`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 17 PageID 1
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`DALLAS DIVISION
`
`§
`
`JOSEPH WOODRUFF, ERICA JOBE,
`§
`MANDEE
`KATZ,
`and
`SCOTT
`BABJAK,
`§
`
`§
`Plaintiffs,
`§
`
`§
`
`
`§
`v.
`§
`
`§
`
`
` §
`CARIS MPI, INC. and CARIS LIFE
` §
`SCIENCES, INC.,
` §
`
` §
`Defendants
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` CIVIL ACTION NO. _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ VERIFIED ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND REQUEST FOR A
`DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
`
`
`
`
`COME NOW Plaintiffs, Joseph Woodruff, Erica Jobe, Mandee Katz, and Scott Babjak
`
`(“Plaintiffs”) who, by and through their undersigned counsel, file this Plaintiffs’ Verified Original
`
`Complaint and Request for Declaratory Judgment with complaint made against Defendants CARIS
`
`MPI, Inc. and CARIS LIFE SCIENCES, Inc. (Collectively, “CARIS”) for their discriminatory
`
`employment practices and further request this Court to declare that CARIS’ Covid-19 vaccination
`
`protocol is unlawful as it violates Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s General Order GA-40:
`
`I.
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Persons who have refused COVID-19 vaccination on religious and medical grounds
`
`have been coming under increasing pressure to get vaccinated. Both the Biden administration and
`
`private employers have been using a variety of tools to achieve their arbitrary vaccination
`
`requirements, despite the objections of those who are not vaccinated. Arrayed against this ever
`
`encroaching tsunami of vaccination mandates are equally varied forces, including the Governor of
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID 2Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 17 PageID 2
`
`
`
`Texas, Greg Abbott, who, through his executive orders, has sought to provide a safe harbor, where
`
`individual rights are protected.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiffs are four employees of CARIS MPI, Inc. and CARIS Life Sciences, Inc.,
`
`and their subsidiaries and affiliates, who have been targeted by CARIS for termination if they
`
`refuse vaccination. On September 17, 2021, after more than a year of profiting off of its employees
`
`getting the job done despite COVID-19 restrictions, protocols, and workarounds, CARIS
`
`threatened to terminate its unvaccinated employees should they not be fully vaccinated by
`
`December 1, 2021. Each Plaintiff submitted an exemption form based on religious grounds, and
`
`two submitted requests for exemption based on medical grounds. Each Plaintiff was denied both
`
`at the human resources level and then again on an appeal. No reason for rejection was given, other
`
`than that vague and unspecified federal regulations prohibited it (the regulation in question was
`
`never identified and when presented with specific regulations, denied). CARIS has also stated the
`
`vaccination mandate is its own policy, not a federal or state mandate.
`
`3.
`
`No federal order, regulation, or statute mandates the vaccination of CARIS’s
`
`employees. In fact, quite to the contrary, the only applicable specific order is Texas Governor Greg
`
`Abbott’s GA-40, which expressly prohibits CARIS, a company incorporated in and headquarted
`
`in Texas, from mandating that its employees get vaccinated, regardless of where those employees
`
`are located. CARIS has also discriminated against Plaintiffs based on their religious beliefs and,
`
`in two cases, due to their disability, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
`
`the Americans with Disabilities Act. All Plaintiffs have filed complaints with the EEOC, but the
`
`EEOC will not act prior to the December 1, 2021 termination date. Because CARIS refuses to
`
`follow Texas law, despite availing itself of the privilege of doing business in Texas and the
`
`protection of Texas law, and because CARIS is discriminating against them, Plaintiffs seek
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID 3Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 3 of 17 PageID 3
`
`
`
`intervention from the Court to prevent their terminataion. As such, Plaintiffs respectfully ask the
`
`Court to declare that CARIS’ vaccine mandate is illegal because it violates Governor Abbot’s
`
`executive order, and give them injunctive relief. Alternatively, Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin
`
`CARIS from terminating their employment pending the outcome of their EEOC complaints.
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`This Court has original federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this
`
`4.
`
`action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiffs have asserted a cause of action arising under
`
`the laws of the United States, specifically Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans
`
`with Disabilities Act. Finally, this Court also has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367
`
`to hear Plaintiffs’ other causes of action, all of which are so related that they form part of the same
`
`case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Finally, and in the alternative,
`
`this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) because the amount in
`
`controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity as no Plaintiff shares a state of
`
`citizenship with any Defendant.
`
`5.
`
` This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants are
`
`residents of Texas.
`
`6.
`
`Venue in this Judicial District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) as it is the
`
`judicial district in which Defendant resides an has its principal place of business.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiff, Joseph Woodruff, is an individual who is a citizen of Arizona.
`
`III.
`
`Plaintiff, Erica Jobe, is an individual who is a citizen of Louisiana.
`
`Plaintiff, Mandee Katz, is an individual who is a citizen of Florida.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`9.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff, Scott Babjak, is an individual who is a citizen of Indiana.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID 4Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 4 of 17 PageID 4
`
`
`
`11.
`
`Defendant CARIS MPI, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal place of
`
`business at 780 W John Carpenter Fwy, Ste 800, Irving, Texas 75039 and may be served with process
`
`through its registered agent CT Corporation System at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, Texas 75201.
`
`12.
`
`Defendant CARIS LIFE SCIENCES, Inc., is a Texas corporation with its principal
`
`place of business at 780 W John Carpenter Fwy, Ste 800, Irving, Texas 75039 and may be served
`
`with process through its registered agent CT Corporation System at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas,
`
`Texas 75201.
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. The Relationship Among the Parties
`
`13.
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c), Plaintiffs adopt and incorporate by reference the
`
`Appendix of Exhibits attached to their Application for a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary
`
`Injunction, and Permanent Injunction (“Application”). The Application includes Plaintiffs’
`
`verification of this Complaint. Exhibits 24 through 27.
`
`14.
`
`Plaintiffs are all loyal employees of CARIS, a company that performs molecular
`
`testing on DNA, RNA, and proteins to identify cancer and methods to optimize treatment of that
`
`cancer. Plaintiffs are essential employees in the health care industry, interfacing with physicians,
`
`nurses, and clinical and hospital staff to provide serices related to the treatment of cancer.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff Scott Babjak was offered employment as a Regional Business Director on
`
`January 27, 2021 with a start date of February 15, 2021. His position is based in the field and he
`
`works primarily in Indiana. Exhibit 24.
`
`16.
`
`Plaintiff Erica Mercer Jobe is a Molecular Oncology Specialist (“MOS”) based out
`
`of Louisiana. Exhibit 25.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID 5Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 5 of 17 PageID 5
`
`
`
`17. Ms. Jobe started as an account manager in 2019 and was promoted to MOS during
`
`the fall of 2021. Ms. Jobe is responsible for visiting clinics and doctors in her area to educate
`
`providers and sell CARIS’ products and services. Id.
`
`18.
`
`Plaintiff Mandee Katz was offered employment on January 14, 2019 as an Account
`
`Manager with a start date of February 4, 2019. She has twice been promoted, first to sales trainer
`
`and then to Senior Account Manager in southeast Florida. Ms. Katz is also a Master’s Prepared
`
`Registered Nurse. Exhibit 26.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiff Joseph Woodruff has been employed by CARIS for years and is currently a
`
`Manager in Phoenix, Arizona. Exhibit 27.
`
`B. Governor Greg Abbott’s Executive Order GA-40.
`
`20.
`
`On October 11, 2021, Texas Governor Greg Abbot issued Executive Order GA-40
`
`(the “Order”). Exhibit 1. Order GA-40 states that “No entity in Texas can compel receipt of a
`
`COVID-19 vaccine by any individual, including an employee or 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.” Furthermore, Governor Abbott cited specific reasons
`
`why the Order was necessary. Among the stated reasons, “bullying” of private entities by the Biden
`
`administration was “causing workforce disruptions that threaten Texas’ continued recovery from the
`
`Covid-19 disaster” and that “countless Texans fear losing their livelihoods because they object to
`
`receiving a COVID-19 vaccination for reasons of personal conscience, based on a religious belief,
`
`or for medical reasons, including prior recovery from COVID-19.” Id. Implementation of GA-40
`
`has not been enjoined or stayed by any state or federal court. Plaintiffs contend that CARIS’s
`
`COVID-19 vaccine mandate violates GA-40 and pits their opportunity for continued employment
`
`against their particular medical best interests and/or religious beliefs.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID 6Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 6 of 17 PageID 6
`
`
`
`C. Federal Policies
`
`21.
`
`On November 5, 2021, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
`
`(“OSHA”) issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) requiring private employers with 100
`
`or more workers to require employees to get vaccinated or to get tested weekly. The ETS has been
`
`stayed by the Fifth Circuit. BST Holdings, LLC v. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, -
`
`-- F.4th ---, 2021 WL 5279381 (5th Cir. 2021). Because implementation of the ETS has been stayed,
`
`it is not in force or effect. Additionally, OSHA has temporalily suspended activities related to the
`
`implementation and enforcement of the ETS pending the appeal.1
`
`22.
`
`Also on November 5, 2021, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
`
`(“CMS”) issued an interim final rule (“IFC”) which requires certain service providers’ employees
`
`working in the following settings be vaccinated: Ambulatory Surgical Centers, Hospices, Psychiatric
`
`residential treatment facilities, Programs of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly, Hospitals (acute care
`
`hospitals, psychiatric hospitals, hospital swing beds, long term care hospitals, children's hospitals,
`
`transplant centers, cancer hospitals, and rehabilitation hospitals/inpatient rehabilitation facilities),
`
`Long Term Care Facilities, including Skilled Nursing Facilities and Nursing Facilities, generally
`
`referred to as nursing homes, Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual
`
`Disabilities, Home Health Agencies, Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities, Critical
`
`Access Hospitals, Clinics, rehabilitation agencies, and public health agencies as providers of
`
`outpatient physical therapy and speech-language pathology services, Community Mental Health
`
`Centers, Home Infusion Therapy suppliers, Rural Health Clinics/Federally Qualified Health Centers,
`
`End-Stage Renal Disease Facilities. Exhibit 2. The IFC directly applies only to the Medicare and
`
`Medicaid certified provider and supplier categories identified above. CARIS does not fall within any
`
`
`1 https://www.osha.gov/coronavirus/ets2
`
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID 7Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 7 of 17 PageID 7
`
`
`
`of those categories. Additionally, CMS was enjoined from enforcing the IFC effective November
`
`29, 2021, by a federal district court in Missouri.
`
`D. CARIS’s Covid-19 vaccination policy.
`
`23.
`
`During July and August 2021, CARIS had a COVID-19 protocol policy that specified
`
`the procedures and principles to be followed by employees (August 25 Protocol). Exhibits 4, 22. The
`
`August 25 Protocol stated that all unvaccinated employees must wear a face mask covering while in
`
`the workplace or at a company facility and take a rapid test for Covid-19 weekly. Id. CARIS’s
`
`protocol also stated that employees who are not fully vaccinated but exposed to someone who tested
`
`positive for COVID-19 should stay home for at least five days until they tested negative.
`
`24.
`
`On September 17, 2021, CARIS provided advance notice to Plaintiff Scott Babjak
`
`that it would be updating its policy to require all employees to be vaccinatd against Covid-19. Exhibit
`
`5. That same day, CARIS emailed the new policy to its employees (“September 17 Vaccination
`
`Policy). Exhibits 6, 11, 23. The new policy stated, “In alignment with direction from the government,
`
`as a federal contractor who is reimbursed from Medicare and to best protect our patients, their
`
`caregivers, physicians and our peers, all employees (currently employed and all new hires in advance
`
`of their first day of employment) will be required to be vaccinated to remain employed.”
`
`Excerpt, Exhibit 11.
`
`25.
`
`On October 11, 2021, CARIS emailed employees a reminder to get vaccinated.
`
`
`
`Exhibit 12.
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Scott Babjak questioned the policy. On November 18, 2021, he emailed
`
`CARIS HR Helpline inquiring about whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID 8Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 8 of 17 PageID 8
`
`
`
`Circuit’s recent staying of the OSHA ETS would affect religious exemptions under CARIS’s
`
`Sepember 17 Vaccination Policy. Exhibit 8, pg. 2. CARIS responded, stating “CARIS announced
`
`our vaccine policy in September, prior to any government action. Our mandate remains in place with
`
`the same deadline of December 1, 2021.” Id.
`
`
`
`27.
`
`On November 18, 2021, Plaintiff Babjak specifically asked CARIS whether its policy
`
`was based on a government mandate or was strictly a company policy. Id., pg. 1. He made the same
`
`inquiry again on November 22, 2021. CARIS responded on November 23, stating: “CARIS instituted
`
`its vaccine mandate separate from any executive orders or the OSHA emergency temporary standard
`
`(“ETS”). We are aware of the federal requirements and understand they may have implications on
`
`CARIS going forward. However, Caris’s requirement, as it currently stands, is a company policy,
`
`implemented before OSHA issued its ETS.” CARIS further stated, “In addition, CARIS gave all
`
`appropriate consideration to religious accommodation requests and analyzed each request
`
`independently, based on the facts of that specific employee’s circumstances.” Id., pg. 1.
`
`28.
`
`Strangely, each Plaintiffs’ religious or medical exemption was denied without reason.
`
`
`
`E. Plaintiffs’ requests for religious and medical exemptions were denied.
`
`a) Plaintiff Babjak’s exemption request and denial
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Scott Babjak filed a request for a religious exemption. Exhibits 6, 7. In his
`
`request, Mr. Babjak cited his objection to being forced to take a vaccine made from aborted fetal
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID 9Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 9 of 17 PageID 9
`
`
`
`cells: “The development of these vaccines, using aborted human fetal cells, is a direct violation of
`
`the sanctity of life. Accepting these vaccines into my body would make me complicit with the ending
`
`of huiman life which I believe to be a sin and thus, I will be held morally accountable by God.”
`
`Exhibit 7.
`
`30. Mr. Babjak’s request for a religious exemption was denied on October 12, 2021.
`
`Exhibit 6, pp. 2-3. He was given no explanation for the denial.
`
`31.
`
`He responded on October 13, 2021, stating his disappointment and asking about the
`
`process for appealing the decision. Exhibit 6, pg. 2. CARIS responded on the same day, stating they
`
`understood his disappointment but that the decision was final. Id., pg. 2. Babjak responded, asking
`
`CARIS to explain why the exemption had been denied. Id., pg. 1. On October 13, 2021, CARIS
`
`responded, stating “Our obligations under Federal regulations leave us no room to accommodate
`
`your request.”. Id., pg. 1. This caused further confusion as they had previously stated that their
`
`change in protocol was a company policy, made independent of any federal regulation.
`
`32. Mr. Babjack has filed a complaint of religious discrimination with the Equal
`
`Opportunity Employment Commision (“EEOC”). His initial interview occurred in early November
`
`2021. He has received a notice of Charge of Discrimination. Exhibit 9.
`
`b) Erica Jobe’s exemption request and denial
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Erica Jobe requested both a medical and religious exemption. Exhibit 13.
`
`Ms. Jobe’s medical exemption wes certified by Stephanie Cave, MD, FAAFP. Dr. Cave stated the
`
`Ms. Jobe suffered from a genetic mututation that prevented her body from detoxing vaccine
`
`ingredients. She also certified that Ms. Jobe had a medical history documented by John Hopkins of
`
`severe vaccine injury. Id.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID 10Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 10 of 17 PageID 10
`
`
`
`34.
`
`In her request for a religious exemption, Ms. Jobe cited her belief that God created
`
`her immune system, that the vaccines altered her immune system, and that altering her immune
`
`system was an “abomination in the eyes of God.” Id.
`
`35. Ms. Jobe’s exemption requests were denied. Exhibit 14. CARIS stated that her
`
`accommodation request was not reasonable because it would impose more than a minimal burden
`
`on the company. Specifically, CARIS cited the fact that as a field represententive, her essential job
`
`functions included visits to hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices, and other facilities that require visitors
`
`to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 as a condtition of entry, and that it would be too expensive
`
`to hire replacement sales personnel to perform her job duties. Id.
`
`36. Ms. Jobe appealed. Exhibit 15. In her appeal, Ms. Jobe further explained her objection
`
`to the vaccines because of her belief that aborted fetal cells were used in the creation of the vaccine.
`
`Id., pg. 7. That appeal was likewise denied.
`
`37. Ms. Jobe has filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, and it remains pending.
`
`On information and belief, she will not have her initial interview until early 2022. She has been
`
`monitoring the EEOC’s interview calendar daily but due to a backlog has been unable to schedule
`
`an interview. Exhibit 25.
`
`c) Mandee Katz’s exemption request and denial
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Mandee Katz also requested medical and religious exemptions. Exhibits 16,
`
`17. Regarding her medical exemption, Ms. Katz stated that she was allergic to pharmaceuticals that
`
`contain polyethelene glycol. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines contain polyethelene glycol. Ms.
`
`Katz also stated that she was vulnerable to blood clots, which are a documented potential side affect
`
`of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. Id.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID 11Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 11 of 17 PageID 11
`
`
`
`39.
`
`CARIS denied Ms. Katz’s requests. CARIS denied her appeal on November 11, 2021,
`
`stating that their denial was based on their “assessment of the essential functions of your job, and the
`
`degree of hardship on the company if we allowed you to remain unvaccinated.” Exhibit 18, pg. 1.
`
`40. Ms. Katz has filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC, and it remains pending.
`
`On information and belief, she will not have her initial interview until early 2022.
`
`d) Joseph Woodruff’s exemption request and denial
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiff Joseph Woodruff requested a religious exemption. Exhibit 19. In his request,
`
`Mr. Woodruff stated that “Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in
`
`any action that offends my religious faith.” Id., pg. 3.
`
`42.
`
`CARIS denied his request on October 13, 2021. Exhibit 20. CARIS denied the request
`
`despite granting religious exemptions for four employees under his supervision. Exhibit 27, ¶ 7. The
`
`stated reason was “due to our obligations under Federal regulations our vaccine mandate will remain
`
`in place and this is also the basis on which you request was denied.” Exhibit 19, pg. 1. However, this
`
`repetitive excuse has no merit if their protocol was created independent of any federal regulations.
`
`43. Mr. Woodruff responded on October 13, 2021, stating his disappointment, and
`
`informed CARIS that he would like to appeal the decision. On or about November 2, 2021, CARIS
`
`responded, stating they understood his disappointment, but explained that they considered “whether
`
`your request would impose more than a minimal burden on operation of the business.” On November
`
`4, 2021, Mr. Woodruff asked CARIS to clarify what more than “minimal burden” he would pose on
`
`the organization. Additionally, he requested a clarification as to the basis for the denial of his
`
`exemption based on “federal regulations” and asked for specification as to what regulation was being
`
`followed. He added that if the OSHA guidelines were the ones being followed that they allow for
`
`accommodations under federal civil rights law for any disability or sincerely held religious beliefs,
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID 12Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 12 of 17 PageID 12
`
`
`
`practices, or observances that conflict with the vaccination requirement. Lastly, Mr. Woodruff
`
`informed them that CARIS does not fall under the regulations set out by CMS as it is not considered
`
`a Medicare- and Medicaid-certified provider. He did not receive a response. Exhibit 20.
`
`44. Mr. Woodruff again asked for an appeal. On or about November 11, 2021, CARIS
`
`informed him that the decision was final but acknowledged that they do not fall into the current CMS
`
`categories. Exhibit 20.
`
`45. Mr. Woodruff has filed a discrimination complaint with the EEOC. Exhibit 21. It
`
`remains pending. His initial interview has not taken place and, on information and belief, is not likely
`
`to occur until early 2022.
`
`V.
`
`CARIS DISCRIMINATED AGAINST PLAINTIFFS ON RELIGIOUS AND
`MEDICIAL GROUNDS, VIOLATING TITLE VII OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
`OF 1964 AND THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILTIES ACT
`
`
`
`A. CARIS is discriminating against Plaintiffs based upon their religious beliefs in
`violation of Title VII, Civil Rights Act of 1964
`
`46.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate herein the foregoing allegations in this Complaint.
`
`47.
`
`CARIS threatens to terminate Plaintiffs due to their refual to get a COVID-19
`
`vaccine. Plaintiffs have refused the vaccine on religious grounds. Furthermore, Plaintiffs applied for
`
`and were denied an exemption from CARIS’s September 17 Vaccination Policy based on religious
`
`reasons but were denied.
`
`48.
`
`CARIS’s conduct violates Title VII.
`
`49.
`
`Plaintiffs have filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. However, due
`
`to circumstances beyond Plaintiffs control, EEOC has either not completed its investigation or will
`
`not be able to conduct their initial interview of Plaintiffs until early 2022, but which time CARIS
`
`will have terminated Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID 13Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 13 of 17 PageID 13
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The Fifth Circuit recognizes an execption to the exhaustion of legal remedies doctrine
`
`where injunctive relief is requested. Drew v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 480 F.2d 69 (5th Cir. 1973), cert.
`
`denied 417 U.S. 935, 94 S.Ct. 2650, 41 L.Ed.2d 239 (1974). This exception is now well established
`
`in federal law. Holt v. Cont’l Grp., Inc., 708 F.2d 87 (2d Cir. 1983), cert. denied 465 U.S. 1030, 104
`
`S.Ct. 1294, 79 L.Ed.2d 695 (1984); Sheehan v. Purolator Courier Corp., 676 F.2d 877 (2d Cir.
`
`1982); McNail v. Amalgamated Meat Cutters, 549 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1977); Equal Emp’t Opportunity
`
`Comm’n v. Pac. Press Publ’g Ass’n, 535 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1976).
`
`51.
`
`Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Application for a Preliminary Injunction, Preliminary
`
`Injunction, and Permanent Injunction contemporaneously with this Complaint. Plaintiffs seek a
`
`temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against CARIS from
`
`enforcing its COVID-19 policy and erminating their employment until the EEOC either takes action
`
`on their behalf or issues their “Right to Sue” letters, at which time they will seek leave to amend this
`
`Complaint. Alternatively, if CARIS fires Plaintiffs before this Complaint and their application for
`
`injunctive relief is heard, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring CARIS to reinstate their
`
`employment.
`
`52.
`
`CARIS’s actions have caused all Plaintiffs to suffer mental and emotional distress,
`
`entitling them to damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
`
`B. CARIS has violated the ADA
`
`53.
`
`Plaintinnf incorporates herein the foregoing allegations in this Complaint.
`
`54.
`
`The American with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against persons with
`
`disabilities. Plaintiffs Jobe and Katz also requested exemptions from CARIS’ September 17
`
`Vaccination Policy based on medical reasons, namely, potential allegergic reactions to ingredients
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID 14Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 14 of 17 PageID 14
`
`
`
`contained in the vaccines. CARIS refused to accommodate them and will fire them if they do not get
`
`vaccinated.
`
`55.
`
`CARIS’s conduct violated the ADA.
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiffs have filed a timely charge of discrimination with the EEOC. However, due
`
`to circumstances beyond Plaintiffs control, EEOC will not complete its investigation or will not be
`
`able to conduct their initial interview of Plaintiffs until early 2022, but which time CARIS will have
`
`terminated Plaintiffs’ employment.
`
`57.
`
`As stated above, the Fifth Circuit has recognized an exception to the exhaustion of
`
`administrative remedies doctrine where injunctive relief under Title VII and similar statutes are
`
`concerned. Plaintiffs have filed a Verified Application for a Preliminary Injunction, Preliminary
`
`Injunction, and Permanent Injunction contemporaneously with this Complaint. Plaintiffs seek a
`
`temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and permanent injunction against CARIS from
`
`enforcing its COVID-19 policy and terminating their employment until the EEOC either takes action
`
`on their behalf or issues their “Right to Sue” letters, at which time they will seek leave to amend this
`
`Complaint. Alternatively, if CARIS fires Plaintiffs before this Complaint and their application for
`
`injunctive relief is heard, Plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring CARIS to reinstate their
`
`employment.
`
`58.
`
`CARIS’s actions have caused Plaintiffs Jobe and Katz to suffer mental and emotional
`
`distress, entitling them to damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981a.
`
`
`
`VI. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF
`
`59.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby adopt and re-allege each and every allegation previously set forth in
`
`as if fully set forth herein.
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201(a).
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID 15Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 15 of 17 PageID 15
`
`
`
`61.
`
`The purpose of a declaratory action is to establish existing rights, status, or other legal
`
`relationships. A person whose rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by a statute or
`
`municipal ordinance may have determined any question of construction or validity arising under the
`
`statute or ordinance and obtain a declaration of rights, status, or other legal relations thereunder. 28
`
`U.S.C.A. § 2201(a).
`
`62.
`
`The controversy must be real and substantial, involving a genuine conflict of tangible
`
`interests and not merely a theoretical dispute. The controversy does not need to be fully ripe, but it
`
`must indicate that immediate litigation is unavoidable. It is preventive in nature and is intended as a
`
`means for determining the rights of parties when a controversy has arisen, even before any wrong
`
`has actually been committed.
`
`63.
`
`A genuine conflict of tangible interests exists between Plaintiffs and Defendant
`
`CARIS. CARIS has implemented conflicting policies that now require Plainitffs to obtain a COVID-
`
`19 vaccination, despite their objections on grounds of religious beliefs and medical necessity, and in
`
`derogation of Executive Order GA-40. Despite living in other states, Plaintiffs are a protected class
`
`under GA-40 because they are employees of a Texas employer. GA-40 prohibits a Texas employer
`
`from compelling its employees to be vaccinated, regardless of where they are located. Rather, it is
`
`CARIS’s location in Texas that determines whether GA-40 applies to Plaintiffs.
`
`64.
`
`Therefore, Plaintiffs respectfully request the Court to declare CARIS’ Covid-19
`
`vaccine mandate is illegal and violates Governor Abbot’s Executive Order.
`
`65.
`
`Plaintiffs also request the entry of a permanent injunction barring CARIS from
`
`enforcing its vaccine mandate. Plaintiffs have filed a separate Application for Temporary Restraining
`
`Order, Preliminary Injunction, and Permanent Injunction contemptoraneous with the filing of this
`
`Petition for a Declaratory Judgment seeking a temporary restraining order, temporary injunction,
`
`Plaintiifs Original Complaint and Request for a Declaratory Judgment
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | 15
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID 16Case 3:21-cv-02993-B Document 1 Filed 11/30/21 Page 16 of 17 PageID 16
`
`
`
`and permanent injunction, and incorporate all facts, legal argument, and exhibits by reference as if
`
`full set forth herein, as permitted per Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(c).
`
`
`
`VII. COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs plead for recovery of their costs and reasonable and necessary attorney’s
`
`fees as are reasonable and just, pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 37.009.
`
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that the court:
`
`VIII. PRAYER
`
`a