`
`45.
`
`The “Attestation” asked: “In light of this information, can you clarify whether you
`
`ever used any of these products? If so, why does using these common every-day medicinal products
`
`not violate your religious belief that prevents you from getting a COVID-19 vaccine due that was
`
`tested or developed using fetal tissue?”
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Dr. Receski responded: “No, I do not currently use the above products.”
`
`The “Attestation” asked: “Will you avoid using these products in the future on the
`
`basis of your religious views? If not, please explain the circumstances under which you would use
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 7 of 21
`
`one of these products.”
`
`48.
`
`49.
`
`Dr. Receski responded: “Yes.”
`
`The “Attestation,” which Dr. Receski verified, states: “By signing below, I confirm
`
`that I either have not and going forward will not use any of the medicines listed above or any other
`
`medicine or product that uses fetal cells in testing or development.”
`
`50.
`
`BMS Employee Relations Manager Shannon Jones acknowledged receipt of Dr.
`
`Receski’s answers and Attestation on November 5, 2021 (“Thank you Janelle!”).
`
`51.
`
`The materials submitted by Dr. Receski were more than sufficient for BMS to grant
`
`her the religious accommodation.
`
`52.
`
`By letter dated November 16, 2021 signed by BMS Executive Director of Human
`
`Resources Cathy Carmichael, BMS abruptly denied Dr. Receski’s religious accommodation request.
`
`53.
`
`The letter provided no adequate justification for the denial of Dr. Receski’s religious
`
`accommodation request.
`
`54.
`
`The letter reads: “As you described in your request for an accommodation, you
`
`explained that, among other things, ‘I am dishonoring my God if I alter my body (which is a temple
`
`of Christ) to participate in a medical intervention that would alter me physically such as the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I can not take a product that uses cells from an aborted fetus nor
`
`one that tests its product on aborted fetal tissue.’ Based on that review, BMS has determined that
`
`you are not eligible for an accommodation that would prevent you from receiving a COVID-19
`
`vaccination.”
`
`55.
`
`56.
`
`BMS did not say anything about the sincerity of Dr. Receski’s beliefs.
`
`BMS promoted diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace except for religions.
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 8 of 21
`
`57.
`
`The letter also pretextually claimed that a reasonable accommodation would create
`
`an undue hardship to BMS.
`
`58.
`
`The letter falsely claimed there was no available accommodation that would enable
`
`her to perform the essential functions of her position without risk to others when Dr. Receski had
`
`been performing the essential functions of her position for the past 19 months by working remotely
`
`exclusively, not going out into the field, taking all of her meetings virtually (as preferred by her
`
`clients), and being tested by BMS on a weekly basis.
`
`59.
`
`In addition, Dr. Receski’s work is more productive and efficient when done virtually
`
`as opposed to in person and is preferred by the major medical centers with whom she worked.
`
`60.
`
`61.
`
`All of Dr. Receski’s co-workers worked remotely.
`
`Furthermore, BMS’s alleged concern for safety and risk to others was pretextual
`
`including that the religious accommodation decision for a number of other BMS employees
`
`(including in CAR-T manufacturing) was delayed up to an additional six months because BMS
`
`wanted and needed those particular employees to keep working into 2022 regardless of vaccination
`
`status.
`
`62.
`
`In addition, BMS held an in-person employee meeting on October 26-27, 2021 (less
`
`than six weeks before Plaintiff’s December 6, 2021 termination) in Washington, D.C. among
`
`Plaintiff’s team (she participated virtually) in which at least one of the participants was unvaccinated,
`
`and the participants did not wear masks or social distance in violation of its own safety guidelines.
`
`63.
`
`BMS made no effort to accommodate Dr. Receski even though it had multiple
`
`options at its disposal that would not have disrupted its business: e.g., permitting her to continue to
`
`work remotely; requiring her to wear a mask in the workplace and test daily.
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 9 of 21
`
`64.
`
`On November 22, 2021, Dr. Receski emailed Dr. Park and Dr. Ho asking them to
`
`get clarification on the denial for her: “Why am I ‘not eligible for an accommodation that would
`
`prevent me from receiving the COVID-19 vaccine?’ The letter does not explain. I work from home
`
`and am weekly COVID tested by BMS (coming up on 2 years now). Would you please get
`
`clarification for me if my sincerely held religious beliefs made me ineligible and why? Can you
`
`please find out for me? Do you know the names of the people on the committee who made this
`
`decision? I would like to understand what they found about my sincerely held religious beliefs that
`
`make me ineligible for an accommodation. I would like to appeal this decision. Please let me know
`
`what the appeals process is.”
`
`65.
`
`Dr. Receski continued: “Would this be termination for cause? This is causing undue
`
`stress and hardship for myself and family. Surely, BMS would not want to pressure or coerce me into
`
`doing something against my religious beliefs. Any information you can provide would be helpful!”
`
`66.
`
`Dr. Park responded that she was sorry for the decision and understood how it was
`
`causing stress and hardship on Dr. Receski’s family, but she was unsure of any appeal process.
`
`67.
`
`Dr. Ho responded: “Unfortunately, I don’t really have answers to most of those
`
`questions.”
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`71.
`
`Dr. Receski acted in good faith at all times.
`
`In contrast, BMS did not engage in a good faith interactive process.
`
`BMS never answered Dr. Receski’s questions.
`
`BMS never followed up with Dr. Receski on any concerns it may have had regarding
`
`her religious accommodation request, her written responses to BMS’s questions, or her Attestation.
`
`72.
`
`Dr. Receski could have been accommodated as described above.
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 10 of 21
`
`73.
`
`74.
`
`Dr. Ho encouraged Dr. Receski to resign her position in order to save her reputation.
`
`On December 2, 2021, Dr. Receski emailed Dr. Ho as follows: “Per our phone
`
`conversation a few minutes ago, I want to confirm that I am NOT resigning from my position. As
`
`I relayed to you on the telephone, I have done nothing wrong. I requested a religious accommodation
`
`from BMS and was deemed to be ‘ineligible.’ I have been unable to get a response from you or
`
`BMS why my accommodation request was ineligible. I just want to confirm that I am NOT
`
`resigning. I have done nothing wrong.”
`
`75.
`
`By emails dated November 23, 2021 and December 2, 2021, BMS Human Resources
`
`refused to answer Dr. Receski’s questions and dismissively told her the reasons for the denial already
`
`were stated in the denial letter and that the decision was final.
`
`76.
`
`77.
`
`Dr. Receski was wrongfully terminated effective December 6, 2021.
`
`As a result of the wrongful termination, Dr. Receski suffered significant financial
`
`damages including lost wages and benefits as well as emotional distress and reputation damage.
`
`78.
`
`BMS pretextually claimed the termination was for “cause” which resulted in a loss
`
`of certain cash and stock awards and unvested stock grants and options that Dr. Receski would have
`
`received in the normal course had she remained employed or been terminated “without cause.”
`
`79.
`
`As a result of the wrongful termination and failure to accommodate, Dr. Receski lost
`
`(a) her yearly bonus for 2021 which would have been paid out in early 2022, (b) an annual additional
`
`Company contribution to her BMS 401(k) plan of approximately 6% in addition to the 6% Company
`
`match; c) a supplemental bonus of 2% of her eligible pay, (d) BMS stock grants that would have
`
`vested had she remained in 2022, 2023, 2024, and/or 2025, (e) a significant number of BMS stock
`
`options, plus (f) additional bonuses in 2022.
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 11 of 21
`
`80.
`
`Despite strenuous mitigation efforts, Dr. Receski has not been able to secure similar
`
`employment.
`
`81.
`
`Dr. Receski seeks all damages and remedies permitted by law including, but not
`
`limited to, back pay, reinstatement, front pay in lieu of reinstatement, emotional distress damages,
`
`harm to reputation damages, tax gross up for lump sum payment, prejudgment interest, postjudgment
`
`interest, and attorney’s fees and costs.
`
`82.
`
`Plaintiff demands a Jury trial.
`
`VI. COUNTS
`
`Count I – Title VII – Religious Discrimination – Failure to Accommodate
`
`83.
`
`84.
`
`85.
`
`The preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth at length herein.
`
`Dr. Receski has sincerely held religious beliefs and is a practicing Roman Catholic.
`
`Dr. Receski attends weekly Mass, experiences the Sacraments, and sends her
`
`children (who are being raised Catholic) to Catholic school.
`
`86.
`
`Dr. Receski holds a sincere religious belief that she should not be forced to receive
`
`the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`87.
`
`Dr. Receski’s sincere religious belief conflicts with BMS’s vaccination requirement
`
`for her.
`
`88.
`
`Dr. Receski informed BMS about this conflict and requested a religious
`
`accommodation on September 29, 2021.
`
`89.
`
`On September 30, 2021, Dr. Receski submitted a Religious Accommodation Request
`
`form asking that she not have to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as it would violate her sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs, noting that Christians believe that the body houses the Holy Spirit and that her
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 12 of 21
`
`religion (Roman Catholicism) opposes abortion.
`
`90.
`
`Dr. Receski further wrote: “My sincerely held religious beliefs are that I am
`
`dishonoring my God if I alter my body (which is a temple of Christ) to participate in a medical
`
`intervention that would alter me physically such as the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I can not
`
`take a product that uses cells from an aborted fetus nor one that tests its product on aborted fetal
`
`tissue.”
`
`91.
`
`On November 4, 2021, Dr. Receski answered BMS’s questions (which were
`
`personally invasive (e.g., Have you ever smoked, consumed alcohol, taken recreational drugs? Do
`
`you have any tattoos?) about her accommodation request and signed a “Religious Exemption
`
`Attestation for Covid-19 Vaccine.”
`
`92.
`
`93.
`
`94.
`
`BMS denied her religious accommodation request.
`
`Dr. Receski could have been accommodated.
`
`The proposed accommodations including remote work, which BMS already had
`
`provided to Dr. Receski and her co-workers for 19 months, would not have caused any undue
`
`hardship.
`
`95.
`
`96.
`
`97.
`
`BMS did not engage in a good faith interactive process.
`
`BMS wrongfully terminated Dr. Receski’s employment.
`
`BMS indicated that it terminated her employment because she failed to get the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`98.
`
`Based on information and belief, BMS has granted reasonable accommodations to
`
`similarly situated employees who have requested medical accommodations that are identical to those
`
`requested by the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees at BMS.
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 13 of 21
`
`99.
`
`As a result of the failure to accommodate and wrongful termination, Dr. Receski
`
`suffered significant financial damages including lost wages and benefits as well as emotional distress
`
`and reputation damage.
`
`100. BMS pretextually claimed the termination was for “cause” which resulted in a loss
`
`of certain cash and stock awards and unvested stock grants and options that Dr. Receski would have
`
`received in the normal course had she remained employed or been terminated “without cause.”
`
`101. Despite strenuous mitigation efforts, Dr. Receski has not been able to secure similar
`
`employment.
`
`102. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
`
`A.
`
`Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants
`
`complained of herein violated and continue to violate the right of Plaintiff under Title VII
`
`of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq.;
`
`B.
`
` Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by reinstating her into her former position, or the
`
`equivalent of such position, and by providing appropriate back pay and reimbursement for
`
`lost retirement and other benefits and expenses in an amount to be shown at trial;
`
`C.
`
`In lieu of reinstatement, award front pay until retirement;
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Award punitive damages to Plaintiff;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff her attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff a tax gross-up to cover the cost of a lump sum payment for back pay;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
`
`H.
`
`Grant such further and additional relief as may to the Court seem proper.
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 14 of 21
`
`Count II – Title VII – Religious Discrimination – Disparate Treatment
`
`103.
`
`The preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth at length herein.
`
`104. Dr. Receski has sincerely held religious beliefs and is a practicing Roman Catholic.
`
`105. Dr. Receski attends weekly Mass, experiences the Sacraments, and sends her
`
`children to Catholic school.
`
`106. Dr. Receski holds a sincere religious belief that she should not be forced to receive
`
`the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`107. Dr. Receski’s sincere religious belief conflicts with BMS’s vaccination requirement
`
`for her.
`
`108. Dr. Receski informed BMS about this conflict and requested a religious
`
`accommodation on September 29, 2021.
`
`109. On September 30, 2021, Dr. Receski submitted a Religious Accommodation Request
`
`form asking that she not have to receive the COVID-19 vaccine as it would violate her sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs, noting that Christians believe that the body houses the Holy Spirit and that her
`
`religion (Roman Catholicism) opposes abortion.
`
`110. Dr. Receski further wrote: “My sincerely held religious beliefs are that I am
`
`dishonoring my God if I alter my body (which is a temple of Christ) to participate in a medical
`
`intervention that would alter me physically such as the COVID-19 vaccine. Furthermore, I can not
`
`take a product that uses cells from an aborted fetus nor one that tests its product on aborted fetal
`
`tissue.”
`
`111. On November 4, 2021, Dr. Receski answered BMS’s questions about her
`
`accommodation request and signed a “Religious Exemption Attestation for Covid-19 Vaccine.”
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 15 of 21
`
`112. BMS denied her religious accommodation request.
`
`113. Dr. Receski could have been accommodated.
`
`114. BMS did not engage in a good faith interactive process.
`
`115. BMS wrongfully terminated Dr. Receski’s employment.
`
`116. BMS indicated that it terminated her employment because she failed to get the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`117. Based on information and belief, at that time BMS did not terminate other employees
`
`outside of Dr. Receski’s protected class who were not vaccinated including those whose religious
`
`accommodation requests were delayed for up to six months for review and were allowed to continue
`
`working into 2022.
`
`118. Based on information and belief, BMS has granted reasonable accommodations to
`
`similarly situated employees who have requested medical accommodations that are identical to those
`
`requested by the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees at BMS.
`
`119. As a result of the wrongful termination, Dr. Receski suffered significant financial
`
`damages including lost wages and benefits as well as emotional distress and reputation damage.
`
`120. BMS pretextually claimed the termination was for “cause” which resulted in a loss
`
`of certain cash and stock awards and unvested stock grants and options that Dr. Receski would have
`
`received in the normal course had she remained employed or been terminated “without cause.”
`
`121. Despite strenuous mitigation efforts, Dr. Receski has not been able to secure similar
`
`employment.
`
`122. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
`
`A.
`
`Issue a declaratory judgment that the acts, policies, practices, and procedures of Defendants
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 16 of 21
`
`complained of herein violated and continue to violate the right of Plaintiff under Title VII
`
`of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e et seq.;
`
`B.
`
` Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by reinstating her into her former position, or the
`
`equivalent of such position, and by providing appropriate back pay and reimbursement for
`
`lost retirement and other benefits and expenses in an amount to be shown at trial;
`
`C.
`
`In lieu of reinstatement, award front pay until retirement;
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`G.
`
`Award punitive damages to Plaintiff;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff her attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff a tax gross-up to cover the cost of a lump sum payment for back pay;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
`
`H.
`
`Grant such further and additional relief as may to the Court seem proper.
`
`Count III – Title VII – Religious Discrimination – Hostile Work Environment
`
`123.
`
`The preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth at length herein.
`
`124. Dr. Receski has sincerely held religious beliefs and is a practicing Roman Catholic.
`
`125. Dr. Receski and her family belong to St. Mary’s Catholic Church in Cecil, PA which
`
`is part of Corpus Christi Parish in Washington County, PA.
`
`126. Dr. Receski attends weekly Mass, receives the Sacraments of Holy Eucharist and
`
`Confession, sends her children (who are being raised Catholic) to Catholic school, and donates to
`
`the Church and her children’s school.
`
`127. Dr. Receski experienced a hostile work environment when her supervisor Dr. Park
`
`criticized both religious beliefs and religious individuals in general.
`
`128. Dr. Park expressed pro-atheist and anti-religion sentiments in the workplace.
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 17 of 21
`
`129. BMS promoted diversity and inclusiveness in the workplace except for religions.
`
`130. Dr. Receski further experienced a hostile work environment when her supervisors
`
`contacted her repeatedly after BMS required employees to declare their vaccination status and be
`
`fully vaccinated.
`
`131.
`
`Even though she could easily continue to work remotely without subjecting BMS to
`
`additional costs, Dr. Receski was questioned regularly and relentlessly by her supervisors for
`
`requesting an accommodation to continue to work remotely.
`
`132. Dr. Receski was subjected to regular harassing telephone calls from her supervisors,
`
`Dr. Park and Dr. Ho, who inquired about her vaccination status, what she was going to do, and
`
`whether she had heard from BMS Human Resources.
`
`133. Dr. Receski’s non-religious colleagues were not subjected to similar adverse
`
`treatment.
`
`134.
`
`The hostility ultimately led to Dr. Receski’s termination with cause from BMS.
`
`135. Dr. Receski seeks all remedies and damages permitted under Title VII, including, but
`
`not limited to, back pay, front pay, emotional distress, reputation harm damages, reinstatement,
`
`punitive damages, attorney’s fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest.
`
`Count IV – Employee Income Retirement Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1140 et seq.
`Interference Section 510
`
`136.
`
`The preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth at length herein.
`
`137.
`
`This action is brought for damages and equitable relief arising from Defendants’
`
`interference with Plaintiff's rights under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C.A.
`
`§§ 1001 et seq., in violation of 29 U.S.C.A. § 1140.
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 18 of 21
`
`138.
`
`There is prohibited employer conduct taken for the purpose of interfering with the
`
`attainment of a right to which Dr. Receski may become entitled.
`
`139.
`
`In connection with the merger between Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Celgene
`
`Corporation, BMS adopted a US employee severance plan (“US Severance Plan”) entitling eligible
`
`employees a minimum of 6 months base pay (up to 24 months) and 50% bonus at target.
`
`140.
`
`Eligibility for the US Severance Plan benefits are contingent upon “a qualifying
`
`termination,” which includes: “A termination of employment with the Company on or within thirty
`
`(30) months following the date of a Change in Control (i.e., the closing of the transaction with
`
`Bristol-Myers Squibb) that is either (A) initiated by the Company without ‘Cause’ (as defined in the
`
`plan) or (B) initiated by the eligible employee for ‘Good Reason’ (as defined in the plan).”
`
`141.
`
`“Cause” means an employee’s “dishonesty, fraud, insubordination, willful
`
`misconduct, refusal to perform services (for any reason other than illness or incapacity), material
`
`violation of Company policy, material breach of an employment or similar agreement, or
`
`misappropriation of Company property.”
`
`142. Dr. Receski’s termination in December 2021 was within 30 months of the November
`
`2019 closing of the transaction with Bristol-Myers Squibb.
`
`143. Dr. Receski’s termination was initiated by BMS without cause.
`
`144.
`
`Plaintiff did not do anything wrong and nothing she did constituted “cause” within
`
`the meaning of the Severance Plan.
`
`145. Nevertheless, BMS wrongfully and intentionally deemed Dr. Receski’s termination
`
`as one for “cause” for the purpose of unlawfully denying her benefits under the US Severance Plan.
`
`146. BMS was aware of Dr. Receski’s US Severance Plan benefits including, but not
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 19 of 21
`
`limited to, she had addressed her rights under that Plan with her supervisors who relayed her
`
`concerns with upper management in November 2021 prior to the termination.
`
`147. Dr. Park’s manager, Juliana Kousanis, indicated that Dr. Receski would only be
`
`eligible for severance if she was granted a Medical or Religious accommodation.
`
`148. By denying the accommodation and deeming the termination as one for cause, BMS
`
`intentionally interfered with Dr. Receski’s rights under the US Severance Plan.
`
`149. Defendants’ discharge of Plaintiff for cause was for the purpose of preventing
`
`Plaintiff from receiving full severance benefits under Defendants’ severance plan and was therefore
`
`unlawful under 29 U.S.C.A. § 1140.
`
`150. As a result of the interference, Dr. Receski suffered significant damages.
`
`151. Absent BMS’s interference, Dr. Receski would have received severance in a
`
`significant amount and paid COBRA coverage, plus additional stock options and stock grants would
`
`have vested.
`
`152.
`
` WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court:
`
`A.
`
`Order Defendants to make Plaintiff whole by awarding the lost severance package, and/or
`
`reinstating her into her former position, or the equivalent of such position, and by providing
`
`appropriate back pay and reimbursement for lost retirement and other benefits and expenses
`
`in an amount to be shown at trial;
`
`In lieu of reinstatement, award front pay until retirement;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff her attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff a tax gross-up to cover the cost of a lump sum payment for back pay;
`
`Grant to Plaintiff prejudgment and postjudgment interest; and
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`19
`
`
`
`Case 2:23-cv-00883-JFC Document 1 Filed 05/26/23 Page 20 of 21
`
`F.
`
`Grant such further and additional relief as may to the Court seem proper.
`
`Count V – Breach of Contract (Cash Award)
`
`153.
`
`The preceding paragraphs are incorporated as if set forth a
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
