Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 1 of 29
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Angela Johnson,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
` vs
`
`Mayo Clinic Health System-Southwest
`Wisconsin Region, Inc., a Wisconsin Non-
`Stock Corporation,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Court File No. 24-cv-0271
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Angela Johnson (“Plaintiff Johnson”), makes the following allegations for
`
`her complaint against the Defendant Mayo Clinic Health System-Southwest Wisconsin
`
`Region, Inc. (“Defendant Mayo” or “Defendant”).
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`In October, 2021, Defendant Mayo mandated that all of its employees,
`
`including those of its related entities such as Defendant The Mayo Clinic, receive the
`
`Covid-19 vaccination as a condition of continuing their employment (“Vaccine
`
`Mandate”). Many of Defendant’s employees, including Plaintiff, objected to receiving
`
`these vaccinations because of their sincerely-held religious beliefs. Plaintiff filed a
`
`request for a religious exemption with Defendant to be exempt from taking the Covid-19
`
`vaccination. Defendant denied the requested exemption. In addition, Defendant failed to
`
`undertake an individual interactive process as required for evaluating religious exemption
`
`requests.
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 2 of 29
`
`2.
`
`Based on Defendant’s implementation of the Vaccine Mandate, its refusal
`
`to grant Plaintiff her request for a religious exemption, and Defendant’s termination of
`
`Plaintiff, Johnson brings these claims under Title VII for religious discrimination, the
`
`Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), related state claims under the Wisconsin and
`
`Minnesota Human Rights Acts for religious discrimination and disability discrimination,
`
`and breach of contract, based on Defendant Mayo mandating a vaccine.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiff has fulfilled the jurisdictional requirements of Title VII of the
`
`Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the ADA, including filing of Charges with the EEOC and
`
`the receipt of a right-to-sue letter from Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
`
`(“EEOC”), all in compliance with 42 U.S.C. §2000e-5(f)(1).
`
`4.
`
`This Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this case, as it raises
`
`claims pursuant to federal statute, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. This Court further has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§1367.
`
`5.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant Mayo as it is a non-
`
`stock corporation operating in and located in the State of Wisconsin. Its parent
`
`corporation is located in the State of Minnesota.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant Mayo is subject to the provisions of Title VII and the ADA
`
`because Defendant Mayo employs more than fifteen employees in each of twenty or
`
`more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year under 42 U.S.C. §2000e
`
`(b) and 42 U.S.C. §12111 (5)(A).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 3 of 29
`
`7.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1)
`
`because the actions giving rise to this cause of action either occurred in Wisconsin, or
`
`Defendant Mayo conducts business in the State of Wisconsin.
`
`PARTIES
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson is a Wisconsin resident who worked for Defendant Mayo
`
`as a Health Information Specialist. Plaintiff worked for Defendant for nearly 14 years.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant Mayo is a Wisconsin non-stock corporation which operates
`
`medical facilities in Wisconsin.
`
`FACTS
`
`10. During the pandemic in 2021, Plaintiff worked diligently, and entirely
`
`remotely, while unvaccinated, to perform all duties Defendant Mayo requested of her.
`
`11. When Covid-19 vaccines first became available in December 2020
`
`Defendant encouraged, but did not require its employees to get vaccinated. Plaintiff
`
`worked for Mayo during 2021 while unvaccinated, and performed her duties
`
`exceptionally well and without endangering other employees or patients.
`
`12. Defendant recognized in November 2020, in the words of Dr. Gregory
`
`Poland, head of Mayo’s Vaccine Research Group, that “we can’t mandate that people
`
`take a vaccine, it’s their right not to take one.”
`
`13. Again in December 2020 Defendant recognized that “vaccination is
`
`voluntary.”
`
`14. Defendant also recognized that some of its employees would have religious
`
`objections to taking the vaccine, and accordingly, Defendant had a policy until September
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 4 of 29
`
`2021 of granting all or nearly all requests for religious exemptions. In fact, Defendant
`
`granted Plaintiff Johnson’ request for a religious exemption to the Covid-19 vaccine in
`
`approximately August 2021.
`
`15.
`
`In other litigation during October 2021, Defendant Mayo and its parent and
`
`related companies boasted that they granted 90% of requests for religious exemptions,
`
`and because Mayo was so lenient in granting requests for religious exemptions, the
`
`Defendant argued that the Plaintiffs in the case Mary Roe 1, et al., v. Allina Health
`
`Systems, et al., (including Mayo Clinic), Case 0:21-cv-02127, filed October 8, 2021
`
`(hereafter the “Mary Roe” case), had no standing because it was unlikely they would be
`
`terminated or would suffer any negative consequences as a result of Defendant’s Vaccine
`
`Mandate.
`
`16. Defendant recognized the important work that all of its employees were
`
`doing—the unvaccinated and the vaccinated—and on September 28, 2021 the President
`
`and CEO of Mayo Clinic (Gianrico Farrugia, M.D.), along with the Chief administrative
`
`Officer (Jeff Bolton) wrote to Mayo’s employees:
`
`On behalf of the leaders of Mayo Clinic’s sites and shields, thank you
`for the compassionate care you provide to our patients, your excellent
`service to Mayo Clinic, and the supportive and collaborative
`environment you create for all of our colleagues. We truly appreciate
`you and your efforts to live our values every day.
`
`17. However, just two weeks later, Defendant implemented its Vaccine
`
`Mandate. The Vaccine Mandate stated that “all Mayo Clinic staff members” must get
`
`vaccinated with one of the Covid-19 vaccines or else the employees would be considered
`
`“noncompliant,” later “placed on unpaid leave,” and eventually “terminated.” The
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 5 of 29
`
`Vaccine Mandate applied to “all staff, including remote workers,” of which Defendant
`
`had many. Recognition of the important work performed by the unvaccinated employees
`
`disappeared only two weeks after being celebrated.
`
`18. Defendant announced the Vaccine Mandate on October 13, 2021.
`
`Defendant’s changed policy required all staff to receive one of the available Covid-19
`
`vaccines, and that if they were not already vaccinated or only partially vaccinated, they
`
`would have to become vaccinated or be approved for a medical or religious exemption by
`
`December 3, 2021, or be terminated. Exhibit 1.
`
`19. On October 25, 2021 Defendant sent a communication to its employees
`
`outlining the steps to comply with the Covid-19 vaccination policy. Beginning on
`
`December 3, 2021, Defendant issued Final Written Warnings to noncompliant staff with
`
`instructions on complying by January 3, 2022, or they would be terminated. Exhibit 1.
`
`20. Defendant announced that there were both medical and religious
`
`exemptions from the Vaccine Mandate, and did allow employees to apply for “medical
`
`and religious exemptions” to the Vaccine Mandate, and even provided “forms” for such
`
`applications.
`
`21. However, what Defendant gave with one hand, it took away with the other
`
`by proclaiming that “it is anticipated that a small number of staff will have qualifying
`
`religious exemption.” (emphasis added). Further, Defendant declared: “[o]nly a small
`
`number of staff are expected to qualify for a religious exemption.” (emphasis added).
`
`22. Defendant printed and distributed this message that it would only grant a
`
`“small number” of the religious exemptions, as it and its related corporations
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 6 of 29
`
`simultaneously argued the opposite in the Mary Roe case in Federal Court in Minnesota
`
`referenced above. Defendant argued in Mary Roe that Plaintiffs alleging to be harmed as
`
`a result of the newly implemented Vaccine Mandate had no justiciable controversy, no
`
`standing, and the Court had no subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant granted
`
`nearly all requests for religious exemptions, and therefore few or no employees would
`
`actually be terminated. Defendant argued that “the only competent record evidence show
`
`that current Mayo employees’ declinations [requests for exemption to vaccine] will not
`
`be ‘denied,’” and that “Mayo has granted 90% (27 of 30) of new employees’ requests for
`
`religious exemptions.” Def. Mayo Memo in Opp. To Mot. For TRO, filed October 8,
`
`2021.1
`
`23.
`
`In the Mary Roe case, Defendant succeeded in convincing the Court there
`
`was no subject matter jurisdiction, because unvaccinated employees had not been
`
`terminated as of that time (October 2021), and likely would not be terminated because of
`
`Defendant’s generous granting of religious exemptions. As a result of Defendant’s
`
`representations to the Court, Defendants in that case obtained dismissal without prejudice
`
`of the Complaint in that case.
`
`
`1 Mary Roe 1, et al., v. Allina Health Systems, et al., (including Mayo Clinic), Case 0:21-
`cv-02127, filed October 8, 2021. Defendant Mayo also wrote that it “has not terminated
`or threatened to terminate any employee for failing to obtain Covid-19 vaccination or
`seeking an exemption,” pp. 5-6; “all but one [of the plaintiffs] have requested exemptions
`that, if granted, will allow them to remain unvaccinated and employed,” pp. 7-8; “they
`[unvaccinated Mayo employee plaintiffs] have not suffered any harm and may never
`suffer any harm,” p. 8, 10; “Plaintiffs cannot secure standing with vague allegations that
`exemptions under some (unidentified) vaccination policies are ‘narrow’ and ‘limited,’” p.
`11; and “rank speculation that an exemption could be denied does not confer standing.”
`P. 11. (emphasis in original).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 7 of 29
`
`24.
`
`Shortly after achieving victory in the Mary Roe case on the basis that it had
`
`generously granted 90% of the requests for religious exemptions, Defendant then
`
`switched to its new position that it would grant only a “small number” of the requests for
`
`religious exemptions, and terminate those employees who refused to receive the vaccine.
`
`Defendant then denied Plaintiff’s request for a religious exemption, denied her request
`
`for reconsideration, and then terminated Plaintiff, representing a complete change in
`
`Defendant’s company policies and a switch from its representations to the Court in the
`
`Mary Roe case in Federal Court litigation in Minnesota.
`
`25. Defendant further wrote in its policy statements that: “applications for a
`
`religious exemption will be denied if the panel determines the applicant does not
`
`demonstrate a sincerely held religious belief, (emphasis added). Defendant thus put itself
`
`in the position of deciding the sincerity of the religious belief of their employees,
`
`including Plaintiff and, whether those beliefs were “religious” or not, and “sincere” or
`
`not. Defendant exercised this determination of the sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs
`
`without interviewing the Plaintiff or discussing with Plaintiff her religious beliefs, but by
`
`simply dictating what it considered to be her beliefs.
`
`26. Defendant also expressed limitations to the “medical exemption” to the
`
`Vaccine Mandate by stating: “The only absolute medical contraindications to vaccination
`
`for COVID-19 are severe or immediate reaction to a prior dose of the vaccine, known
`
`allergy to a vaccine component, or a preexisting and clinically diagnosed fear of
`
`needles.” Other medical conditions were preemptively discounted, or disregarded, and its
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 8 of 29
`
`physicians were ordered to ignore their clinical judgment (in violation of their oath and
`
`ethical duties as physicians) and limit their medical exemptions to these issues only.
`
`27.
`
`The pre-determined limitations on their religious and medical exemption
`
`policies were supposed to be kept secret from the majority of Defendant’s employees, as
`
`Defendant wrote to the high-ranking personnel who were to implement the policies: “This
`
`message is intended for regional supervisors, managers and other leaders, so please do
`
`not share broadly.” (emphasis added).
`
`28. Consistent with Defendant Mayo’s instructions that employees could
`
`request a religious exemption to the Covid-19 Vaccine Mandate, Plaintiff Johnson
`
`requested a religious exemption from Defendant that Defendant denied. Plaintiff Johnson
`
`also submitted a request for reconsideration, which Defendant Mayo also denied.
`
`Defendant Mayo did not provide Plaintiff Johnson with the criteria it used in evaluating
`
`her request for a religious exemption, nor did Defendant Mayo provide specific
`
`information regarding the reasons for the denial of Plaintiff Johnson’s request for a
`
`religious exemption.
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson is a Christian who believes that she was created by God
`
`with bodily autonomy to make decisions about what medicines, vaccines and other
`
`materials she puts into her body. Plaintiff believes that she must care responsibly for her
`
`body and honor God with it. She believes her body was made in God’s image, with its
`
`own immune system, and she must not partake in, or allow substances into her body
`
`which may defile or change her immune system. To do so is to sin and will harm her
`
`relationship with God. She also believes that she is to use her body for God’s purposes,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 9 of 29
`
`and should not engage in medical treatments that she believes could be detrimental to her
`
`body. She believes her moral conscience, which is formed based on her religious beliefs,
`
`has led her to refuse the Covid-19 vaccine, and she does not agree with the use of
`
`coercion in mandating of the vaccines. She believes that God specifically answered her
`
`prayer instructing her not to take the vaccine. See also, Exhibits 1, 2, and 3.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson takes her faith very seriously, and she consults Scripture
`
`and prays in formulating her beliefs. This is true particularly when dealing with new, or
`
`potentially life-changing situations. This is common for Christians who seek to
`
`understand the teachings of the Church on matters such as taking medications, including
`
`vaccines.
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson believes it is contrary to God’s plan for her to be tested
`
`on, or to be forced to use experimental vaccines.
`
`32. A Christian may judge it wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety of
`
`reasons consistent with Scriptural teachings. Plaintiff believes Christianity provides the
`
`following:
`
` Vaccination is not morally obligatory and must be voluntary;
`
` A person is morally required to obey her or her own conscience in such
`matters as taking the Covid-19 vaccines.
`
` A Christian may judge it wrong to receive certain vaccines for a variety of
`reasons consistent with these teachings, as for example when the person’s
`assessment of whether the benefits of a medical intervention do not
`outweigh the undesirable side effects and burdens in light of the good of the
`person, including spiritual, psychological, and bodily goods.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 10 of 29
`
` A Christian could determine that taking a medication or vaccine constitutes
`an excessive health risk, which can be contrary to the Commandment Thou
`Shall Not Kill, because a Christian is not to harm or kill themselves.
`
`
`
`33.
`
`In addition, Plaintiff’s religious faith teaches that her human body is the
`
`temple of the Holy Spirit and, therefore, Plaintiff may not introduce into her body any
`
`substance which would harm this “temple.” Plaintiff Johnson had serious reservations
`
`about the “safety” of the vaccines, “side effects,” and the “risks” associated with the
`
`vaccines and was concerned that injection of the vaccines into her body would harm her
`
`body, thus preventing her from doing God’s will.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff sought to—as much as was possible given Defendant’s limitations
`
`on how much Plaintiff could say or write in support of her requests for religious
`
`exemptions—convey that in practicing her faith, she had weighed the “risks” and benefits
`
`of taking the vaccine, and according to her religion beliefs, she could not take the
`
`vaccine.
`
`35. Christianity teaching requires him to reject the vaccine if Plaintiff discerns
`
`through her religiously informed conscience that taking the vaccine will violate her
`
`religious faith.
`
`36. Had Plaintiff been provided the opportunity, she would have expressed
`
`more fully and completely to Defendant that her Christian faith requires that she view life
`
`as sacred and not to be harmed or risked.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 11 of 29
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff was aware of negative side effects associated with the Covid-19
`
`vaccines, which are even warned of in the vaccine literature and CDC “Fact Sheets.”2
`
`The government VAERS system also tracks Covid-19 injuries, illnesses, and deaths, and
`
`has revealed levels of death and injury from Covid vaccines that exceed all other vaccine
`
`deaths and injuries from all other vaccines prior to Covid.
`
`38.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson invited Defendant to contact people who know Plaintiff to
`
`verify her sincerely held religious beliefs. Defendant chose not to perform any inquiry
`
`into Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, and the way those religious beliefs inform her actions.
`
`39.
`
`The only vaccines available to Plaintiff Johnson during the latter part of
`
`2021 and early part of 2022, were those produced and made available in the United States
`
`pursuant to the Emergency Use Authorization.
`
`
`2 The risks include: Pfizer: severe allergic reaction; rash, itching, hives, or swelling of the
`face; myocarditis (inflammation of the heart muscle) and pericarditis (inflammation of
`the lining outside the heart); injection site pain, tiredness, headache, muscle pain, chills,
`joint pain, fever, injection site swelling, injection site redness, nausea, feeling unwell,
`swollen lymph nodes, diarrhea, vomiting, and arm pain have occurred according to
`Pfizer’s Fact Sheet. https.//labeling.pfizer.com/ShowLabeling.aspx?id=14477. (revised 8
`December 2022) (viewed 12/9/22); Moderna: “injection site pain, tenderness and
`swelling of the lymph nodes in the same arm of the injection, swelling (hardness), and
`redness; fatigue; headache; muscle pain; joint pain; chills; nausea and vomiting; fever;
`and rash. … Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have rarely been reported in some
`people.” https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/eui/download/Moderna-Caregive.pdf.
`(version 9/02/2022) (viewed 12/9/22). Johnson & Johnson: injection site reactions
`including pain, redness of the skin and swelling; headache, feeling very tired, muscle
`aches, nausea, and fever; swollen lymph nodes, blood clots; unusual feeling in the skin
`such as tingling, persistent ringing in the ears (tinnitus); diarrhea, vomiting; severe
`allergic reaction, including difficulty breathing, swelling of face and throat, fast
`heartbeat, bad rash, dizziness and weakness; shortness of breath, chest pain, leg swelling,
`persistent abdominal pain, severe or persistent headaches or blurred vision, easy bruising;
`thrombosis with thrombocytopenia, Guillain-Barre syndrome.
`https://www.fda.gov/media/146305/download (revised May 5, 2022) (viewed 12/9/22).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 12 of 29
`
`40.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson attempted to “engage in dialogue” with Defendant
`
`regarding her request for a religious exemption, and Defendant refused to engage in
`
`dialogue. Defendant made no attempt to determine if Plaintiff’s beliefs were sincerely
`
`held, were part of her comprehensive belief system, and did not attempt to determine
`
`whether Plaintiff Johnson pondered the “fundamental and ultimate questions.”
`
`Defendant made no attempt to determine if Plaintiff’s religious beliefs related to the
`
`“deep matters” of life, whether she had a belief in a deity, soul, or her beliefs related to
`
`the “afterlife,” or whether her beliefs were part of a “comprehensive” set of beliefs.
`
`41. Had Defendant Mayo made any of these inquiries, it would have discovered
`
`that Plaintiff Johnson takes her faith very seriously. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs are
`
`sincerely, firmly, and consistently held. Plaintiff’s religious beliefs pervade her life,
`
`inform all of her decision-making, and represent a comprehensive set of principles by
`
`which to live her life.
`
`42. Defendant denied Plaintiff’s request for a religious exemption. Plaintiff
`
`appealed the denial of her request for a religious exemption, but this did not change
`
`Defendant’s denial of Plaintiff’s request for the religious exemption to taking the vaccine.
`
`Defendant Mayo did not provide Plaintiff with the criteria it used in evaluating her
`
`request for a religious exemption nor did Defendant provide specific information
`
`regarding the reasons for the denial of Plaintiffs’ request for a religious exemption.
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson received positive job feedback from Defendant Mayo’s
`
`staff. There were no negative job performance issues related to Plaintiff’s work.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 13 of 29
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson was willing to continue working as she had been the
`
`beginning of the Pandemic, with no undue hardship to Defendant. Defendant Mayo did
`
`not make any proposal for a reasonable accommodation.
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson is familiar with persons who have taken the Covid-19
`
`vaccines and become ill shortly after taking the vaccines.
`
`46. Defendant, in October 2021, instituted the Vaccine Mandate requiring
`
`Plaintiff to receive a Covid-19 vaccination, in contradiction to its previous policy and the
`
`declarations of Dr. Gregory Poland, head of Mayo’s Vaccine Research Group.
`
`Defendant then denied Plaintiff’s October 2021 request for a religious exemption.
`
`47. After Defendant denied Plaintiff’s requests for religious exemption to the
`
`Covid-19 vaccine, Defendant also warned the Plaintiff: “Do not disseminate, distribute,
`
`forward, or copy the content of this notification.” Exhibit 1.
`
`48. Defendant Mayo terminated Plaintiff Johnson’s employment on January 3,
`
`2022 based on her refusal to take the Covid-19 vaccine. Plaintiff Johnson filed a charge
`
`of religious discrimination with the EEOC. Plaintiff Johnson received a Right to Sue
`
`letter from EEOC dated January 29, 2024. Exhibit 3.
`
`49. Upon information and belief, Defendant replaced Plaintiff Johnson with an
`
`employee who did not have sincerely held religious beliefs that resulted in a refusal to
`
`receiving the Covid-19 vaccine.
`
`50.
`
`Plaintiff Johnson was treated differently than other employees of Defendant
`
`because of Plaintiff Johnson’ sincerely held religious beliefs, including being ostracized
`
`for complying with her religious beliefs and not receiving the vaccine.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 14 of 29
`
`51. Defendant created an ad hoc panel to review such exemption requests, but
`
`kept the identity of the panelists secretive, so as to prevent examination of the guidelines
`
`and criteria Defendant used in evaluating the requests for religious exemptions.
`
`Defendant wrote: “individual names [of the ad hoc panelists] are confidential and will
`
`not be shared.”
`
`52.
`
`Plaintiff has sincerely held religious beliefs, and submitted a request for
`
`exemption, but Defendant accepted very few religious exemptions, with the exception
`
`that some were granted, but conditioned upon submission to invasive, supervised weekly
`
`testing despite the fact that the vaccinated and unvaccinated people contracted and
`
`transmitted both the Delta and Omicron variants at similar rates.
`
`53. Defendant’s forms for requesting religious exemptions were written in a
`
`deceptive way to force applicants into accepting false statements as true, and then trying
`
`to force applicants for religious exemptions into admitting “inconsistencies” that
`
`Defendant could use to deny the request for religious exemptions.
`
`54. As a result of Defendant Mayo’s policy on restricting religious and medical
`
`exemptions, very few people qualified for those exemptions, resulting in mass
`
`terminations for those employees, including Plaintiff, who refused the Covid-19
`
`vaccination, and whom Defendant terminated as a result.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff had worked for Defendant since 2010, prior to and during the
`
`Pandemic, prior to the Vaccine Mandate, and Plaintiff had fully performed her
`
`employment duties remotely and even obtained positive job performance reviews,
`
`without being discriminated against.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 15 of 29
`
`56.
`
`Plaintiff has not been determined to have transmitted Covid-19 to other
`
`employees or patients.
`
`57. Defendant Mayo’s denials of requests for religious exemptions all
`
`contained the same boilerplate language:
`
`Thank you for submitting your request for religious exemption. The
`information you provided was carefully considered. While this may
`not be the news you were hoping to receive, your religious
`accommodation has not been approved. Based on the information
`provided, your request did not meet the criteria for a religious
`exemption accommodation.
`
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`58. Defendant engaged in no case-by-case analysis or individualized interactive
`
`process to discuss Plaintiff’s exemption requests or possible accommodations. In
`
`response to requests for explanation or information, Defendant wrote: “HR is not able to
`
`share what criteria was used to review/approve the exemption. A small team of
`
`employees reviewed each request and based on what was provided to them from each
`
`individual employee is what was used in the approval/denial decision.”
`
`59. Rather than engaging in a legitimate interactive process, respecting the
`
`sincerity of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs, or attempting reasonable accommodation,
`
`Defendant used more boilerplate language to justify its pre-determined result:
`
`Generally, denials occur because the requestor has not clearly stated
`their sincerely held belief, demonstrated it is a sincerely and
`consistently held belief, and/or clearly defined the conflict between
`their religious belief and receiving the COVID-19 vaccine.
`
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 16 of 29
`
`60. Defendant actually specifically disavowed an individual interactive process
`
`by writing: “Specific feedback on individual requests will not be provided,” and “it is not
`
`possible to provide individual feedback.”
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiff sought further clarification on Defendant’s criteria for determining
`
`whether a religious belief constituted a “sincerely held religious belief,” and the basis for
`
`Defendant’s determination that Plaintiff did not have a “sincerely held religious beliefs,”
`
`but the Plaintiff was simply given the generalized, identical language in the letters.
`
`62.
`
`In its form denial letters, Defendant announced that it would accept appeals
`
`of its uniform denial decisions. “If you would like to submit additional clarifying
`
`information, you may submit a reconsideration request here.” Exhibit 1. Plaintiff took
`
`advantage of that process and submitted additional information supporting her request for
`
`exemption. Exhibit 2.
`
`63. Defendant required appeals to be made within 48 hours. The denials were
`
`frequently e-mailed and not hand delivered despite the fact that the employees’ jobs were
`
`at stake. Many employees did not have access to work e-mail at home, and therefore may
`
`not have even gotten the notice of the denial of their request for the religious exemption,
`
`until they returned to work, after the 48 hours had run. Others were on vacation, or
`
`engrossed in work or family responsibilities when the notice of denial of their request for
`
`religious exemption came, and thus failed to make an appeal with the 48-hour period.
`
`64.
`
`Plaintiff followed the appeal process but her request for reconsideration
`
`was denied, as were most, with the exception of those whose exemption was conditioned
`
`on their undergoing testing and agreeing to release medical information to third parties.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 17 of 29
`
`Defendant again issued identical denial letters to nearly every employee who appealed.
`
`The transmittal email messages stated: “Unfortunately, the additional information you
`
`provided did not change the outcome as it did not meet the criteria for a religious
`
`accommodation.” Again, no interactive process was used to evaluate the requests for
`
`exemptions.
`
`65. Defendant did not provide information about its process for determining
`
`whether Plaintiff’s religious beliefs were sincerely held or not, or whether Plaintiff’s
`
`sincerely held religious beliefs would be accommodated either.
`
`66. Both the original denial of the religious exemption and the denial of the
`
`request for reconsideration contained this warning at the bottom: “Do not disseminate,
`
`distribute, forward, or copy the content of this notification.”
`
`67. Defendant further instructed its staff to “endorse the vaccine or say
`
`nothing.”
`
`68.
`
` The Plaintiff submitted a good-faith statement of her sincerely-held
`
`religious beliefs, with explanations of how her faith constrained him from accepting the
`
`Covid-19 vaccination. Defendant’s ad hoc panel nevertheless denied Plaintiff’s request
`
`for an exemption and made no effort to accommodate her request for a religious
`
`exemption.
`
`69. Defendant, in issuing its Vaccine Mandates, instructed that all of its
`
`employees must be “fully vaccinated,” despite the fact that the phrase “fully vaccinated”
`
`has changed over time, sometimes including receiving one shot, or two shots, and then
`
`discussion of three shots, boosters, and even additional or annual shots.
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case: 3:24-cv-00271-slc Document #: 1 Filed: 04/24/24 Page 18 of 29
`
`70. Defendant issued the Vaccine Mandate mandating its employees, including
`
`Plaintiff, take the Covid-19 vaccine despite accumulating evidence that the Covid-19
`
`vaccine does not provide protection as long lasting as had been previously represented,
`
`does not prevent infection or transmission, but only allegedly reduces the severity of
`
`Covid-19 if a person contracts Covid-19.
`
`71. On August 6, 2021, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky stated that
`
`vaccines against Covid-19 did not prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 variants
`
`(Virus).3 This followed the CDC’s updated guidance and Dr. Walensky’s comments on
`
`July 27, 2021, recommending that everyone wear a mask in indoor public settings in
`
`areas of substantial and high transmission, regardless of vaccination status. The CDC’s
`
`information at the time included that “those data were published in CDC’s Morbidity and
`
`Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR), demonstrating that Delta infection resulted in
`
`similarly high SARS-CoV-2 viral loads in vaccinated and unvaccinated people. High
`
`viral loads suggest an increased risk of transmission and raised concern that, unlike with
`
`other variants, vaccinated people infected with Delta can transmit the virus.”4 (emphasis
`
`added).
`
`
`3 https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/05/health/us-coronavirus-thursday/index.html. (last
`accessed November 8, 2022).
`4 Statement from CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky, MD, MPH on To