Ten former Mercy Springfield employees file religious discrimination lawsuit over COVID vaccine mandate

Five Mercy Springfield employees who were fired after the hospital rejected their request for a religious exemption to keep from receiving COVID-19 and flu vaccines and five other former employees who were denied exemptions or who were allegedly harassed or retaliated against filed a religious discrimination lawsuit today in U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.

The lawsuit, which was filed by former employees Amy Shepard, Marissa Moffatt, and eight former employees who are listed as Jane Does, claims they were initially told they were allowed to forego the COVID-19 shots if they claimed religious exemptions, but were discriminated against by being forced into "rigorous masking," which led to their harassment by other employees.

In the petition, some of the plaintiffs claim the hospital forced employees to prove their religion.

From the petition:

Plaintiff Marissa Moffatt was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Moffatt was granted a pregnancy exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine. However, when this pregnancy exemption expired, Mercy prevented her from applying for a religious exemption and denied her request. Mrs. Moffatt was subsequently terminated by Mercy. 

Plaintiff Amy Shepard was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Shepard applied for a religious exemption, which was granted by Mercy. However, as a condition of this exemption, she was required to wear special masking and undergo weekly testing regardless of symptoms. When Ms. Shepard raised concerns to upper management, her questions went unaddressed.

In October 2021, she submitted a religious exemption request for the flu shot, which was denied. Mercy terminated Ms. Shepard in November 2021 for non-compliance with the flu shot requirement. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 1 is a registered diagnostic cardiac sonographer who had worked for Mercy for seven years. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption and was denied twice. She was then suspended without pay and terminated as a result of being denied and issued no reasonable alternatives. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 2 was employed by Mercy and was denied a religious exemption to the COVID-19 vaccine. Mrs. Doe stated to Mercy that this vaccine violated her religious beliefs, to which Mercy stated that she had not adequately explained her beliefs. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 3 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect, she then applied for a religious exemption to the vaccine and was denied. After publicly voicing the concerns she had for the vaccine, she was falsely reprimanded in an act of retaliation by Mercy. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 4 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption for the vaccine and was denied. This denial led to Mrs. Doe being fired by Mercy as a result of not taking the vaccine. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 5 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption and was not granted it. As a result, she had to wear a different mask than other vaccinated people, which made her a target for discrimination. Mrs. Shepard then applied for a religious exemption from the flu shot, which was not granted, and she was then terminated.

Plaintiff JANE DOE 6 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption and was denied. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 7 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption and was denied. She was then essentially asked to prove her religion to the hospital. 

Plaintiff JANE DOE 8 was employed by Mercy when the vaccine mandate went into effect. Mrs. Doe applied for a religious exemption and was denied.

In addition to religious discrimination, the lawsuit makes a case that the women's bodily autonomy was violated.

There exists a fundamental right to refuse medical treatment. From this very state came the ruling from Cruzan. Cruzan demonstrates that the refusal of medical treatment is a fundamental right as affirmed by the Supreme Court. 

A basic summary of Cruzan is that a person has to provide evidence in regard to withdrawing from life sustaining treatment. 

In this case at hand there are no incompetent people, simply people profusely expressing their right that they do not wish to partake in the Covid-19 vaccine. There has been no interest demonstrated by the Defendants that could possibly justify their use of a mandatory vaccine. 

In addition, the nature of the vaccine is that of an uncertain untested one and has an uncommonly high rate of death. Plaintiffs contend that the forced vaccination of themselves does not actually protect the interest Mercy is trying to serve. 

Mercy states the goal is to protect the patients and other workers present at the facility. As shown above Mercy is very likely over the herd immunity rate and thus there is not increased risk to the cliental. In addition, if the vaccine set forth is deemed to be effective then the few non vaccinated individuals should essentially pose no threat to the individuals that are vaccinated as the vaccine is "supposed" to guard against that threat.

The plaintiffs are asking that they be paid the earnings they lost due to the vaccine mandate, damages in relation to having to search for new job, plus actual and punitive damages.

The former employees are represented by Krisi S. Fulnecky or Fulnecky Law, Springfield.