IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN SECTION OF TENNESSEE
`AT KNOXVILLE
`
`
`
`AARON MILES BARE,
`on behalf of himself and all others
`similarly situated,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CARDINAL HEALTH, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`Civil Action No.: ______________
`THIS IS THE FIRST APPLICATION FOR
`EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF
`
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR TERMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER,
`PRELIMINARY AND PERMENANT INUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND FOR DAMAGES
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`For his complaint against the Defendant, Plaintiff alleges and avers the following:
`
`EXIGENCIES JUSTIFYING A TEMPORARY RESTRIANING ORDER
`
`
`
`
`1.
`
`This action is brought by the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated individuals to
`
`remedy the Defendant’s pattern of unlawful discrimination against employees who requested
`
`religious exemptions and accommodations from the Defendant’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`In his Prayer for Relief, infra, and in the contemporaneously filed Motion for
`
`Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiff seeks a Temporary Restraining
`
`Order (“TRO”) against the Defendant’s discriminatory, unlawful and unconscionable refusal to
`
`grant Plaintiff a religious exemption and accommodation for his sincerely held religious beliefs
`
`which prohibits Plaintiff from complying with the Defendant’s policy mandating that all of its
`
`salaried employees receive one form of the COVID-19 vaccine (hereinafter “Mandatory COVID-
`
`19 Vaccination Policy”).
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 1 of 32 PageID #: 1
`
`Page 1 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`3.
`
`Unless this Court intervenes and grants a TRO prior to December 6, 2021,
`
`Defendant will terminate the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees on
`
`December 6, 2021, causing incalculable and irreparable harm to them and their families, as
`
`described herein, including potential homelessness, lack of medical care, lack of food and
`
`shelter, disrupted education for their children, financial ruin and harms to their physical,
`
`mental and emotional health.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff is a healthcare professional who has sincerely held religious beliefs against
`
`taking the COVID-19 vaccines because they were either developed from, or tested with, aborted
`
`fetal cell lines or for other religious reasons explained to the Defendant. Because of the
`
`Defendant’s unlawful actions in denying all or virtually all meritorious exemption requests,
`
`Plaintiff is faced with an immediate “choice” to either (a) receive the COVID-19 vaccination in
`
`direct violation of their conscience and sincerely held religious beliefs, or (b) be terminated from
`
`his employment with the Defendant as a consequence of exercising his fundamental and statutory
`
`rights to refuse administration of the COVID-19 vaccines. “Such a Hobson’s choice is actually no
`
`choice at all.” Smith v. Grams, 556 F.3d 1037, 1046 (7th Cir. 2009) (emphasis added). Such a sword
`
`of Damocles should never be allowed to hang over the head of a citizen of a country founded on
`
`religious freedom. See U.S. Const., am. I (Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment
`
`of religion; nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ..).
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Defendant summarily denied Plaintiff’s religious exemption request. Plaintiff’s
`
`request was based upon the fact that his religious beliefs prevent him from taking any vaccine,
`
`such as the COVID-19 vaccines which have been developed or tested with aborted fetal tissue.
`
`Should Plaintiff take said vaccine, he believes he would be committing a sin based upon the
`
`teachings of his church and the Holy Bible, King James Version. It is utterly immaterial to
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 2 of 32 PageID #: 2
`
`Page 2 of 31
`
`

`

`Plaintiff’s request for a religious exemption what church he attends; it only matters whether he has
`
`a sincere belief that taking certain actions places him in danger of committing a sin against his
`
`God. The Plaintiff is a citizen and resident of the only nation in the world founded upon principals
`
`of manifest destiny and religious freedom; yet his employer, who is not allowed to terminate him
`
`for sincerely held religious beliefs, has decided to enact policies which would make any communist
`
`or king of the old world proud indeed. Defendant summarily denied Plaintiff’s request, and upon
`
`information and belief, other employee’s religious exemption requests without the chance to
`
`appeal the decision. See Exhibits A and B.
`
`
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees that had their religious
`
`exemption requests denied by the Defendant have been given until December 6, 2021 to make the
`
`decision whether to comply with the Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy.
`
`
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff and all other similarly situated employees stand to suffer severe and
`
`irreparable harm absent a TRO. Plaintiff and other employees depend heavily on their employment
`
`with the Defendant to support themselves and their families. Plaintiff is the father of seven young
`
`children. Plaintiff, and perhaps other employees of the Defendant, is the sole provider for his
`
`family and the loss of employment would be devastating. As attested to further below, the harms
`
`which would result absent a TRO include, but are not limited to, homelessness, loss of medical
`
`insurance and the ability to provide urgent medical care for Plaintiffs and family members, and
`
`inability to pay for their children’s educations. Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, are also
`
`being subjected to harassment, intimidation and threats as a result of their religious declination of
`
`vaccination, which is causing anxiety and stress for Plaintiff and his family.
`
`
`
`8.
`
`A TRO is needed now to prevent the irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs and his cherished occupations, mission and life calling to care for others. Absent
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 3 of 32 PageID #: 3
`
`Page 3 of 31
`
`

`

`a TRO, Plaintiff will be forced to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs or face adverse
`
`employment action from Defendant.
`
`
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff has earnestly, honestly, and in good faith sought religious exemptions and
`
`reasonable accommodations from Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, but has
`
`been summarily rejected. Exhibits A and B.
`
`
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff has complied with all requirements for seeking an accommodation and
`
`exemption based upon his sincerely held religious beliefs, and otherwise complied with all of the
`
`requirements Defendant established for seeking a religious exemption from the Mandatory
`
`COVID-19 Vaccination Policy. Indeed, Plaintiff has scratched and clawed to obtain the relief he
`
`seeks without judicial intervention. Those efforts failed and a TRO and preliminary injunction is
`
`the only mechanism by which Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs may be protected and
`
`accommodated prior to the suffering of immediate and irreparable injury.
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Plaintiff does not seek to harm anyone, nor does he request a license to roam about
`
`uninhibited as though no health threat existed. Plaintiff merely seeks to protect his sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs not to receive a medical product created with or tested upon aborted fetal cell lines
`
`while being afforded the opportunity to continue his employment, service to others and life calling.
`
`Plaintiff is willing to abide by protections that have been espoused as sufficient to protect against
`
`COVID-19, namely wearing a mask, self-monitoring for symptoms, voluntary reporting of
`
`potential symptoms, and reasonable testing requirements. These mechanisms plainly provide a
`
`sufficient alternative to forced vaccination in violation of sincerely held religious beliefs.
`
`
`
`12.
`
`Several throughout the nation, including this District, have already issued
`
`injunctive relief, including temporary restraining orders, to plaintiffs who are threatened with
`
`adverse employment consequences because of their religious or conscience-based objections to
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 4 of 32 PageID #: 4
`
`Page 4 of 31
`
`

`

`COVID-19 vaccines: Velvet Darnell et. al. v. Quincy Physicians and Surgeons Clinic, S.C. and
`
`Blessing Corporate Services, Inc., Case No. 2021 MR 193 (18th Judicial Cir. Adams County, IL
`
`October 1, 2021) (granting TRO under Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, and enjoining
`
`healthcare provider from taking adverse action against healthcare employees declining COVID-
`
`19 vaccination on religious and conscience grounds); David Sambrano et. al. v. United Airlines,
`
`Inc., Case No. 4:21-01074-P (N.D. Texas. Oct. 18, 2021); Dr. A. v. Hochul, No. 1:21-CV-1009-
`
`DNH-ML, 2021 WL 4734404, *9 (N.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2021) (granting preliminary injunction
`
`against enforcement of New York’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on healthcare workers for failure
`
`to grant religious exemptions and noting that “Title VII does not demand mere neutrality with
`
`regard to religious practices . . . rather, it gives them favored treatment.’ Thus, under certain
`
`circumstances, Title VII ‘requires otherwise-neutral policies to give way to the need for an
`
`accommodation.” (emphasis added)); We The Patriots USA, Inc. v. v. Hochul, No. 21-2179, dkt.
`
`65 (2d Cir. Sept. 30, 2021) (issuing an injunction pending appeal against enforcement of New
`
`York’s COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate for its failure to allow for religious accommodations); Dahl
`
`v. Bd. of Trustees of W. Michigan Univ., No. 21-2945, 2021 WL 4618519 (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2021)
`
`(allowing the preliminary injunction to stand against a University’s failure to accommodate student
`
`athletes with sincerely held religious objections to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate and noting that
`
`“The University put plaintiffs to the choice: get vaccinated or stop fully participating in
`
`intercollegiate sports. . . . By conditioning the privilege of playing sports on plaintiffs’ willingness
`
`to abandon their sincere religious beliefs, the University burdened their free exercise rights.”
`
`(emphasis added)); Magliulo v. Edward Via College of Osteopathic Medicine, No. 3:21-CV-2304,
`
`2021 WL 36799227 (W.D. La. Aug. 17, 2021) (granting temporary restraining order against a
`
`medical school for the school’s failure to grant religious exemptions when reasonable
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 5 of 32 PageID #: 5
`
`Page 5 of 31
`
`

`

`accommodations were available (such as masking, testing, etc.) and mandatory vaccination was
`
`not the least restrictive means of achieving the school’s interest in protecting the school’s student
`
`body); Bilyeu v. UT-Battelle, LLC, No. 3:21-cv-352, 2021 WL 4859932, * (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 15,
`
`2021) (granting TRO enjoining healthcare employer “from terminating or placing on indefinite
`
`unpaid leave any employee who has not received a religious or medical accommodation”); BST
`
`Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, et al. No. 21-60845 (5th
`
`Cir. Ct. App. Filed Nov. 12, 2021)(TRO granted and stay of Federal Govenrment Vaccine Mandate
`
`to employers because Petitioners are likely to succeed on permanent injunction).
`
`
`
`13.
`
`Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), and the Emergency Use
`
`Authorization statute in the United States Code, protect the right of individuals to refuse
`
`administration of an unwanted medical product when acceptance of such product would violate
`
`their sincerely held religious beliefs and the exercise of the same. Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-
`
`19 Vaccination Policy, including its refusal to grant meritorious religious exemption requests,
`
`ignores these fundamental protections for Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs, and this Court
`
`should enjoin the policy immediately, to protect Plaintiff, and others similarly situated, from
`
`imminent irreparable harm.
`
`PARTIES
`
`
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiff is a Senior Pharmacist with the Defendant who submitted a signed, written
`
`request for a religious exemption and accommodation from Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19
`
`Vaccination Policy, but Defendant has refused to provide a reasonable accommodation. Exhibit
`
`A. Plaintiff is the sole contributor to his family's income. Plaintiff through his employment
`
`provides his family's benefits including vision, dental and health. Plaintiff has seven minor children
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 6 of 32 PageID #: 6
`
`Page 6 of 31
`
`

`

`who depend on his employment with Defendant. The Plaintiff’s employment would be devastating
`
`to his family – not only financially, but medically, emotionally and physically.
`
`
`
`15.
`
`Other similarly situated Plaintiffs are those unknown employees of Defendant who
`
`are similarly situated with the predicament that the Plaintiff finds himself in.
`
`
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff’s initial religious exemption application were denied on the basis of a non-
`
`descript “evidence-based criteria” and each of them appealed those decisions with additional
`
`evidence only to be denied any reasonable accommodation for their sincerely held religious
`
`beliefs.
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Plaintiff has filed or is filing a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity
`
`Commission, accompanied by attorney requests for immediate right to sue letters.
`
`
`
`18.
`
`Defendant, Cardinal Health, Inc., is a for-profit corporation incorporated under the
`
`laws of the State of Ohio with its principal place of business at 7000 Cardinal Place, Dublin, Ohio
`
`43017.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`
`
`19.
`
`This action arises under the laws of the United States, specifically 21 U.S.C.
`
`§360bbb-3 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331, and 1343.
`
`21.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
`
`
`
`22.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant declaratory judgment under the Declaratory
`
`Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201-02, implemented through Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 7 of 32 PageID #: 7
`
`Page 7 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`23.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff’s prayer for a temporary restraining order
`
`and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil
`
`Procedure.
`
`
`
`24.
`
`This Court is authorized to grant Plaintiff’s prayer for relief regarding damages
`
`pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applicable under Fed. R. Civ. P. 69.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`A. DEFENDANT’S MANDATORY AND DISCRIMINATORY COVID-19
`VACCINATION POLICY.
`
`
`25.
`
`
`
`On August 21, 2021, Defendant announced a policy mandating COVID-19
`
`vaccines for all of its salaried employees. See Exhibit C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`Defendant announced, through a spokesperson, the following:
`
`
`
`As the days and months of the calendar change, so too does what we understand about
`COVID-19. I’ll be honest, it seems like it was a week ago that we made a decision we never
`imagined we’d make – to require masks. And that wasn’t the first or last decision of that
`kind.
`
`
`All along we’ve followed some basic principles like keeping you safe and making sure we
`could fulfill our essential role in healthcare and we’ve leaned heavily on science.
`
`
`The delta variant is reminding us that we are still battling the COVID-19 pandemic and that
`the virus continues to change to survive. We must do the same. The delta variant is surging
`in many places around the world and causing vaccinated and unvaccinated alike to reassess
`yet again. With the support of Dr. Soden and information about what other large companies
`are doing, we’ve made some decisions.
`
`
`Today I’m announcing how we’re adapting to keep you safe as we continue to manage
`through this pandemic.
`
`
`First, I’m sure you have noticed mask requirements being put back in place in many
`locations. Beginning Monday, August 9, all employees, regardless of vaccination status, in
`all U.S. locations must wear masks in common areas or when you are not able to maintain
`physical distance. We understand many of our locations have already implemented masks
`for all our employees and in some locations we won’t be able to mandate due to local laws,
`but we strongly encourage you to wear masks so we can keep you safe and maintain the
`integrity of our operations.
`
`
`Second, science tells us that the only way to defeat the virus is through vaccination. The
`longer we continue with a portion of our population unvaccinated, the more likely we are to
`encounter stronger delta surges and even more potent variants in the future. The time is now
`and the need to be vaccinated is urgent.
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 8 of 32 PageID #: 8
`
`Page 8 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`To do our part as members of the healthcare community, we are requiring the following U.S.
`employee groups to be FULLY vaccinated by October 4, 2021:
`· All salaried employees
`· Office based employees (onsite full time or onsite flex) or any employee planning to
`go to a Cardinal Health location
`· All Sales team members
`· Anyone required to travel for business
`· Anyone planning to go to a customer location
`At this time, employees working in distribution centers, manufacturing plants and hourly
`employees working from home will only be required to show their vaccination status.
`Although not required, we urge everyone to get the vaccine.
`
`
` few additional things to note:
`· We acknowledge that there are a small number of employees who cannot get the
`vaccine due to medical issues or religious reasons. We will have an interactive process so
`employees can request a medical or religious exemption and will launch this alongside our
`vaccine documentation collection process.
`· We’ve chosen to use Workday to collect COVID vaccination records and will follow
`up as we finalize the process.
`· Because of how important getting the COVID vaccine is for your health and safety,
`we are adding it to our 2022 health premium discount. We’ll share additional details on what
`this means to you in the coming weeks.
`Third, we are delaying the full reopening of our office locations until October 4. If you’ve
`been working onsite at one of the locations or want to begin working onsite, we are happy to
`have you so as long as you follow the mask protocol for your site. We’re continuing with the
`same protocols we’ve had throughout much of the pandemic so the environment is safe,
`providing you do your part by wearing a mask and staying home when you don’t feel well.
`
`
`Lastly, I want to reiterate a few protocols that are not changing at this time.
`· We are keeping our travel guidance as is. All travel should be related to an important
`business need or for customer interaction.
`· We are maintaining the 50% capacity limits in conference rooms and meeting spaces.
`· We’ll keep our gathering limit at 100 attendees, on or offsite.
`I know this is a lot to process and that you’ll have a lot of questions. Please keep an eye on
`the COVID-19 microsite where we’ll post information as it is available. And I encourage
`you to join us at the next Let’s Chat scheduled for August 24 or send your feedback/questions
`to our Pandemic team.
`
`
`Thank you for all you do and for supporting this decision in the interest of keeping our
`Cardinal Health family as safe as we can.
`
`
`
` A
`
`Be well,
`
`Exhibit C.
`
`27.
`
`Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy specifically states that the
`
`
`
`
`
`“requirement applies to all Defendant All salaried employees, Office based employees (onsite full
`
`time or onsite flex) or any employee planning to go to a Cardinal Health location … all sales team
`
`members, anyone required to travel for business and anyone planning to go to a customer location
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 9 of 32 PageID #: 9
`
`Page 9 of 31
`
`

`

`. . . .”
`
`
`
`
`
`28.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy further provides that the final
`
`deadline to be “fully vaccinated” is December 6, 2021, to wit:
`
`All salaried employees will need to be vaccinated by December 6th to remain employed at
`Cardinal Health. A timeline for hourly employees is being determined.
`
`
`
`Sorry if I confused the situation with my previous email.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See Exhibit D.
`
`29.
`
`In its Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy, Defendant purported to permit
`
`
`
`
`
`employees to obtain religious exemptions from the mandate, but as explained further below, that
`
`process was a sham, because Defendant never intended to grant exemptions or accommodations
`
`for all or virtually all of its employees who request them.
`
`
`
`30.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy does not take into account
`
`individuals who have already recovered from COVID-19 and thus have antibodies or natural
`
`immunity, nor does it take into account alternative measures such as face coverings, personal
`
`protective equipment, self-monitoring and reporting of symptoms, or periodic testing.
`
`
`
`31.
`
`Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy contrasts with and flouts
`
`the Federal Government’s recent announcement that the Department of Labor is developing a rule
`
`to require certain large employers to mandate vaccination or periodic testing for their employees.
`
`Defendant does not provide a testing alternative for any of its employees, as the Federal
`
`Government contemplates to be sufficient.
`
`
`
`32.
`
`The Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy also differs substantially from the
`
`European Union’s digital COVID-19 certificate, which considers the following as equivalent: (1)
`
`a COVID-19 vaccine; (2) a negative COVID-19 test; or (3) having previously recovered from
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 10 of 32 PageID #: 10
`
`Page 10 of 31
`
`

`

`COVID-19. See EU Digital COVID Certificate, EUROPEAN COMMISSION,
`
`https://ec.europa.eu/info/live-work-travel-eu/coronavirus-response/safe-covid-19-vaccines-
`
`europeans/eu-digital-covid-certificate_en
`
`
`
`33.
`
`Defendant’s refusal to exempt and accommodate its employees’ sincerely held
`
`religious convictions is the product of Defendant’s animus towards, and discrimination against, its
`
`employees because of their religious beliefs.
`
`
`
`34.
`
`Defendant’s religious animus and discrimination are further evidenced by the fact
`
`that, while Defendant requires its employees to be vaccinated and refuses to accommodate its
`
`religiously-objecting employees, Defendant does not require clients or visitors to be vaccinated,
`
`even though these individuals interact with Defendant’s staff on a daily basis. If Defendant were
`
`concerned about potential “outbreaks” caused by unvaccinated people on its premises, Defendant
`
`would not exempt large groups of people on its premises, while refusing to exempt only employees
`
`who object to vaccination on religious grounds.
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANT’S SHAM RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION PROCESS, AND ITS
`DISCRIMINATORY APPLICATION OF ITS MANDATORY COVID-19
`VACCINATION POLICY.
`
`As mentioned above, Defendant’s Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination Policy
`
`35.
`
`
`
`provided employees, in theory but not in practice, the illusory ability to obtain a religious
`
`exemption from the vaccine mandate.
`
`
`
`36.
`
`Those seeking religious exemptions were required to submit a “Request for
`
`Religious Exemption” form. Exhibit A.
`
`
`
`37.
`
`Defendant asked employees to limit their responses indicating to them very clearly
`
`that Defendant was not seeking detailed explanations.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 11 of 32 PageID #: 11
`
`Page 11 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`38.
`
`In submitting Plaintiff’s requests for religious exemption, the Plaintiff followed the
`
`directions given to him by Defendant, and complied fully with Defendant’s purported
`
`requirements.
`
`
`
`39.
`
`Defendant provided the Plaintiff with no bases as to why his religious exemption
`
`was denied – only that it was denied because he traveled. Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`40.
`
`Defendant ultimately and uniformly denied Plaintiff’s religious exemption request
`
`for no reason at all. Id.
`
`
`
`41.
`
`Defendant provided the Plaintiff with no opportunity to appeal or challenge in any
`
`way the denial of his religious exemption request. Id.
`
`
`
`42.
`
`It is clear from Defendant’s denial, that Defendant never intended to grant any of
`
`these exemption requests to begin with, and that its entire exemption process was a sham. Indeed,
`
`Defendant's summary denial of abortion-related religious beliefs from consideration is unlawful.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`This point is further reinforced by Plaintiff’s experience with a manager. On one
`
`occasion, a manager emailed Plaintiff and informed him that he would be hearing from a job
`
`recruiter solidifying the fact that Defendant intends to terminate the Plaintiff on December 6, 2021.
`
`
`
`44.
`
`Therefore, Defendant’s provision for a religious exemption was a sham and its
`
`practice was to simply deny religious exemptions en masse with boilerplate language, for no reason
`
`at all and no ability to appeal or challenge the denial.
`
`
`
`45.
`
`As a result, Defendant failed to engage with the Plaintiff, and with all of its similarly
`
`situated employees, in good faith in the interactive process contemplated by Title VII.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`46.
`
`PLAINTIFF, AND ALL OTHER IMILARLY SITUATED INDIVIDUALS,
`SINCERELY HELD RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.
`
`Plaintiff, and all other similarly situated individuals, all have sincerely held
`
`religious beliefs that preclude them from complying with the Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 12 of 32 PageID #: 12
`
`Page 12 of 31
`
`

`

`Policy because of the connection between all three COVID-19 vaccines (in their origination,
`
`production, development, or testing), and the cell lines of aborted fetuses.
`
`
`
`47.
`
`A fundamental component of Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs is that all
`
`life is sacred, from the moment of conception to natural death, and that abortion is a grave sin
`
`against God and the murder of an innocent life.
`
`
`
`48.
`
`Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs are rooted in Scripture’s teachings that
`
`“[a]ll Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for
`
`correction, [and] for instruction in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV).
`
`
`
`49.
`
`Because of that sincerely held religious belief, Plaintiff believes that he must
`
`conform his life, including his decisions relating to medical care, to the commands and teaching
`
`of Scripture.
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff has sincerely held religious beliefs that God forms children in the womb
`
`and knows them prior to their birth, and that because of this, life is sacred from the moment of
`
`conception. See Psalm 139:13-14 (“For you formed my inward parts; you knitted me together in
`
`my mother’s womb. I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.” (ESV)); Psalm 139:16
`
`(“Your eyes saw my unformed substance; in your book were written, every one of them, the day
`
`that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them.” (ESV)); Isaiah 44:2 (“the Lord that
`
`made thee, and formed thee from the womb . . .” (KJV)); Isaiah 44:24 (“Thus saith the Lord, thy
`
`redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things.” (KJV));
`
`Isaiah 49:1 (“The Lord hath called my from the womb; from the bowels of my mother hath he
`
`made mention of my name.” (KJV)); Isaiah 49:5 (“the Lord that formed me from the womb to be
`
`his servant” (KJV)); Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou
`
`camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee.” (KJV)).
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 13 of 32 PageID #: 13
`
`Page 13 of 31
`
`

`

`
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff also has sincerely held religious beliefs that every child’s life is sacred
`
`because they are made in the image of God. See Genesis 1:26-27 (“Let us make man in our image,
`
`after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image; in the image of God created he him;
`
`male and female created he them.” (KJV)).
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff also has sincerely held religious beliefs that because life is sacred from the
`
`moment of conception, the killing of that innocent life is the murder of an innocent human in
`
`violation of Scripture. See, e.g., Exodus 20:13 (“Though shalt not kill.” (KJV)); Exodus 21:22-23
`
`(setting the penalty as death for even the accidental killing of an unborn child); Exodus 23:7 (“the
`
`innocent and righteous slay thou not, for I will not justify the wicked.” (KJV)); Genesis 9:6
`
`(“Whoso sheddeth a man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made
`
`he man.” (KJV)); Deuteronomy 27:25 (“Cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent
`
`person.” (KJV)); Proverbs 6:16-17 (“These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an
`
`abomination to him . . . hands that shed innocent blood.” (KJV)).
`
`
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiff has sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in the Scriptures listed above,
`
`that anything that condones, supports, justifies, or benefits from the taking of innocent human life
`
`via abortion is sinful, contrary to the Scriptures, and must be denounced, condemned, and avoided
`
`altogether.
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff has sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in the Scriptures listed above,
`
`that it is an affront to Scripture’s teaching that all life is sacred for Plaintiff to use a product derived
`
`from or connected in any way with abortion.
`
`
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in the above Scriptures, preclude
`
`him from accepting any one of the three currently available COVID-19 vaccines, because all three
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 14 of 32 PageID #: 14
`
`Page 14 of 31
`
`

`

`vaccines were derived from, produced, manufactured by, tested on, developed with, or otherwise
`
`connected to aborted fetal cell lines.
`
`
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious objections to the Johnson & Johnson
`
`(Janssen Pharmaceuticals) vaccine because it unquestionably used aborted fetal cells lines to
`
`produce and manufacture the vaccines.
`
`
`
`57.
`
`As reported by the North Dakota Department of Health, in its handout literature for
`
`those considering one of the COVID-19 vaccines, “[t]he non-replicating viral vector vaccine
`
`produced by Johnson & Johnson did require the use of fetal cell cultures, specifically PER.C6,
`
`in order to produce and manufacture the vaccine.”
`
`See North Dakota Health, COVID-19 Vaccines & Fetal Cell Lines (Apr. 20, 2021), available at
`
`https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-
`
`19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf (last visited Aug. 2, 2021) (bold emphasis original).
`
`
`
`58.
`
`The Louisiana Department of Health likewise confirms that the Johnson & Johnson
`
`COVID-19 vaccine, which used PER.C6 fetal cell line, “is a retinal cell line that was isolated from
`
`a terminated fetus in 1985.”
`
`Louisiana Department of Public Health, You Have Questions, We Have Answers: COVID-19
`
`Vaccine FAQ (Dec. 12, 2020), available at https://ldh.la.gov/assets/oph/Center-PHCH/Center-
`
`PH/immunizations/You_Have_Qs_COVID-19_Vaccine_FAQ.pdf (last visited Aug. 2, 2021)
`
`(emphasis added).
`
`
`
`59.
`
`Scientists at the American Association for the Advancement of Science have
`
`likewise published research showing that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine used aborted fetal cell
`
`lines in the development and production phases of the vaccine. Meredith Wadman, Vaccines that
`
`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-00389 Document 1 Filed 11/17/21 Page 15 of 32 PageID #: 15
`
`Page 15 of 31
`
`

`

`use
`
`human
`
`fetal
`
`cells
`
`draw
`
`fire, Science
`
`(June
`
`12,
`
`2020),
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6496/1170.full (last visited Aug. 2, 2021).
`
`
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiff also has sincerely held religious objections to the Moderna and
`
`Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines because both of these vaccines, too, ha