Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID 1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`AUDREY RAGSDALE,
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`METHODIST LE BONHEUR
`)
`
`HEALTHCARE,
`
`
`)
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`______________________________________________________________________________
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. _____________________
`JURY DEMANDED
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Audrey Ragsdale, is a resident of Shelby County, Tennessee.
`
`Defendant, Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare [“Methodist”], is a healthcare
`
`company with locations in West Tennessee and Mississippi. Specifically, one of Methodist’s
`
`facilities, Methodist North Hospital, is located in Memphis, Shelby County, Tennessee, at 3960
`
`New Covington Pike, Memphis, Tennessee 38128. Methodist’s registered agent for service of
`
`process is Monica N. Wharton, located at 1211 Union Avenue, Suite 700, Memphis, Tennessee
`
`38104-6600.
`
`3.
`
`This action is filed for unlawful termination of employment pursuant to the
`
`Tennessee Human Rights Act [“THRA”], TENN. CODE ANN. § 4-21-101, et seq.; and Title VII of
`
`the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. Each of the foregoing statutes
`
`provide in pertinent part that all employees should be protected from, inter alia, discrimination in
`
`employment and that all employees’ interests in dignity and freedom from humiliation should be
`
`protected.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID 2
`
`4.
`
`This Court has federal question jurisdiction over this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331 (Original Jurisdiction).
`
`This Court is the proper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c).
`
`Defendant employs more than 500 employees.
`
`Methodist is an integrated, non-profit healthcare system based in Memphis,
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`Tennessee.
`
`8.
`
`On or about February 25, 2014, Plaintiff was hired by Defendant as a Medical
`
`Technologist I at the Methodist North Hospital located at 3960 New Covington Pike, Memphis,
`
`Tennessee 38128. Plaintiff’s job assignment as a generalist regularly required her to rotate within
`
`the lab to test patient specimens gathered by nurses and doctors within Methodist North Hospital.
`
`Plaintiff’s role required her to stay in the lab; therefore, she was never interacting with patients.
`
`Plaintiff’s interaction with other hospital employees, including, but not limited to, nurses, doctors,
`
`and administration, was very limited.
`
`9.
`
`In March 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic struck.
`
`10. Methodist initially implemented a policy requiring all employees to self-access
`
`their possible exposure to COVID-19 with daily health questions and temperature scans upon entry
`
`to the building.
`
`11.
`
`In April 2020, Methodist implemented a policy requiring all employees to wear a
`
`surgical mask. From April 2020 to June 2021, the only requirements for Plaintiff as a condition of
`
`her employment regarding COVID-19 was to wear a surgical mask while on site, health questions
`
`upon entry to site, and temperature scans upon entry to site.
`
`12.
`
`In June 2021, a new variant of COVID-19 emerged which caused the Center for
`
`Disease Control [“CDC”] to release updated guidelines.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID 3
`
`13.
`
`On or about July 27, 2021, CDC released its updated guidelines regarding COVID-
`
`19 vaccinations. Methodist decided to implement these new guidelines within its healthcare
`
`system.
`
`14. Methodist mandated that all employees were to be fully vaccinated by October 31,
`
`2021. Attached as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein is
`
`Methodist’s COVID-19 Vaccination for MLH Associates and Providers [“Vaccination Policy”].
`
`15.
`
`The Vaccination Policy did allow for two types of exemptions: (1) medical and (2)
`
`religious.
`
`16.
`
`On or about August 9, 2021, Plaintiff emailed Jane Nichols, Lab Director for North
`
`Hospital and Plaintiff’s Direct Supervisor, regarding a religious exemption. Nichols forwarded
`
`said email to Mayzelle Moore, Human Resources Director for North Hospital. Moore emailed
`
`Plaintiff the Vaccine Exemption Form.
`
`17.
`
`On or about August 19, 2021, Plaintiff submitted the Vaccine Exemption Form.
`
`She also included a document titled “Statement of Declination for Offer of Vaccine Products”
`
`[“Statement”]. Attached as Exhibit B and incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein
`
`is the Vaccine Religious Exemption Form – COVID-19 Vaccine with Statement attached.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff’s Statement outlines her sincerely held religious beliefs. Plaintiff
`
`“decline[d] all attempts to access, influence, and/or otherwise alter any and all of my God-given
`
`biological material and/or biological systems which are unique, flawless and original design and
`
`craftmanship of [her] Creator.” See Exhibit B.
`
`19.
`
`Additionally, in Plaintiff’s Statement, she outlined her requested religiously
`
`accepted accommodations of “one non-fitted surgical style mask and continue social distancing
`
`without being tested for Influenza or COVID.” See Exhibit B.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID 4
`
`20.
`
`Because of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, she did not consent to the excessive
`
`COVID-19 nasal swab testing as an invasive medical procedure.
`
`21.
`
`On or about Friday, September 24, 2024, Plaintiff was notified her Religious
`
`Exemption request was approved. Attached as Exhibit C and incorporated by reference as though
`
`fully restated herein is Religious Exemption Approval Email dated September 24, 2021.
`
`22.
`
`In said Religious Exemption Approval Email, Plaintiff was required to do the
`
`following:
`
`a. Wear a designated respirator mask provided by [Methodist] at all times other
`
`than when actively eating or drinking;
`
`b. Be tested weekly for COVID-19; and
`
`c. Maintain social distancing including in breakrooms, and other measures as
`
`deemed necessary.
`
`See Exhibit C.
`
`23.
`
`These accommodations were not the accommodations proposed by Plaintiff in her
`
`Statement. Therefore, none of Plaintiff’s requested religiously accepted accommodations were
`
`approved. Based on the Religious Exemption Approval Email, there was no indication the
`
`requested accommodations were even considered. See Exhibit C.
`
`24.
`
`On or about October 18, 2021, Plaintiff inquired into this by emailing Ms. Moore.
`
`She notified Ms. Moore that although she had outlined requested religious exemption
`
`accommodations, she felt as if they had not been addressed appropriately. Ms. Moore provided no
`
`substantive response to Plaintiff’s inquiry into
`
`the status of her requested religious
`
`accommodations. Ms. Moore simply provided Plaintiff with information regarding a respirator
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID 5
`
`fitting. Attached as Exhibit D and incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein is Re:
`
`ar137777a Religious Exemption dated October 18, 2021.
`
`25.
`
`In order to be fitted for her mask, Plaintiff had a choice between two days and had
`
`to drive to Methodist Germantown. This fitting was to take place during non-work hours, and there
`
`was to be no pay for the time or travel dedicated to the mask fitting. See Exhibit D.
`
`26.
`
`On or about October 21, 2021, Plaintiff had a phone call with Ms. Moore. It was
`
`Plaintiff’s day off. Ms. Moore informed Plaintiff the COVID committee had met, and Plaintiff’s
`
`approved religious exemption accommodations would not be granted. This was a final decision
`
`with no opportunity for further discussion or appeal. Moore stated she had to deal with 200 to 300
`
`of “You people” which meant individuals who chose not to be vaccinated. Plaintiff asked if Moore
`
`could send an email detailing their conversation, but Ms. Moore refused. Ms. Moore stated she did
`
`not wish to be contacted by Plaintiff regarding this issue further.
`
`27.
`
`On or about October 22, 2021, Methodist sent an email outlining the COVID testing
`
`requirements for individuals who chose to not be vaccinated. Although the COVID tests would be
`
`at no cost to Plaintiff or any other Methodist employee, the tests were to be performed during non-
`
`work hours, the tests were to be taken at one location – Poplar Healthcare on Hacks Cross, and no
`
`more than 48 hours could lapse in between tests. There was to be no compensation for the time or
`
`travel involved in testing. Attached as Exhibit E and incorporated by reference as though fully
`
`restated herein is Heightened Safety Requirement – Testing email dated October 22, 2021.
`
`28.
`
`29.
`
`On or about October 26, 2021, Plaintiff was fitted for her respirator mask.
`
`Just three (3) days later, on or about October 29, 2021, Methodist amended its
`
`masking requirement from a 3M Elastomeric Respirator mask to a N95 mask.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID 6
`
`30.
`
`On or about November 5, 2021, Plaintiff informed Ms. Nichols she would not be
`
`complying with the testing requirements or wear an N95 mask because it violated her religious
`
`beliefs.
`
`31.
`
`On or about November 6, 2021, Ms. Nichols stated Plaintiff could either take a two
`
`week leave of absence to contemplate the required accommodations or be terminated. Plaintiff
`
`expressed she would not consent to any medical procedure against her religious beliefs. Ms.
`
`Nichols took Plaintiff’s badge, clocked Plaintiff out of the system, and stated she would email Ms.
`
`Moore to contact Plaintiff via email. Plaintiff understood this to mean she had been terminated for
`
`failure to comply with the testing requirements.
`
`32.
`
`On or about November 8, 2021, Ms. Moore called Plaintiff on her personal cell
`
`phone. When Plaintiff did not pick up, Ms. Moore left a voicemail requesting a call back. Plaintiff
`
`did not call Ms. Moore back because Plaintiff had already indicated to Ms. Moore her requested
`
`mode of communication was to be email. Plaintiff’s cell service was not working properly at the
`
`time. Plaintiff would get notifications that someone had called her phone hours after the individual
`
`had called without her phone ringing. Plaintiff was not attempting to be insubordinate, and she
`
`wanted to ensure all communication was clear.
`
`33.
`
`On or about November 9, 2021, Ms. Moore called Plaintiff’s personal cell phone
`
`again requesting a call back regarding the two-week suspension. Plaintiff emailed Ms. Moore
`
`indicating Plaintiff would not be accepting calls at this time from Methodist because she was
`
`terminated on November 6, 2021, because her religious beliefs conflicted with COVID-19 testing.
`
`34. Ms. Moore responded to Plaintiff’s email stating Plaintiff had not been fired.
`
`However, later in the email, Ms. Moore indicated that if Plaintiff did not call her back, she would
`
`be terminated for non-compliance.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID 7
`
`35.
`
`On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff was terminated from Methodist for “fail[ure] to
`
`comply with COVID exemption accommodation requirement.”
`
`36.
`
`On or about January 17, 2024, the EEOC’s right to sue letter was issued and
`
`received by Plaintiff.
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff’s termination was the result of religious discrimination against Plaintiff
`
`based on her religion.
`
`38.
`
`Since her unlawful termination, Plaintiff has experienced a decline in her overall
`
`mental health, including, but not limited to, increased stress, feelings of insignificance, and
`
`persistent sadness.
`
`39.
`
`Because of her unlawful termination, Plaintiff is now suffering an on-going loss of
`
`wages. Plaintiff had planned to work as long as she was able. She should be compensated for her
`
`wage losses and all other benefits she would have been entitled to had she remained employed.
`
`40.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the discriminatory acts set forth above, Plaintiff
`
`has suffered the following injuries, including but not limited to:
`
`a. embarrassment;
`
`b. humiliation;
`
`c. loss of self-esteem;
`
`d. increased anxiety;
`
`e. damage of reputation;
`
`f.
`
`loss of concentration;
`
`g. feelings she has lost control of her life and her career; and
`
`h. sleeplessness.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID 8
`
`41.
`
`The foregoing injuries set forth have been suffered and will continue to be suffered
`
`into the foreseeable future.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff should be made whole for all injuries and losses suffered by Plaintiff as a
`
`proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful acts.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants have intentionally, willfully, and/or recklessly violated Plaintiff’s
`
`rights. An award of punitive damages is appropriate under the law.
`
`COUNT I
`
`44.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference
`
`into this Count I.
`
`45.
`
`The THRA, TENN. CODE ANN. § 4-21-401, et seq., states in pertinent part that all
`
`employees should be protected from, inter alia, discrimination and that all employees’ interests in
`
`dignity and freedom from humiliation should be protected.
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiff’s termination was based on her religious beliefs in violation of THRA.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a damages award against Defendants for all
`
`back pay, front pay, all benefits, prejudgment interest, tax gross-up, attorney’s fees and expenses.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to her former position if that is determined to be
`
`the proper remedy with all back pay and benefits.
`
`COUNT II
`
`48.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference
`
`into this Count II.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff filed a Charge of Discrimination (No. 490-2022-00294) with the EEOC on
`
`August 17, 2022. The foregoing charge was filed within 300 days of Plaintiff’s wrongful
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID 9
`
`termination. Attached as Exhibit F and incorporated by reference as though fully restated herein is
`
`Plaintiff’s Charge of Discrimination.
`
`50.
`
`On January 17, 2024, the EEOC issued a Notice of Right to Sue on the grounds that
`
`it would do no further investigation. Attached as Exhibit G and incorporated by reference as though
`
`fully restated herein is the Determination and Notice of Rights.
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiff’s EEOC Charge was timely filed, and Plaintiff exhausted all of her
`
`administrative remedies on her charge. Plaintiff has timely filed this complaint within 90 days of
`
`receiving the Notice of Right to Sue.
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff’s termination was based on her religion in violation of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e.
`
`53.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a damages award against Defendant for all back
`
`pay, front pay, lost benefits, prejudgment interest, tax gross-up, attorney’s fees, and expenses. In
`
`addition, Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to her former position if it is determined to be the
`
`proper remedy with all back pay and benefits. Finally, because of Defendant’s willful and
`
`intentional conduct and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
`
`COUNT III
`
`54.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference
`
`into this Count III.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by requesting an accommodation from the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine based on religious beliefs.
`
`56.
`
`In response, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff in
`
`violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII by mandating she travel twice a week to a
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID 10
`
`separate Methodist facility during non-work hours to get tested for COVID. In addition, Plaintiff’s
`
`retaliation was retaliation for her requested religious exemption.
`
`57.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a damages award against Defendant for all back
`
`pay, front pay, lost benefits, prejudgment interest, tax gross-up, attorney’s fees, and expenses.
`
`Moreover, Plaintiff is entitled to a compensatory damages award for the emotional damages she
`
`has suffered.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`58.
`
`The allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated by reference
`
`into this Count IV.
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by requesting an accommodation from the
`
`COVID-19 vaccine based on religious beliefs.
`
`60.
`
`In response, Defendant took adverse employment actions against Plaintiff in
`
`violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of Title VII by mandating she travel twice a week to a
`
`separate Methodist facility during non-work hours to get tested for COVID. In addition, Plaintiff’s
`
`retaliation was retaliation for her requested religious exemption.
`
`61.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to a damages award against Defendant for all back
`
`pay, front pay, lost benefits, prejudgment interest, tax gross-up, attorney’s fees, and expenses. In
`
`addition, Plaintiff is entitled to reinstatement to her former position if it is determined to be the
`
`proper remedy with all back pay and benefits. Finally, because of Defendant’s willful and
`
`intentional conduct and reckless disregard for Plaintiff’s federally protected rights, Plaintiff is
`
`entitled to an award of punitive damages against Defendant.
`
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that:
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-02237-TLP-atc Document 1 Filed 04/16/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID 11
`
`1.
`
`The Court order Defendant to rescind all adverse employment actions taken against
`
`Plaintiff.
`
`2.
`
`The Court order Defendant to make Plaintiff whole for all lost wages and fringe
`
`benefits, back pay, loss of earning capacity, front pay, and emotional distress relating to
`
`Defendants’ wrongful acts of discrimination.
`
`3.
`
`The Court order Defendant to pay prejudgment interest, tax gross-up, costs, and
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`4.
`
`The Court award Plaintiff all equitable relief and injunctive relief as may be
`
`appropriate including back pay and benefits and front pay if it is not feasible to rehire Plaintiff and
`
`reinstate her seniority, lost pay, and lost benefits.
`
`5.
`
`The Court order Defendant to reinstate Plaintiff with all back pay if that is
`
`determined to be the proper remedy.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`The Court award Plaintiff punitive damages.
`
`The Court grant Plaintiff all other relief to which she is entitled.
`
`Plaintiff demands a jury trial.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/s/ Alexandria R. Scott______
`Ralph T. Gibson (BPR #14861)
`Alexandria Holloway (BPR #39464)
`GIBSON PERRYMAN LAW FIRM
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`5100 Poplar Avenue, Suite 2117
`Memphis, Tennessee 38137
`(901) 526-0412
`Ralph@GibsonPerryman.com
`Alex@GibsonPerryman.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`