Court awards $12.7m to worker in vaccine exemption case

In a landmark legal decision, a federal jury in Detroit awarded $12.7 million to Lisa Domski, a Catholic woman who sued her former employer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM), after being terminated for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

The jury’s verdict, delivered on November 8, marks a significant victory for religious rights in the workplace and could set a precedent for similar cases nationwide.

Domski, who dedicated 33 years to BCBSM as an IT specialist, sought a religious exemption from the company’s vaccine mandate in 2021.

The mandate, which required employees to be fully vaccinated unless they obtained a medical or religious exemption, was implemented as part of BCBSM’s policy aimed at protecting the workforce during the pandemic.

Citing her deeply held Catholic beliefs, Domski argued that the vaccines were developed or tested using fetal cells, a practice that conflicted with her religious convictions.

In her request, Domski included a comprehensive statement outlining her faith-based objections and provided contact information for her priest and parish. However, BCBSM denied her exemption without conducting any follow-up, and she was subsequently fired on January 5, 2022.

After deliberation, the jury sided with Domski, granting her $10 million in punitive damages, $315,000 in back pay, $1.375 million in lost future wages, and $1 million for noneconomic damages such as emotional distress.

READ ALSO: Healthcare workers shun COVID, flu vaccines amid growing distrust in health agencies

Co-counsel Jonathan Marko, representing Domski, expressed satisfaction with the verdict, saying, “A jury of her peers gave her justice by finding that Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan discriminated against her based on her religious beliefs.”

Marko underscored that this case was the first of its kind to reach trial in Michigan involving an employer’s refusal to grant a religious exemption related to COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

He noted that Domski’s experience was emblematic of broader issues faced by employees whose exemption requests were denied without adequate investigation.

During the trial, BCBSM defended itself by stating it was unaware of Domski’s Catholic faith at the time of her termination.

The company also claimed that Domski did not provide enough information, an assertion that the jury rejected. In earlier court documents, BCBSM had even questioned the sincerity of Domski’s beliefs—a stance that analysts say likely weakened their defense.

The firing had severe consequences for Domski, who had worked for BCBSM since she was 17. Losing her job also meant the loss of essential benefits, including vision insurance, her 401k, bonuses, and accrued vacation time.

Marko pointed out that Domski’s inability to secure new employment was compounded by her lack of a college degree, making the impact of her termination even more pronounced.

READ ALSO: Study links Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to heart inflammation in youth

The case is part of a wave of legal challenges stemming from workplace vaccine mandates and the denial of religious or medical exemption requests. A recent Reuters report highlighted a growing number of similar lawsuits where plaintiffs are securing favorable rulings.

The report noted that recent verdicts against employers such as Bay Area Rapid Transit and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Tennessee illustrate a shift in how courts are handling such cases.

A significant development in this area came from a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that increased the burden on employers to prove that granting religious accommodation would cause “undue hardship.”

This has emboldened plaintiffs and lawyers to pursue cases, believing they now have a stronger foundation for their claims.

Attorney Noah Hurwitz, who served as co-counsel with Marko, revealed that he is involved in approximately 300 similar lawsuits involving employees who were fired after their religious or medical exemption requests were denied.

“These cases will set the tone for Blue Cross and other employers,” said Hurwitz. “It’s only going to get worse for them as more verdicts come out in favor of employees.”

Kim Mack Rosenberg, general counsel for Children’s Health Defense (CHD), praised the jury’s decision, stating, “Verdicts like Domski’s send a strong message to employers.

Too often during the pandemic, rights were blatantly ignored based on unfounded fears and biases unsupported by science and law. We are finally beginning to see some of those wrongs righted.”

Marko also noted that the outcome of Domski’s case may influence how other companies approach exemption requests and accommodation processes in the future. “Employers should take note: thorough and fair processes are not just good practice; they are essential for compliance with civil rights laws,” he said.