Full text
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
__________________________________________
)
)
TOGETHER EMPLOYEES, by
Individual Representatives,
ROBERTA LANCIONE
)
JOYCE MILLER, MARIA DIFRONZO,
)
MICHAEL SACCOCCIO,
)
ELIZABETH BIGGER,
)
NATASHA DICICCO,
)
NICHOLAS ARNO and
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
RUBEN ALMEIDA,
)
Plaintiffs
)
)
v.
)
)
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
)
INCORPORATED
)
Defendant
)
COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
INTRODUCTION
1. The issue in this case is defendant Mass General Brigham Incorporated’s
violations of Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) in
wrongfully denying religious and disability accommodations to its employees.
2. Rather than adhering to federal law, the defendant instead created its own
system-wide “position” and “new process” as to the granting of religious and
medical accommodations for a newly imposed vaccination policy.
3. Defendant wrongly denied hundreds of its employees, many of whom fought
on the front lines saving lives and fighting the spread of COVID-19 from the
beginning of the pandemic to present, reasonable religious and disability
accommodations that are protected by the aforementioned federal laws.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 1 of 76
2
4. All plaintiffs have submitted a “Charge of Discrimination” form to the EEOC,
with some already having obtained a “Notice of Right to Sue,” stating that
the EEOC will likely be unable to complete administrative processing within
180 days.
5. Plaintiffs bring this action prior to the remedy provided under 42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(f)(2) by motion for preliminary injunction and by a showing of
irreparable harm, justifying the need to seek immediate preliminary
injunctive relief in advance of the EEOC’s completion of its investigation or
issuance of right to sue letters.1”
PARTIES
6. Plaintiff, Together Employees is an unincorporated association comprised of,
at the date of this filing, 229 employees of Mass General Brigham Incorporated,
all who requested religious accommodations, disability accommodations (or
both) and were denied without a showing of undue hardship.
7. Plaintiff Roberta Lancione is an employee of defendant who was denied both a
religious disability accommodation after submitting requests for both and
documentation to the defendant detailing her history of angio-edema from
prior vaccination and her current treatment for Chronic Lymphocytic
Leukemia and of her sincerely held religious beliefs.
8. Plaintiff Joyce Miller is an employee of defendant who was denied a disability
1 The First Circuit has held that plaintiffs who show irreparable injury to justify injunctive relief
prior to the remedy provided under Title VII need not wait for the EEOC’s final review as outlined in
42 U.S.C. § 2000e–5(f)(2). Bailey v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 722 F.2d 942, 944 (1st Cir. 1983).
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 2 of 76
3
accommodation and a religious accommodation after submitting a request to
the defendant detailing her sincerely held religious beliefs and a signed form
from her physician to support her request for disability accommodations.
9. Plaintiff Maria DiFronzo is an employee of defendant who was denied a
disability accommodation after submitting evidence that she is pregnant.
10. Plaintiff Michael Saccoccio is an employee of defendant who was denied a
disability accommodation after submitting three letters from two doctors
detailing his inability to receive the vaccine.
11. Plaintiff Elizabeth Bigger is a physician and employee of defendant and a was
denied a religious accommodation after submitting a request detailing her
sincerely held religious beliefs.
12. Plaintiff Natasha DiCicco is an employee of defendant who was denied a
religious accommodation after requesting an accommodation and detailing her
sincerely held religious beliefs to the defendant.
13. Plaintiff, Nicholas Arno, is an employee of defendant who was denied a
religious accommodation after requesting an accommodation and detailing his
sincerely held religious beliefs to the defendant.
14. Plaintiff, Ruben Almeida, is an employee of defendant who had been given
religious accommodation by defendant in the past yet was denied a religious
accommodation after sending a request and detailing his sincerely held
religious beliefs to the defendant.
15. Defendant, Mass General Brigham Incorporated is a Massachusetts
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 3 of 76
4
Corporation with a principal address listed as 800 Boylston Street in Boston,
Massachusetts. It has fourteen hospitals and several other medical facilities
throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
JURISDICTION, VENUE AND STANDING
16. Plaintiffs bring this action for disability discrimination and retaliation under
the Americans with Disabilities Act (hereinafter “ADA”) and religious
discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, with all
claims arising within the context of plaintiff’s employment by the defendant.
17. All plaintiffs are employees of the defendant in various hospitals and facilities
and either had their religious or medical accommodations wrongfully denied
by the defendant.
18. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and preliminary injunctive relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2201 and § 2202.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19. On June 24, 2021, defendant’s President and CEO, Ann Klibanski,
announced that all employees would be required to receive one of three
COVID-19 vaccines. A true copy of the announcement is included herewith as
Exhibit A.
20. The announcement initially stated that exemptions would be available for
“medical and religious reasons” and for “employees who are pregnant or who
intend to become pregnant.”
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 4 of 76
5
21. Defendant provided its employees with a “Covid Vaccine Medical Exemption
Request Form 2021” for those seeking medical accommodations, which
allowed for a temporary exemption for pregnancy stating, “According to the
CDC and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the COVID-19
vaccination is safe and effective for pregnant women and to protect the baby
after it is born. However, pregnancy is a unique personal circumstance. We
encourage those pregnant to discuss this issue with their medical provider.”
A true copy of the Covid Vaccine Medical Exemption Request Form 2021 is
included herewith as Exhibit B.
22. For any employees seeking religious exemptions to the new policy, defendant
purportedly established a committee to review the submitted religious
exemptions.
23. The defendant’s required religious exemption form was an online form with
several check box questions and a small, one line text box with directions
stating “In the space provided, please (1) identify your sincerely held religious
belief, practice or observance and (2) explain why it prevents you from
receiving a COVID-19 vaccine. Please note that you may be required to
provide additional information or supporting documentation to support your
request for an exemption.” A true copy of the exemption form is attached
herewith as Exhibit C.
24. The form contained no option to provide any supporting documentation, such
as a personal statement or a clergy letter.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 5 of 76
6
25. Defendant then denied the plaintiffs’ requests prior to allowing them to
provide supporting documents for their accommodation requests.
26. These denials contained virtually no discussion, other than to state that
plaintiffs failed to state a sincerely held religious belief, or clearly
misconstruing plaintiffs’ beliefs to fit a reason for denial, followed by a link to
where plaintiffs could get vaccinated.
27. Defendant’s offering of medical and religious exemptions was illusory and not
based in accordance with federal law, evidenced by (and not limited to) the
following:
a. Defendant instructed its network physicians not to draft letters in
support of medical accommodations for their patients (Exhibit D);
b. Defendant amended their medical accommodation form, removing the
option for a pregnancy accommodation after promising pregnant
employees that they would be granted accommodations (Exhibit E);
c. Defendant would not disclose to its employees the individuals that
comprised defendant’s exemption committee, their qualifications, or
what the review process would entail2;
d. Defendant refused to accommodate employees that it had
accommodated in the past, citing a “new process” that they had created
(Exhibit F);
2 On occasion, some members of the committee would respond using their names instead of the
standard signature “The MGB Vaccination Committee,” however the committee members, their
qualifications, and the evaluation criteria were never disclosed.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 6 of 76
7
e. Defendant sent out an email to unit supervisors (Exhibit G) stating
that they should encourage employees who had their religious
accommodations denied to instead get vaccinated;
f. This same email provided talking points that supervisors were to use
with their subordinates, including assurances that their requests were
“carefully reviewed by a committee made up of individuals from across
Mass General Brigham,” which was "charged with reviewing requests
and determining whether each request was consistent with the
system’s position around granting exceptions” (emphasis added).
Further, supervisors were to assure their subordinates that “each
request was evaluated based on all information provided, and because
of that there is no appeal process.”
g. These instructions were given despite defendant deliberately
withholding the identity of those who sat on the committee and
withholding “the system’s position” for granting accommodations;
h. Additionally, defendant deliberately failed to provide its employees
with an option to provide supporting information with their
accommodation requests before its anonymous committee “evaluated
based on all information provided” and denied the requests;
i. Defendant would not allow for any appeals to denials of religious and
disability accommodations (Exhibit H), nor did defendant engage in
any meaningful interactive process with any of the plaintiffs; and
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 7 of 76
8
j. Defendant granted many accommodations for employees with nearly
identical accommodation requests (Exhibit I) yet denied plaintiffs’
accommodation requests with no explanation as to why.
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM’S DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION
28. At least 36 Plaintiffs requested reasonable accommodations for disabilities
under the ADA, including Plaintiffs Lancione, Miller, DiFronzo and
Saccoccio.
29. Plaintiff DiFronzo is pregnant and requested an accommodation, as was
originally offered by defendant. She was subsequently denied an
accommodation (Exhibit J).
30. Plaintiff Lancione suffered from angio-edema from prior vaccination and is
currently treating for Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia. Taking these vaccines
puts her at risk of serious physical harm, which would significantly impair
several major life functions, not the least of which would be working (Exhibit
K).
31. Plaintiff Saccoccio obtained three letters from two doctors stating that he
should not receive the vaccine because he has severe PTSD and childhood
trauma, which would trigger his PTSD and substantially impact his major
life functions, not the least of which would be working (Exhibit L).
32. Plaintiff Miller submitted a letter from her doctor supporting her need for an
exemption from vaccination and was subsequently denied. She is currently on
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 8 of 76
9
a continuous leave of absence due to severe mental and emotional toll that
this situation has taken on her and has received behavioral therapy
treatment for these issues (Exhibit M).
33. Plaintiff Miller is not the only plaintiff undergoing treatment for the
emotional and psychological harm that the denial and impending decision
has caused (Exhibit N).
34. Further, defendant did not engage in any meaningful interactive process with
plaintiffs who asserted their medical disabilities, which is a protected
activity.
35. In lieu of an interactive process and in lieu of any reasonable
accommodations, defendant is instead placing plaintiffs on unpaid leave on
October 20, 2021, to be terminated on November 5, 2021 if they remain
unvaccinated.
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM’S RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION
36. To date, defendant has not stated what their “position on granting
exceptions” is for religious accommodations.
37. At least 193 Plaintiffs, including plaintiffs Bigger, DiCicco, Arno and
Almeida, whose affidavits are included as Exhibits O-R, submitted a religious
accommodation request, which is a protected activity.
38. These plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in Biblical
Scripture and received by them through prayer.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 9 of 76
10
39. Plaintiffs seek to make daily decisions, including those regarding vaccination
and other medical decisions, through prayer and by reading the Bible.
40. These sincerely held and prayerfully developed religious beliefs preclude
plaintiffs from taking the COVID-19 vaccines.
41. For plaintiffs to disobey sincerely held religious beliefs would violate their
conscience. See John 14:15 (NIV): “If you love me, keep my commands,” Acts
5:29 (KJV) “…We ought to obey God rather than men.”
42. All of the plaintiffs had their religious accommodation requests denied,
without an opportunity to appeal, and without any meaningful interactive
process. (See ¶ 26 regarding denial emails. An example of these type of email
exchanges has also been included as Exhibit S).
43. Plaintiffs submitted their request on an online exemption form that did not
allow for submission of supporting documents.
44. Not only were plaintiffs unable to submit supporting documents, but they
were also not informed as to who was reviewing their submissions. Thus,
they had no way of providing supporting documents through any other
platform until they were denied.
45. Plaintiffs were therefore reduced to an attempt at describing their personal
religious beliefs in a text box which visibly displayed, in the case of plaintiff
DiCicco, a total of eight words.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 10 of 76
11
46. Once these forms were submitted (by design, without the option to submit
supporting documents), defendant then denied plaintiffs requests for
religious accommodations.
47. Defendant then emailed its department supervisors, instructing them to use
talking points with subordinates who had been denied religious exemptions,
stating “each request was evaluated based on all information provided, and
because of that there is no appeal process.”
48. In other words, defendant is simply paltering: It claims that it evaluated
accommodation requests based on “all the information provided,” which in
itself is true, however, only because defendant made it impossible for
plaintiffs to provide supporting documents by not allowing for their
submission on the exemption form and by not informing plaintiffs of who was
reviewing their request so that substantive information could be sent to those
individuals.
49. Thus, plaintiffs’ accommodation requests (which defendant effectively
reduced to what plaintiffs could fit into a small, one line text box), were then
swiftly denied, with the blame placed on the plaintiffs, and the façade of a
legitimate process being published to defendant’s supervisors and employees.
50. Each plaintiff who sought a religious exemption was subject to the same
procedure and was not afforded an appeal or any meaningful interactive
process.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 11 of 76
12
51. Plaintiffs who failed to receive the vaccination are to be placed on unpaid
leave on October 20, 2021, and are facing termination on November 5, 2021,
if they remain unvaccinated.
COUNT I
(Disability Discrimination – Failure to Make Reasonable Accommodations)
52. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-43 of this Complaint.
53. Plaintiffs who sought disability accommodations, all of whom are “qualified
individuals” under the definition of 42 U.S.C. 121113, requested reasonable
accommodations for their specific disabilities with respect to defendant’s
vaccination policy in writing by submitting defendant’s required exemption
form.
54. Defendant has (and had) a duty as plaintiffs’ employer under 41 U.S.C.
12112(b)(5)(a) to make “reasonable accommodations to the known physical or
mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability.”
55. Defendant was and is “obligated to provide a reasonable accommodation (as
long as it is not unduly burdensome) where a protected employee has requested
an accommodation, or the employer otherwise knew that one was needed.”
Murray v. Warren Pumps, LLC, 821 F.3d 77, 84 (1st Cir. 2016).
56. Defendant failed to provide any reasonable accommodations upon reasonable
requests by plaintiffs.
57. Defendant failed to assert an undue hardship that would be caused by
3 Plaintiffs “with or without reasonable accommodation, can perform the essential functions of the
employment position that such individual holds or desires.” Id.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 12 of 76
13
accommodating plaintiffs’ disabilities.
58. Despite failing to assert an undue hardship, defendant in fact would not be
“unduly burdened” or face hardship in accommodating plaintiffs’ requests4, not
only because it would not financially or operationally burden defendant to
accommodate plaintiffs5, but because defendant did accommodate some
employees while others (including plaintiffs), it chose not to, despite the
accommodation requests being similar or nearly identical.
59. Defendant also failed to engage in any meaningful discussion, interactive
process
or
appeal
with
the
plaintiffs
who
requested
reasonable
accommodations.
60. All plaintiffs were and are ready, willing and able to abide by any reasonable
accommodations to defendant’s policy including those safety precautions
already in effect.
61. Plaintiffs are all facing adverse employment action, namely being placed on
unpaid leave and subsequently terminated, due to their inability to adhere to
the defendant’s policy because of their disabilities.
COUNT II
(Religious Discrimination)
4 Defendant’s most recent 990T form available via the IRS
(https://apps.irs.gov/pub/epostcard/cor/043230035_201909_990T_2020120117460444.pdf) shows that
it has assets of over six billion and as of August 10, 2021, defendant brought in revenues of $4.1
billion in the third quarter of 2021 alone: https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/finance/mass-
general-brigham-posts-2-9b-gain-over-9-months.html. Therefore, under § 12111’s definition of
“undue hardship,” requiring significant difficulty or expense, defendant cannot (and did not) assert
that the accommodations would be unduly burdensome.
5 https://www.massnurses.org/bargaining-unit-listings/p/openBulletin/12231
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 13 of 76
14
62. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-61 of this Complaint.
63. 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.”
Xiaoyan
Tang v. Citizens Bank, N.A., 821 F.3d 206, 215 (1st Cir. 2016) quoting from
42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1).
64. Defendant had a duty to “[O]ffer a reasonable accommodation to resolve a
conflict between an employee's sincerely held religious belief and a condition
of employment, unless such an accommodation would create an undue
hardship for the employer's business.” Cloutier v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 390
F.3d 126, 133 (1st Cir. 2004).
65. Once an employee demonstrates that their religious belief conflicts with an
employment condition, “the burden then shifts to the employer to show that it
offered a reasonable accommodation or, if it did not offer an accommodation,
that doing so would have resulted in undue hardship.” Id.
66. Plaintiffs requesting religious accommodations submitted a request for
religious accommodation to the defendant’s vaccination policy, informing
defendant that its vaccination policy was in conflict with their sincerely held
religious beliefs.
67. These requests were submitted via an online form, as required by defendant.
68. Defendant neither offered to accommodate the plaintiffs nor showed that an
accommodation would have resulted in “undue hardship.”
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 14 of 76
15
69. Despite failing to assert an undue hardship, defendant in fact would not be
“unduly burdened” or face hardship in accommodating plaintiffs’ requests, not
only because it would not financially or operationally burden defendant to
accommodate plaintiffs, but because defendant did accommodate some
employees while others (including plaintiffs), it chose not to, despite the
accommodation requests being similar or nearly identical.
70. Defendant also failed to engage in any meaningful discussion, interactive
process
or
appeal
with
the
plaintiffs
who
requested
reasonable
accommodations.
71. All plaintiffs were and are ready, willing and able to abide by any reasonable
accommodations to defendant’s policy including those safety precautions
already in effect.
72. Plaintiffs are all facing adverse employment action, namely being placed on
unpaid leave and subsequently terminated, due to their inability to adhere to
the defendant’s policy because of their religious beliefs.
COUNT III
(Retaliation)
73. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-72 of this Complaint.
74. All plaintiffs were engaged in a protected activity, whether requesting
accommodation for religious beliefs or for disability.
75. Defendant has taken adverse action against plaintiffs, informing them that
they will be placed on unpaid leave on October 20, 2021 and terminated on
November 5, 2021 if they do not comply with defendant’s policy, which would
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 15 of 76
16
result in either a violation of conscience (Title VII plaintiffs) or a risk to their
physical safety (ADA plaintiffs).
76. The adverse action taken by defendant would not have occurred but for a
retaliatory motive against plaintiffs for requesting their respective
accommodations.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
77. Declaration that defendant violated Title VII in discriminating against
plaintiffs by failing to offer reasonable accommodation for their
religious beliefs;
78. Declaration that defendant discriminated against plaintiffs by failing
to reasonably accommodate for plaintiffs’ disabilities.
79. Declaration that plaintiffs were engaged in protected activity when
they requested reasonable accommodation and when they refused to
comply with a perceived Title VII and ADA violation;
80. Enjoin defendant from taking adverse employment action against
plaintiffs;
81. Enjoin defendant from enforcing its vaccination policy against
plaintiffs until either their religious beliefs and disabilities are
accommodated, the EEOC completes its investigation and/or issues
every plaintiff a right to sue, or a verdict is rendered by a jury; and
82. Attorney fees and costs, plus any other relief this Court deems proper.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 16 of 76
17
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys,
/s/ Ryan P. McLane
Ryan P. McLane, Esq. (BBO: 697464)
Lauren Bradford, Esq. (BBO: 700084)
McLane & McLane, LLC
269 South Westfield Street
Feeding Hills, MA 01030
Ph. (413) 789-7771
Fax (413) 789-7731
ryan@mclanelaw.com
lauren@mclanelaw.com
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 17 of 76
EXHIBIT A
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 18 of 76
Mass General Brigham
mandates COVID-19
vaccination for all
employees
June 24, 2021 Press Releases Our People COVID-19
Mass General Brigham today announced that it will require its 80,000 employees to
be vaccinated against COVID-19 once the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) grants approval of one of the three vaccines. More than 85 percent of Mass
General Brigham employees have already been vaccinated—one of the highest
rates nationwide among health care systems.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 19 of 76
“Over the past 16 months we have come together as a
system to care for our patients and each other as
never before and the efforts of our employees have
been extraordinary and inspiring. The evidence of
COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness is
overwhelming. Getting vaccinated is the single most
important and responsible step each of us can take to
put an end to this devastating pandemic and protect
patients, families, and each other.”
Anne Klibanski, MD
President and Chief Executive Officer
Mass General Brigham
As the largest academic health system and private employer in Massachusetts,
Mass General Brigham has administered more than 450,000 vaccine doses to
patients and employees, helping to make Massachusetts among the top-vaccinated
areas in the country. Clinical data and trends clearly demonstrate that the vaccines
have proven central to reducing the spread of the virus, hospitalizations and deaths
across the Commonwealth.
Mass General Brigham joins many other leading health care systems in the United
States in making COVID-19 vaccination a requirement, ensuring that patients are
being cared for in the safest clinical environment possible. The decision is
consistent with Mass General Brigham’s approach to the flu vaccine, which became
a requirement in 2018. As with other vaccines, employees will be able to request
exemption for medical and religious reasons and employees who are pregnant or
who intend to become pregnant may also request an exemption. A deadline for
vaccination will be determined after FDA approval.
Since the beginning of the pandemic, Mass General Brigham has treated nearly
19,000 COVID-19 positive inpatients and administered more than 1.1 million
COVID-19 tests. At the same time, Mass General Brigham researchers have worked
around the clock to develop and assess new approaches to test for, treat, and
prevent COVID-19.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 20 of 76
Media Contact
Mass General Brigham:
Rich Copp rcopp@partners.org
Bridget Perry bperry7@partners.org
About Mass General Brigham
Mass General Brigham is an integrated academic healthcare system, uniting great
minds in medicine to make life-changing impact for patients in our communities and
people around the world. Mass General Brigham connects a full continuum of care
across a system of academic medical centers, community and specialty hospitals, a
health insurance plan, physician networks, community health centers, home care,
and long-term care services. Mass General Brigham is a non-profit organization tha
is committed to patient care, research, teaching, and service to the community. In
addition, Mass General Brigham is one of the nation’s leading biomedical research
organizations and a principal teaching affiliate of Harvard Medical School. For more
information, please visit massgeneralbrigham.org.
Related Articles
Press Releases
Mass General Brigham
Announces $25 million in
New Funding for Scholars
Program
Press Releases
Mass General Brigham
Names Marcela del
Carmen President of Mass
General Physicians
Organization
10.14.2021
10.14.2021
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 21 of 76
Press Releases
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 22 of 76
EXHIBIT B
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 23 of 76
COVID VACCINE MEDICAL EXEMPTION REQUEST FORM 2021
Please Print:
First Name:
Last Name:
PeopleSoft/Employee ID #:_________________________ Date of Birth:
/ /
Please have your provider return this completed form to Occupational Health at the email listed at the bottom of the form.
Dear Health Care Provider,
Mass General Brigham and its affiliates are committed to providing a safe work environment and to patient safety.
Transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus can carry a significant risk for patients, co-workers, and visitors. COVID-19
vaccination is an important tool to help control the pandemic and is strongly recommended by the CDC. Therefore,
all Mass General Brigham personnel are required to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or have an approved
exemption. Medical exemption is allowed only for recognized medically supported reasons.
Your patient has indicated that they have a medical reason or contraindication not to be vaccinated. Please
document if you believe that there is a medical reason or contraindication below.
History of severe or immediate allergic (anaphylactic) reaction to a previous dose or component of a
COVID-19 vaccine. We encourage consultation with an allergy specialist.
Vaccine name or vaccine component: ________________
Date Received: ______________
Description of reaction:____________________________________________________
Temporary exemption due to current pregnancy: Estimated delivery date: _________________________
According to the CDC and American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the COVID-19 vaccination is safe and
effective for pregnant women and to protect the baby after it is born. However, pregnancy is a unique personal
circumstance. We encourage those pregnant to discuss this issue with their medical provider.
Temporary exemption due to administration of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies:
Date of last dose administered: ____________________________________
Temporary exemption due to history of multisystem inflammatory syndrome:
Date of diagnosis: ____________________________________
Other medical reasons (Please describe below): Requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Clarification
from the requesting employee and/or their physician may be requested in writing or by phone.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I certify that my patient has the above contraindication and requests the medical exemption.
Provider Name: _____________________________
Date: ____________________
(Please print clearly)
Provider Signature: __________________________
License #: ____________
Telephone #: _______________________
Please email this completed form to PHSOHSCOVID19@partners.org
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 24 of 76
EXHIBIT C
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 25 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 26 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 27 of 76
EXHIBIT D
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 28 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 29 of 76
9/20/2021
Mass General Brigham Patient Gateway - RE: Non-Urgent Medical Question
https://patientgateway.massgeneralbrigham.org/MyChart-PRD/app/communication-center/conversation?id=WP-24G245g6mds5Cx2MpwJoLWRQ-3D-3D-24yG-2Fg…
1/1
Name: Lori A Munro |
| PCP:
, MD
All messages have been loaded.
Aug 19, 4:35 PM
Showing 1 of 1
Conversations remain active for 30 days. Once 30 days have passed since the most recent message, you will need to
send a new message instead.
RE: Non-Urgent Medical
Question
Melissa Ann Burke
Dear Lori,
The American College of Cardiology and MassGeneral Brigham is strongly discouraging
cardiologists to write such letters at this time. I will have to defer back to your PCP.
Thank you for your understanding,
MyChart® licensed from Epic Systems Corporation © 1999 - 2020
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 30 of 76
EXHIBIT E
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 31 of 76
COVID VACCINE MEDICAL EXEMPTION REQUEST FORM 2021
Please Print:
First Name:
Last Name:
PeopleSoft/Employee ID #:_________________________ Date of Birth:
/ /
Please have your provider return this completed form to Occupational Health at the email listed at the bottom of the form.
Dear Health Care Provider,
Mass General Brigham and its affiliates are committed to providing a safe work environment and to patient safety.
Transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus can carry a significant risk for patients, co-workers and visitors. COVID-19
vaccination is an important tool to help control the pandemic and is strongly recommended by the CDC. Therefore,
all Mass General Brigham personnel are required to receive the COVID-19 vaccination or have an approved
exemption. Medical exemption is allowed only for recognized medically supported reasons.
The CDC encourages all pregnant people or people who are thinking about becoming pregnant and those
breastfeeding to get vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19. The vaccines are safe and effective, and it
has never been more urgent to increase vaccinations as we face the highly transmissible Delta variant and see severe
outcomes from COVID-19 among unvaccinated pregnant people.
Your patient has indicated that they have a medical reason or contraindication not to be vaccinated. Please
document if you believe that there is a medical reason or contraindication below.
History of severe or immediate allergic (anaphylactic) reaction to a previous dose or component of a
COVID-19 vaccine. We encourage consultation with an allergy specialist.
Vaccine name or vaccine component: ________________
Date Received: ______________
Description of reaction:____________________________________________________
Temporary exemption due to administration of COVID-19 monoclonal antibodies:
Date of last dose administered: ____________________________________
Temporary exemption due to history of multisystem inflammatory syndrome:
Date of diagnosis: ____________________________________
Other medical reasons (Please describe below): Requests will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Clarification
from the requesting employee and/or their physician may be requested in writing or by phone.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________________________
I certify that my patient has the above contraindication and request the medical exemption.
Provider Name: _____________________________
Date: ____________________
(Please print clearly)
Provider Signature: __________________________
License #: ____________
Telephone #: _______________________
Please email this completed form to PHSOHSCOVID19@partners.org
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 32 of 76
EXHIBIT F
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 33 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 34 of 76
EXHIBIT G
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 35 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 36 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 37 of 76
EXHIBIT H
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 38 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 39 of 76
EXHIBIT I
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 40 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 41 of 76
EXHIBIT J
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 42 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 43 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 44 of 76
EXHIBIT K
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 45 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 46 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 47 of 76
EXHIBIT L
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 48 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 49 of 76
EXHIBIT M
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 50 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 51 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 52 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 53 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 54 of 76
Joyce Miller
October 8, 2021
65 Winterberry Lane
Tewksbury, MA 01876
Dear Joyce:
This letter is to inform you that your request for a Personal Illness leave under the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)
beginning 10/15/2021 and returning on 1/03/2022 has been approved.
MA PFML: You may also be eligible for a Personal Illness leave under Massachusetts Paid Family and Medical Leave
(MAPFML). Unum administers the MAPFML medical benefit and will notify you of pay and job protection. MAPFML leave
runs concurrently with other federal and state laws, including FMLA. If you live and work outside of Massachusetts, your state
may offer a paid leave program. Contact the HR Support Center for more details or visit Ask My HR and search “Remote”.
This letter contains information about your pay, benefits, and return to work instructions.
Personal Medical Leave Program: MAPFML benefits are provided to employees working in Massachusetts who are eligible
for benefits under the state law. In addition to MAPFML, short-term disability (STD) is provided to benefit-eligible employees
for personal illness. MAPFML personal medical leave and Short-term disability (STD) are both administered by Unum, who will
coordinate both programs to ensure you receive the maximum benefit. You may be eligible to supplement the benefits received
under the personal medical leave program with accrued paid time off to receive up to 100% income replacement.
Your STD benefit is 60% and the policy number is 955959.
Please contact Unum at 1-877-217-5491 to initiate a claim. If approved, benefits begin on the second workweek of your leave.
Pay: Payments from the personal medical leave program and accrued paid time off bank(s) will be paid through your regular
paycheck. For more details review the enclosed pay procedures.
Benefits: Benefits: During your FMLA absence, your current benefits will continue as if you were actively working. You will
continue to have benefit deductions through your weekly pay. During any unpaid portion of your leave, weekly benefit
deductions will be recorded and collected when you return from leave.
Continuing Disability: If your disability will keep you from work for longer than 6 months, you may apply for Long Term
Disability benefits. Unum will contact you about this process and may request updated medical information. If you have
questions regarding Long Term Disability and the impact on benefits, please contact Rhonda Killoren in the Mass General
Brigham Benefits office at 617-724-9855.
Life Insurance Coverage: You may be eligible to continue your Life insurance coverage(s) and have your premium waived
while you are disabled. If you are not enrolled in Long-Term Disability Plan offered through Mass General Brigham please
contact MetLife at 800-300-4296 to start the coverage continuation process for supplemental life and/or basic life insurance. If
you are enrolled in the Long-Term Disability Plan offered through mass General Brigham, MetLife will start the claim process
on your behalf for supplemental life and/or basic life insurance. In order to be eligible, you must be totally disabled for at least 6
months before initiating this process.
Return to Work: Please contact your manager at least two weeks prior to your anticipated return to discuss your schedule. For
the duration of your leave, you will be in the centralized timekeeping workgroup. When you return from leave, you will be
returned to your regular workgroup.
When you return from leave, you will return to your current or equivalent position. Prior to returning from a medical leave, you
must provide Occupational Health Services (OHS) with a written medical clearance from your healthcare provider. You must
call OHS to schedule an appointment at least 72 hours prior to your scheduled return to work date to have your return to work
clearance paperwork reviewed. OHS is open Monday through Friday between 7am and 5pm.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 55 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 56 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 57 of 76
EXHIBIT N
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 58 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 59 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 60 of 76
EXHIBIT O
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 61 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 62 of 76
EXHIBIT P
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 63 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 64 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 65 of 76
EXHIBIT Q
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 66 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 67 of 76
EXHIBIT R
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 68 of 76
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 69 of 76
EXHIBIT S
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 70 of 76
From:
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2021 9:12 AM
To: Chen, Dee Dee A. <DDCHEN@PARTNERS.ORG>; MGB Religious Exemptions Committee
<MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Confidential
Hi again Dee Dee,
Again, could you please send me this information regarding this new process that you referred
to?
Or refer me to who is responsible to provide this information to the employees.
This is a time sensitive as I’m sure you can understand so can you please either assist me or let
me know who can.
Thank you,
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:18 PM
To: Chen, Dee Dee A. <DDCHEN@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Fw: 2nd request
October 6, 2021 2:53 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Re: 2nd request
Thank you for that information but I'm asking about this in particular; "We have implemented
a new process this year."
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 71 of 76
Process in past vs. “new process”
Thank you Dee Dee
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021 1:51 PM
MGB Religious Exemptions
Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: 2nd request
,
Your request for an exemption was carefully reviewed by an MGB-wide committee that thoroughly
evaluated each submission based upon the information provided and following appropriate legal
requirements. The decisions of the committee are final, and there is no appeal process.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee
Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 2021 12:48 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: 2nd request
2nd request for explanation
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 2:26 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Further info required
Still not following
Please explain "new process" implementation
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021 1:59 PM
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 72 of 76
MGB Religious Exemptions
Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: RE:
,
You have received religious exemptions in the past, however, they do not carry over from one year
to the next. We have implemented a new process this year to evaluate requests for religious
exemptions and this year your request is denied.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee
Sent: Friday, October 01, 2021 10:22 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Re: RE:
I’m very confused. Can you please explain?
Thank you
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Friday, October 1, 2021 2:00 PM
; MGB Religious Exemptions
Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE:
,
Religious exemptions do not carry over from one year to the next. We have implemented a new
process this year to evaluate requests for religious exemptions.
As your request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 and/or flu vaccination has been
reviewed and was denied, we hope that you reconsider and receive the vaccine within the
required time periods.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee
From:
<
>
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2021 1:25 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 73 of 76
Subject:
Religious exemption is on file.
Thank you,
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 10:28 AM
To:
>; MGB Religious Exemptions
Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: MGH Religious Exemption Request
Dear
,
Thank you for providing additional information.
Unfortunately, your request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 and/or flu vaccination has
been reviewed by the exemptions committee and is denied. Information about ongoing vaccine
clinics can be found here.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee
From:
>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 3:38 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Re: MGH Religious Exemption Request
Good afternoon Dee Dee,
Thank you for your response.
My beliefs are between me and God who teaches my beliefs are not to be scrutinized nor denied by
any man. He is my Supreme Ruler, not the Pope, nor the President, not any human. The government
can not be the arbiter of which Catholic is correct. This would violate the establishment clause of the
First Amendment as well as Article II.
The Bible informs all believers that our body is a Temple. Receiving a medical treatment against my
will violates my body, and removes my free will as God has intended for me. I recognize God as my
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 74 of 76
ultimate authority in all things and that He has delegated to each of us authority over our own lives
and choices, matters of health, including that of vaccines. I hold that the serious and potentially
eternal consequences attached to my choices strongly outweigh any dictate of government to the
contrary. “My Body, My Choice”.
I have been granted religious exemptions in the past as is noted in my MGH record. My beliefs have
further evolved and have allowed me to possess even greater knowledge in this area, which is why I
continue on this path of not harming my body. My faith requires that when I recognize an action to
be wrongful, that I repent. Having committed a sin in the past is not an excuse to continue doing so.
We are commanded to go and sin no more.
Thank you for your time.
Sincerely,
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2021 1:57 PM
To:
>; MGB Religious Exemptions
Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: RE: MGH Religious Exemption Request
Dear
,
Your request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 and/or flu vaccination has been received, but
requires additional information. You named your religion as a practicing Catholic, but did not explain
how your religious beliefs prevent you from receiving a COVID-19 and/or flu vaccine. Moreover,
your religion has publicly supported vaccination. Please provide an additional explanation so that we
may further consider your request. In particular, please explain how, in light of your religion’s public
support of vaccination, your faith prevents you from receiving a vaccine. Please also provide any
supporting documentation that you believe will be relevant to further consideration of your request,
including evidence that you have a history of religious exemption to vaccines. If you have received
vaccines in the past, please explain why your religion did not prevent you from receiving vaccines in
the past and now will not allow for COVID-19 and/or flu vaccination. If your response is not received
by September 27 your request for an exemption will be denied. Information about ongoing vaccine
clinics can be found here.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 75 of 76
From:
>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 6:39 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: Re: MGH Religious Exemption Request
Thank you Dee Dee.
I did not meet this deadline due to an unforeseen circumstance. My smartphone, which I use
for email, broke.
As soon as I had an alternate device, I submitted.
Thank you,
From: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Sent: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 2:37 PM
To: MGB Religious Exemptions Committee <MGBReligiousExemptions@PARTNERS.ORG>
Subject: MGH Religious Exemption Request
Dear MGH Colleague,
Your request for a religious exemption from COVID-19 vaccination has been received, but requires
additional information. The deadline to submit a request for a religious exemption from the COVID
vaccine was September 3, 2021. Please provide an explanation why you did not meet this deadline?
If your response is not received by September 27, your request will be denied.
Kindest Regards,
Dee Dee (on behalf of MGB Religious Exemption Review Committee)
The information in this e-mail is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. If you
believe this e-mail was sent to you in error and the e-mail contains patient information, please
contact the Mass General Brigham Compliance HelpLine at
http://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/complianceline . If the e-mail was sent to you in error but
does not contain patient information, please contact the sender and properly dispose of the e-
mail.
Please note that this e-mail is not secure (encrypted). If you do not wish to continue
communication over unencrypted e-mail, please notify the sender of this message
immediately. Continuing to send or respond to e-mail after receiving this message means you
understand and accept this risk and wish to continue to communicate over unencrypted e-
mail.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 1 Filed 10/17/21 Page 76 of 76