Motion (2022-12-05)
- Date
- 2022-12-05
Summary
Defendant Mass General Brigham Incorporated's Motion for Summary Judgment in Tyler Adams, et al. v. Mass General Brigham Incorporated, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, filed February 17, 2023 as Document 148. Brought under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, the motion asks the court to dismiss the action in its entirety and with prejudice. It states that the plaintiffs are former employees who sought medical or religious exemptions from a 2021 vaccination policy, and argues that granting the exemptions was an undue hardship, so the Title VII and ADA claims fail. It further argues that the 22 plaintiffs who sought medical exemptions cannot establish a prima facie case. The four-page motion, signed by counsel at Seyfarth Shaw LLP, includes a Local Rule 7.1(a)(2) certificate and a certificate of service.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 148 Filed 02/17/23 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
TYLER ADAMS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-11686-FDS
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM
INCORPORATED,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56, Defendant Mass General Brigham Incorporated (“MGB”)
moves for the entry of summary judgment dismissing this action in its entirety and with prejudice.
As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law and Statement of Undisputed Facts,
and the forthcoming Joint Record Appendix,1 MGB—the Commonwealth’s largest healthcare
provider and employer—implemented a policy in 2021 requiring all staff to be vaccinated absent
an approved medical or religious exemption (the “Vaccination Policy”). Plaintiffs are former
MGB employees who sought such exemptions from the Vaccination Policy. MGB determined
that they did not meet its lawful and rigorous criteria for exemption and consequently did not
approve their requests.
1
At a status conference on December 5, 2022, this Court adopted the parties’ stipulation regarding
summary judgment procedures (the “Summary Judgment Procedures”). The Summary Judgment
Procedures include certain departures from the normal practice under Local Rule 56.1 (see Dkt.
Nos. 136, 138). In particular, to assist the Court in viewing the record evidence, the parties have
agreed to the filing of a Joint Appendix similar to that required by Fed. R. App. P. 30. See Dkt.
No. 136 at 2. The Summary Judgment Procedures provide that MGB shall serve on Plaintiffs–but
not file–a proposed Joint Appendix on the same date as the filing and service of its Motion for
Summary Judgment. Contemporaneously with the service and filing of their Opposition, Plaintiffs
shall serve, but not file, any additional portions of the record not included in the initial proposed
Joint Appendix that they wish to include. In accordance with the Summary Judgment Procedures,
MGB will file the final Joint Appendix on or before the date on which it files its reply brief. Id.
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 148 Filed 02/17/23 Page 2 of 4
In Section I of its Memorandum of Law, MGB shows that, as a matter of law, granting
Plaintiffs’ requested exemptions was an undue hardship. The Vaccination Policy was the product
of the collective judgment of MGB’s senior leadership, including world-renowned experts in
infectious disease. It was supported by MGB’s clinical experience and abundant scientific
evidence demonstrating the safety and efficacy of the COVID vaccine. There is no dispute that
MGB determined its health and safety priorities required legally compliant but rigorous exemption
processes, and that a more permissive policy would have unacceptably increased the risk of
COVID infection, negatively impacted patient care, and undermined the public’s confidence in the
safety of MGB facilities. MGB considered, and rejected, alternative infection control measures
because they would have imposed substantial safety risks and financial and administrative burdens
on its operations in the midst of an unprecedented global pandemic.
As further demonstrated in the materials accompanying this motion, MGB determined that
every workforce member—including every Plaintiff in this case—had a role in supporting patient
care in some capacity. Failing to protect them and their colleagues from illness, even if they lacked
a regular on-site presence, would thus adversely impact MGB’s workforce and hurt patient care.
Every MGB employee was subject to being called in to the hospital or other clinical sites at any
time, including being redeployed to a patient-facing role in the pandemic emergency; indeed, the
record shows that many employees were, in fact, redeployed to patient-facing roles.
Because the consequence of allowing Plaintiffs’ requested exemptions was literally life or
death, MGB has established that granting them would have imposed an undue hardship as a matter
of law. As a result, all of Plaintiffs’ claims under Title VII and the Americans with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”) fail as a matter of law, and MGB is entitled to summary judgment as to all claims
and all counts of the operative Complaint.
2
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 148 Filed 02/17/23 Page 3 of 4
In Section II of the accompanying Memorandum of Law, MGB demonstrates why the
claims of the 22 Plaintiffs who sought medical exemptions fail for the additional, independent
reason that they cannot establish a prima facie case as a matter of law. At least nine cannot show
that they were “disabled.” None can show that they were “qualified” disabled persons, because
they posed a direct threat to others under the ADA as a matter of law. None can show that
exempting them from the Vaccination Policy was a reasonable accommodation as a matter of law.
WHEREFORE, for these reasons as well as those set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum of Law, MGB respectfully requests that this Court grant its Motion for Summary
Judgment and enter an order dismissing this action in its entirety and with prejudice.
MASS GENERAL BRIGHAM INCORPORATED
By Its Attorneys,
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Lynn A. Kappelman (BBO# 642017)
Katherine E. Perrelli (BBO# 549820)
Kristin McGurn (BBO# 559687)
Dawn Reddy Solowey (BBO# 567757)
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
Seaport East
Two Seaport Lane, Suite 1200
Boston, MA 02210-2028
kperrelli@seyfarth.com
lkappelman@seyfarth.com
kmcgurn@seyfarth.com
dsolowey@seyfarth.com
TEL: (617) 946-4800
FAX: (617) 946-4801
Date: February 17, 2023
3
Case 1:21-cv-11686-FDS Document 148 Filed 02/17/23 Page 4 of 4
LOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that, on February 17, 2023, I conferred telephonically with Plaintiffs’
counsel in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the areas of disagreement in connection with
Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Dawn R. Solowey
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document filed through the CM/ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).
Pro se Plaintiff Laina Frazier was served a true and accurate copy of this document by e-mail on
February 17, 2023.
/s/ Dawn R. Solowey
Dawn R. Solowey
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.238919.148.0.pdf
- Size
- 33,400 bytes
- SHA-256
- be66bda2e130e61851c6baa7ea14971e3b48a570863547bb1466661fa2b302f9
- Original
- archive.org