Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 1 of 19 PageID 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`)
`
`JOHN MITCHELL, an individual,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`TYSON FOODS, INC.
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`___________________________________ )
`
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-79
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1. Plaintiff John Mitchell seeks relief from Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc.’s (“Tyson” or
`
`“Defendant”) pattern of discriminatory, unconstitutional, and illegal behavior against
`
`employees who request religious exemptions from Tyson’s COVID-19 vaccination
`
`mandate policy.
`
`2. On August 3, 2021, Defendant imposed a draconian vaccine mandate for all
`
`employees. Defendant’s mandate addresses a very remote risk, asymptomatic deadly
`
`spread of COVID-19 to fellow employees, by a method (vaccination) that poses a higher
`
`risk of deadly spread of COVID-19 than asymptomatic spread.
`
`3. Defendant responded to their employees seeking religious, disability and medical
`
`exemptions by informing those employees that they would be effectively terminated on
`
`November 1, 2021 and placed on an unpaid, unprotected, and unprecedented leave of
`
`absence with no assurance that they would be allowed to return to the workplace for up to
`
`one year (hereinafter Tyson’s “Vaccine Mandate”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 2 of 19 PageID 2
`
`4. Defendant’s unlawful actions left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of suffering
`
`a physical assault and uninvited invasion of their bodies by receiving the experimental
`
`and harmful mRNACOVID-19 vaccine, at the expense of her religious beliefs, bodily
`
`autonomy, medical privacy, and her health, or losing their livelihoods.
`
`5. This Faustian bargain is no bargain at all and is precisely what is forbidden by
`
`federal and Texas civil rights law.
`
`6. Defendants’ actions violated federal and Texas law by mandating an experimental
`
`medical treatment, retaliating against employees who engaged in protected activity,
`
`failing to provide reasonable accommodations for exemptions, and violating the sacred
`
`rights of privacy and bodily integrity.
`
`7. Plaintiffs respectfully implore this Court to order that Defendants comply with the
`
`laws protecting the rights of the citizens of Texas against precisely such catch-22
`
`“choices.”
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff John Mitchell (“Plaintiff” or “Mitchell”) was employed as a machining
`
`and welding supervisor at Tyson’s plant in Amarillo, Texas, (“Amarillo plant”) who
`
`requested an exemption from the Vaccine Mandate on religious grounds. Tyson denied
`
`his exemption request. Instead, Tyson placed Mr. Mitchell on an unelected, unpaid, and
`
`unprotected leave of absence. Mr. Mitchell is a citizen of Texas.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. (“Tyson”), together with its subsidiaries, is a
`
`corporation that operates as a worldwide food processing and marketing company.
`
`10.
`
`Tyson is the world’s largest processor and marketer of chicken, beef, and pork.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 3 of 19 PageID 3
`
`11.
`
`At all relevant times, Tyson knew or should have known the laws, policies,
`
`practices, and conditions alleged herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1331. Plaintiff seeks remedies under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act pursuant to 42
`
`U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq.; the Americans With Disabilities Act pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§
`
`12010 et seq.
`
`13. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the state claims raised in this action
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`14.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Tyson it transacts business in
`
`Texas, and the wrongful conduct and resulting injuries alleged herein substantially
`
`occurred in this state.
`
`15.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because
`
`the cause of action arises primarily from Tyson’s Amarillo plant situated in Potter
`
`County.
`
`16.
`
`An actual and justiciable controversy exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant.
`
`FACTS AND BACKGROUND
`
`Coronavirus and Tyson’s Response
`
`17.
`
`In the spring of 2020, Tyson began implementing mitigation procedures for its
`
`workforce, including several of the following requirements for its employees: masks, face
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 4 of 19 PageID 4
`
`shields, social distancing, temperature checks, COVID-19 testing,1 and self-quarantines.2
`
`Tyson initially made several accommodations for hourly employees.3 For example, in
`
`March of 2020, the company relaxed attendance policies in its plants by “[]eliminating
`
`any punitive effect for missing work due to illness.”4
`
`18.
`
`Tyson experienced substantial success reducing the risk of COVID-19 spread
`
`through self-quarantining for the symptomatic and testing for the asymptomatic persons.
`
`As even Anthony Fauci admits, the risk of asymptomatic spread is very rare and very
`
`low, with experts estimating it is largely a non-existent risk. At worst, asymptomatic risk
`
`of employees spreading lethal COVID-19 is less than one-in-a-million. Even in that one-
`
`in-a-million risk, testing easily addresses asymptomatic risk without requiring bodily
`
`invasion against a person’s will of an experimental drug with unknown long-term side
`
`effects due to its novel mRNA methodology, with the worst short-term adverse events
`
`reported in the government’s VAERS database in American history, and whose
`
`administration offends the conscience of millions of Americans’ deeply held spiritual
`
`
`1 Tyson Foods, Tyson Foods CEO Provides Update on Efforts to Address COVID-19(April 6,
`2021) available at https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-releases/2020/4/tyson-foods-ceo-
`provides-update-efforts-address-covid-19 (last visited Sept. 27, 2021); Tyson Foods, Why Tyson
`Has Taken a Leading Position on COVID-19 Testing (July 1, 2021) available at
`https://thefeed.blog/2020/07/01/covid-19-testing-at-tyson-foods/ (Last visited Sept. 27, 2021).
`
` 2
`
` Tyson Foods, Protecting Team Members and Our Company; Ensuring Business Continuity
`(March 17, 2020) available at https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-
`releases/2020/3/protecting-team-members-and-our-company-ensuring-business-continuity (last
`visited Sept. 27, 2021); Chattin Cato, Tyson Team Innovates to Make Face Shields for Frontline
`Workers (July 6, 2021) available at https://thefeed.blog/2020/07/06/tyson-innovates-to-make-
`face-shields-for-frontline-workers/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2021).
`
` 3
`
` Ibid.
`
` 4
`
` Ibid.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 5 of 19 PageID 5
`
`beliefs and religious faith due to the use of aborted fetal cells in its testing, development
`
`and production of each of these experimental vaccines.
`
`19.
`
`The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued an Emergency Use
`
`Authorization (“EUA”) for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine on December 1, 2020. One
`
`week later, the FDA issued a second EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Finally,
`
`the FDA issued an EUA for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine on February 27,
`
`2021.
`
`20.
`
`Though the FDA has approved the use of a currently unavailable vaccine for
`
`future use, the only vaccines available for use in the United States at the time in question
`
`are these three experimental, investigative and unlicensed drugs, all of which were either
`
`developed, tested, or produced with the use of fetal cells from aborted fetuses. Pfizer’s
`
`FDA-approved Comirnaty vaccine had not yet been administered to the public.
`
`Tyson’s Unlawful Vaccine Mandate
`
`21.
`
`We face an unparalleled moment in history, when employers have begun
`
`mandating an experimental vaccine that utilizes novel technology and, not only has
`
`conferred little to no benefit to recipients, but has injured tens of thousands of individuals
`
`who elected or were forced to receive the vaccine by virtue of vaccination mandates
`
`exactly like Tyson’s.
`
`22.
`
`On approximately August 3, 2021, Tyson publicly announced it would require all
`
`“[]team members at U.S. office locations to be fully vaccinated by October 1, 2021.”5 (A
`
`true and correct copy of Tyson’s August 3, 2021 COVID-19 vaccine mandate, is attached
`
`
`5 Tyson Foods, Tyson Foods to Require COVID-19 Vaccination for its U.S. Workforce (Aug. 3,
`2021) available at https://www.tysonfoods.com/news/news-releases/2021/8/tyson-foods-require-
`covid-19-vaccinations-its-us-workforce (last visited Sept. 27, 2021).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 6 of 19 PageID 6
`
`as Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference). Tyson also announced that all other
`
`plant team members would be required to be vaccinated by November 1, 2021.
`
`23.
`
`In announcing the mandate, Tyson CEO Donnie King justified the decision by
`
`claiming, “[]the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is reporting nearly all
`
`hospitalizations and deaths in the U.S. are among those who are unvaccinated”
`
`(emphasis added).6 As set forth herein below, Mr. King’s statement was false.
`
`24.
`
`Tyson publicly stated that “Exceptions to the vaccination mandate will involve
`
`workers who seek medical or religious accommodation.”
`
`25.
`
`For those employees whose religious or medical exemptions were granted, Tyson
`
`placed them on an unelected, unpaid, and unprotected leave of absence. Under this
`
`policy, employees were not officially terminated, but were denied access to work and
`
`received no compensation or benefits.
`
`26.
`
`Employees placed on LOA+ were given one year during which time if they got
`
`vaccinated, they could potentially return to work but their original position was not
`
`guaranteed. At the end of the year, if they remained unvaccinated, they were terminated.
`
`Tyson’s Vaccine Mandate Will Not Stop the Spread of COVID-19
`
`27.
`
`The real-world experience of mRNA vaccines continues to undermine claims of
`
`efficacy. The efficacy of all three available vaccines has been drastically waning and is a
`
`far cry from what was originally promised.
`
`
`6 Donnie King, Our Next Step in the Fight Against the Pandemic (Aug. 3, 2021) available at
`https://web.archive.org/web/20210803143911/https://thefeed.blog/2021/08/03/our-next-step-in-
`the-fight-against-the-pandemic/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2021).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 7 of 19 PageID 7
`
`28.
`
`More than a year after the COVID-19 biologics have been introduced to the
`
`American public en masse, the reports of adverse events and death from the injections are
`
`staggering and far exceed that which has been seen from any vaccine in human history.
`
`29.
`
`Data released on May 20, 2022 by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
`
`(CDC) showed that since December 14, 2020, a total of 1,322,709 adverse events
`
`following vaccination were reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
`
`(VAERS), with 30,942 deaths reported.7
`
`30.
`
`This data is likely staggeringly underestimated, as past attempts to investigate
`
`VAERS reporting rate have suggested that between 1 percent and 13 percent of actual
`
`adverse effects get reported; however, because CDC changed VAERS reporting recently
`
`to include additional data, it is not possible to estimate the degree of underreporting based
`
`on past attempts to do so.8 The CDC has failed to account for this underreporting.
`
`31.
`
`The input of event reports to VAERS since the COVID vaccines were rolled out
`
`is greater than all cumulative adverse event reports to VAERS for the prior 30 years: an
`
`alarming statistic.
`
`32.
`
`There have been a myriad of short-term vaccine side effects that have been
`
`witnessed and reported since the rollout of the vaccines, including myocarditis,
`
`pericarditis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, blood clots, reproductive health issues, and more.
`
`
`7 Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), CDC Wonder, available at
`https://wonder.cdc.gov/controller/datarequest/D8;jsessionid=DA4BD564C41F4D061172AC48F
`E4C.
`
` Varricchio F, Iskander J, Destefano F, Ball R, Pless R, Braun MM, Chen RT. Understanding
`vaccine safety information from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System. Pediatr Infect
`Dis J. 2004 Apr;23(4):287-94. doi: 10.1097/00006454-200404000-00002. PMID: 15071280.
`
` 8
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 8 of 19 PageID 8
`
`33.
`
`We now know that vaccine-induced spike proteins, the putative antigen induced
`
`by Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine, are a toxin. They are produced and enter the
`
`circulatory system, have predictable negative consequences to vascular endothelium,
`
`activate platelets, and cross the blood-brain barrier. Spike proteins circulate throughout
`
`the body and accumulate in large concentrations in organs and tissues, including the
`
`spleen, bone marrow, liver, adrenal glands, and especially the ovaries.9 Since there exists
`
`no way to turn off spike production, the actual dose of spike protein may vary by orders
`
`of magnitude from person to person.
`
`34.
`
`Furthermore, strong but not yet conclusive evidence links spike protein in vivo to
`
`blood clots, thrombocytopenia, hemorrhages, heart attacks and strokes, the very severe
`
`effects of COVID-19 disease itself. The damage the spike protein may be causing must
`
`be fully elucidated. The toxicity of the spike protein means that no vaccine using this
`
`design can be assumed to be safe until proven otherwise.
`
`35.
`
`Studies have also shown that antibody-dependent enhancement (“ADE”) poses a
`
`severe threat to vaccinated individuals.10 “ADE occurs when the antibodies generated
`
`during an immune response recognize and bind to a pathogen, but they are unable to
`
`provide infection. Instead, these antibodies act as a ‘Trojan horse,’ allowing the pathogen
`
`to get into cells and exacerbate the immune response.”11 Thus, when dealing with
`
`
`9 SARS-CoV-2 mRNA Vaccine Biodistribution Study,
`https://www.docdroid.net/xq0Z8B0/pfizer-report-japanese-government-pdf.
`
`10 Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G
`strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination? Yahi, Nouara et al.Journal of
`Infection, Volume 83, Issue 5, 607 - 635, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2021.08.010.
`
`11 Antibody-dependent Enhancement and Vaccines, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia,
`available at https://www.chop.edu/centers-programs/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-
`safety/antibody-dependent-enhancement-and-vaccines.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 9 of 19 PageID 9
`
`different strains of COVID-19, ADE caused by the COVID-19 biologic may accelerate
`
`the virus infecting the cells and resulting in more severe illness.
`
`Tyson’s Discriminatory Treatment of Plaintiffs
`
`36.
`
`Mr. Mitchell was employed as a machining and welding supervisor at Tyson’s
`
`plant in Amarillo, Texas.
`
`37.
`
`Upon Tyson’s implementation of the Vaccine Mandate, Mr. Mitchell was subject
`
`to the November 1, 2021, deadline to be fully vaccinated.
`
`38.
`
`Mr. Mitchell filed a form with the Human Resources department of Tyson,
`
`requesting an exemption from Tyson’s COVID-19 vaccine mandate on the grounds that
`
`the mandate conflicted with his religious beliefs.
`
`39.
`
`Tyson denied Mr. Mitchell’s request for an exemption from its Vaccine Mandate.
`
`Instead, the only option to immediate termination given by Tyson was for Mr. Mitchell to
`
`go on the unpaid, unelected, and unprotected leave of absence that Tyson titled Leave of
`
`Absence + (hereinafter “LOA+”).
`
`40.
`
`On November 1, 2021, Tyson placed Mr. Mitchell on unpaid leave through LOA+
`
`for up to one year, after which, he would be permanently terminated. Further, if Mr.
`
`Mitchell remained unvaccinated after November 1, 2021, Tyson informed him that his
`
`job was not protected and Tyson would be actively seek to fill his position in the interim.
`
`In this way, Tyson maintained constant pressure upon Mr. Mitchell to surrender his
`
`religious objections to vaccination even after it forced him on unpaid leave through
`
`LOA+. (A true and correct copy of Tyson’s letter to Plaintiff dated September 17, 2021
`
`reflecting portions of said LOA+ status, is attached as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein
`
`by reference).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 10 of 19 PageID 10
`
`41.
`
`Mr. Mitchell filed an employment discrimination complaint with the Equal
`
`Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) and was granted a Right to Sue Letter
`
`on January 19, 2024. This suit has followed.
`
`42.
`
`Tyson has made allowances for other employees who refused to comply with the
`
`vaccination requirement.
`
`COVID Vaccines Violate Plaintiffs’ Religious Beliefs
`
`43.
`
`Mr. Mitchell holds sincere concerns surrounding the process used to manufacture
`
`the vaccines.
`
`44.
`
`Presently, all COVID-19 vaccines have made use either in production or testing
`
`of fetal cell lines developed from tissues derived from aborted fetuses (see excerpt
`
`below).12
`
`45.
`
`For example, the Johnson & Johnson vaccines used fetal cell cultures, specifically
`
`PER.C6, a retinal cell line that was isolated from a terminated fetus in 1985.13
`
`
`
`
`12 See, Los Angeles County Public Health, COVID-19 Vaccine and Fetal Cell Lines,
`http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/media/Coronavirus/docs/vaccine/VaccineDevelopment_FetalCel
`lLines.pdf (last accessed August 26, 2021)
`
`13 Are the vaccines made with fetal cells, Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement,
`https://www.icsi.org/covid-19-vaccine-faq/are-the-mrna-vaccines-made-with-fetal-cells/ (last
`accessed August 26, 2021), see also, Tennessee Department of Health, Fact v. Fiction: Johnson
`& Johnson Vaccine(2021) available at https://covid19.tn.gov/stay-informed/blogs/fact-v-fiction-
`johnson-johnson-vaccine/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2021) (acknowledging the Johnson & Johnson
`vaccine was developed from a fetal cell line).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 11 of 19 PageID 11
`
`46.
`
`In an interview with WREG, Dr. Steve Threlkeld, president of the medical staff at
`
`Baptist Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, acknowledged fetal cell lines used to produce or
`
`test the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines “were actually recovered from an
`
`aborted fetus in the 70s or 80s and there are several of these cell lines.”14
`
`47.
`
`As for the EUA-Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines, fetal cell line HEK 293
`
`was used during the research and development phase.15 All HEK 293 cells are descended
`
`from tissue taken in 1973 from either an elective abortion or miscarriage16 that took place
`
`in the Netherlands.17
`
`48.
`
`While the production of the vaccines did not reportedly require any new
`
`abortions, Plaintiff objects to receiving the COVID-19 vaccines on the basis that, even
`
`assuming the vaccines do confer a meaningful health benefit, that benefit is one from ill-
`
`gotten gains.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiff believes any benefit the COVID-19 vaccines may confer flows from the
`
`unjust exploitation of unborn human life. On this basis alone, Plaintiff refused on
`
`religious grounds to accept or be forced to accept the COVID-19 vaccines.
`
`
`
`
`14 WREG, State: Fetal cell lines, not fetal tissue, were used to make Johnson & Johnson vaccine
`(March 5, 2021) available at https://www.wreg.com/news/state-fetal-cell-lines-not-fetal-tissue-
`was-used-to-make-johnson-johnson-vaccine/ (last visited Sept. 27, 2021).
`
`15 See, Nebraska Medicine, You asked, we answered: Do the COVID-19 vaccines contain
`aborted fetal cells?, https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-the-
`covid-19-vaccines-contain-aborted-fetal-cells, (last visited on Aug. 26, 2021).
`
`16 COVID-19 Vaccine and Fetal Cell Lines.
`
`17 Ibid.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 12 of 19 PageID 12
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`Religious Discrimination
`[Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq. (“Title
`VII”)]
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
`
`50.
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`51.
`
`Title VII prohibits “discriminat[ion] against any individual with respect to his
`
`compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such
`
`individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). Title
`
`VII also prohibits retaliation against an employee for engaging in protected activity.
`
`Walborn v. Erie Cnty Care Facility, 150 F.3d 584, 588 (6th Cir. 1998.).
`
`52.
`
`Title VII imposes upon an employer the duty to make reasonable
`
`accommodations for the religious observances short of incurring an undue hardship. Reed
`
`v. UAW, 569 F.3d 576, 579 (6th Cir. 2009) (citing Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hardison,
`
`432 U.S. 63, 75, 97 S. Ct. 2264, 53 L. Ed. 2d 113 (1977)).
`
`53.
`
`The analysis of a religious accommodation case begins with whether an employee
`
`has established a prima facie case of religious discrimination. Tepper v. Potter, 505 F.3d
`
`508, 514 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Smith v. Pyro Mining Co., 827 F.2d 1081, 1085 (6th
`
`Cir. 1987)).
`
`54.
`
`"To establish a prima facie case, [a plaintiff] must show that '(1) he holds a
`
`sincere religious belief that conflicts with an employment requirement; (2) he has
`
`informed the employer about the conflict; and (3) he was discharged or disciplined for
`
`failing to comply with the conflicting employment requirement.'" Id.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 13 of 19 PageID 13
`
`55.
`
`"Once an employee has established a prima facie case, [the defendant] has the
`
`burden 'to show that it could not reasonably accommodate the employee without undue
`
`hardship.'" Id. (quoting Virts v. Consol. Freightways Corp., 285 F.3d 508, 516 (6th Cir.
`
`2002)).
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff requested religious exemptions from Tyson’s COVID-19 Vaccine
`
`Mandate.
`
`57.
`
`Defendant’s only accommodation for employees opting not to receive a COVID-
`
`19 vaccine on religious grounds was one year of unpaid leave, which is akin to
`
`termination, with a promise of termination if the employee does not receive a COVID-19
`
`vaccine at the end of that year, and further that Tyson would actively seek to fill the
`
`religious objector’s position in the interim.
`
`58.
`
`Defendant failed to provide Plaintiff with reasonable accommodations for his
`
`religious observances as is required under Title VII, as one year of unpaid leave is not a
`
`reasonable accommodation, but rather a punitive measure taken against employees who
`
`choose to exercise their religious rights.
`
`59.
`
`By denying reasonable accommodation and executing punitive measures against
`
`employees who refrain from obtaining a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds,
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff due to his religious beliefs.
`
`60.
`
`Defendant’s failure to provide religious accommodations has injured and will
`
`continue to injure Plaintiff by discriminatorily denying his employment and income.
`
`61.
`
`On these facts, Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case that shows Defendant failed
`
`to make any reasonable accommodation and violated Plaintiff’s Title VII rights.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 14 of 19 PageID 14
`
`62.
`
`Because Plaintiff will be able to establish a prima facie showing, the burden shifts
`
`to Defendant to show that it could not accommodate the Plaintiff’s religious needs
`
`without undue hardship.
`
`63.
`
`As such, Defendants have violated Plaintiff’s rights under Title VII by
`
`discriminating against him on the basis of religion and failing to provide reasonable
`
`accommodations or demonstrate undue hardship.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`Disability Discrimination
`[Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 42 U.S.C. § 12010 et seq. (the “ADA”)]
`
`64. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`65.
`
` The ADA prohibits, among other things, discriminating against disabled persons’
`
`full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
`
`accommodations by any person who owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public
`
`accommodation.
`
`66. To succeed on an ADA claim, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he is disabled; (2) he was
`
`qualified to perform either the job he previously held or another available job, with or
`
`without reasonable accommodation; and (3) he was denied a reasonable accommodation
`
`of his disability, or otherwise suffered an adverse employment decision because of his
`
`disability.
`
`67.
`
`Under the ADA, an individual has a protected disability if he or she either has a
`
`“physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities
`
`…” (ADA Act, § 12102(1)(A)), or is: “being regarded as having such an impairment [].”
`
`(Id., at subparagraph (C)). Under section 12102(3)(A) of the ADA: “An individual meets
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 15 of 19 PageID 15
`
`the requirement of ‘being regarded as having such an impairment’, if the individual
`
`establishes that he or she has been subjected to an action prohibited [by the ADA]
`
`because of an actual or perceived physical or mental impairment whether or not the
`
`impairment substantially limits, or is perceived to substantially limit, a major life
`
`activity.” (See also, 28 Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”) §§ 35.108(f)(1) and
`
`36.105(f)(1).)
`
`68.
`
`Defendant regarded unvaccinated individuals such as Plaintiff as being disabled
`
`and unable to perform their duties of their employment. Based on this perceived
`
`disability, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff by threatening termination if he
`
`failed to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, a “condition” regarded as a disability under
`
`Tyson’s policy. Indeed, Plaintiff was terminated due to his COVID-19 vaccination status,
`
`despite the fact that Plaintiff has successfully performed this same position from which
`
`he was just removed since before COVID-19 was introduced to the world.
`
`69.
`
`Furthermore, Defendant cannot show that offering alternative, less intrusive
`
`accommodations would cause an undue hardship.
`
`70.
`
`Defendant’s failure to provide medical accommodations has harmed and
`
`continues to harm plaintiff; injury includes, but is not limited to, coercing employees to
`
`take an untested and potentially unsafe substance, and withdrawing the employment,
`
`income, and livelihood of non-compliant employees such as Plaintiff.
`
`71.
`
`By failing to engage in the interactive process, offer any reasonable
`
`accommodation, and terminating Plaintiff based on his perceived disability, Defendant’s
`
`discriminatory actions were intentional and/or reckless, and in violation of the ADA.
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 16 of 19 PageID 16
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`Religious Discrimination
`[Violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights Act (the “TCHRA”), sections
`21.051 and 21.108]
`
`72. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`73. The TCHRA prohibits an employer from discriminating against an employer on the basis
`
`of religion.
`
`74. Section 21.051 of the TCHRA states that:”An employer commits an unlawful
`
`employment practice if because of race, color disability, religion, sex, national origin, or
`
`age the employer: ¶ (1) Fails or refuses to hire an individual, discharges an individual, or
`
`discriminates in any other manner against an individual in connection with compensation
`
`or the terms, conditions, or privileges of employment; or ¶ Limits, segregates, or
`
`classifies an employee or applicant for employment in a manner that would deprive or
`
`tend to deprive an individual of any employment opportunity or adversely affect in any
`
`other manner the status of an employee.”
`
`75. Section 21.108 of the TCHRA states that religious discrimination under this chapter
`
`“applies to discrimination because of or on the basis of any aspect of religious
`
`observance, practice, or belief unless an employer demonstrates that the employer is
`
`unable reasonably to accommodate the religious observance or practice of an employee
`
`or applicant without undue hardship to the conduct of the employer's business.”
`
`76. Defendant qualifies as an employer under said provisions of the TCHRA.
`
`77. Plaintiff asserted bona fide religious beliefs that conflicted with Defendant’s Vaccine
`
`Mandate and notified Defendant of those beliefs by submitting a written exemption
`
`request.
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 17 of 19 PageID 17
`
`78. Defendant had an obligation to reasonably accommodate Plaintiff’s sincere religious
`
`objections to its Vaccine Mandate. However, Defendant failed to offer a reasonable
`
`accommodation o Plaintiff, failed to engage in any meaningful interactive process with
`
`Plaintiff, failed to perform an individualized assessment of Plaintiff’s exemption request,
`
`and ultimately denied Plaintiff’s religious exemption. Instead, Defendant forced Plaintiff
`
`to choose between either its unpaid leave program under LOA+, or be immediately
`
`terminated outright.
`
`79. By rejecting Plaintiff’s religious exemption request, and by denying reasonable
`
`accommodation and executing punitive measures against Plaintiff instead, Defendant
`
`discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of his religious beliefs and thereby
`
`substantially injured Plaintiff in violation of sections 21.051 and 21.108 of the TCHRA.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`[Violation of Texas Governor Executive Order No. GA-40 (“Order GA-40”)]
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
`
`80.
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`81.
`
`On October 11, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbott issued Order GA-40, which
`
`states: Executive Order GA-40 states that “[n]o entity in Texas can compel receipt of a
`
`COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or a consumer, who objects
`
`to such vaccination for any reason of personal conscience, based on a religious belief, or
`
`for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.”
`
`82.
`
`Order GA-40 went into effect immediately and was effective at the time the
`
`instant dispute took place.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00079-Z Document 1 Filed 04/18/24 Page 18 of 19 PageID 18
`
`83. As set forth herein, Plaintiff objected to Defendant’s Vaccine Mandate based on his
`
`religious belief, medical reasons, personal conscience, and/or prior recovery from
`
`COVID-19.
`
`84.
`
`Defendant violated Order GA-40 by, among other reasons, compelling Mr.
`
`Mitchell to receive a COVID-19 vaccine under penalty of either forced unpaid leave or
`
`immediately termination.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`Disability Discrimination
`[Violation of the TCHRA, section 21.002, et seq.]
`
`Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the
`
`85.
`
`preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`86. The TCHRA defines “disability” as “a mental or physical impairment that substantially
`
`limits at least one major life activity of that individual, a record of such an impairment, or
`
`being regarded as having such an impairment.” § 21.002(6) (emphasis added).
`
`87. Defendant regarded unvaccinated employees such as Plaintiff as disabled based on a
`
`perceived disability, immune-compromised due to not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine,
`
`and thereby unable to perform the duties of such employees’ employment.
`
`88. Based upon this perceived disability, Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff in
`
`violation of section 21.002 et seq. by rejecting Plaintiff’s exemption request, and forcing
`
`him to choose between unpaid leave or immediately termination.
`
`89. By pattern and practice, virtually every employer in America has shown that reasonable
`
`accommodations and alternatives to vaccination indeed exist for employees, and these
`
`have been required all