$12.7 Million Verdict: A Turning Point for Vaccine Mandates, Religious Accommodation and Workplace Discrimination?

Failing to respect anti-discrimination laws can result in substantial financial and reputational consequences

In a landmark case, a federal jury in Detroit awarded $12.7 million to Lisa Domski, a former Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan employee, who sued the company for religious discrimination. This case raises critical issues about workplace vaccine mandates, religious accommodation, and the rights of employees under anti-discrimination laws.

The Case Overview

Lisa Domski, a devout Catholic, worked for Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) for 33 years, most recently as an IT specialist. In 2021, BCBS introduced a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, requiring employees to either get vaccinated or submit a medical or religious exemption. Domski sought a religious exemption, citing her sincerely held belief that the vaccines’ association with fetal cell research conflicted with her faith. She even provided a written statement and contact details for her priest.

Despite following the company’s process, BCBS denied her request without explanation and terminated her employment in January 2022. Her firing led to the loss of critical benefits like vision insurance, 401(k) contributions, bonuses, and vacation time. Unable to find new employment due to her lack of a college degree, Domski filed a lawsuit claiming religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

The Jury’s Decision

The jury ruled decisively in Domski’s favour, awarding:

$10 million in punitive damages
$315,000 in back pay
$1.375 million in lost future wages
$1 million for emotional distress

The case highlighted BCBS’s failure to engage in a meaningful dialogue, as required under Title VII, and its arbitrary denial of hundreds of religious accommodation requests. BCBS rejected 75% of similar exemption requests, often citing inadequate information without clarifying what additional details were needed.

The Legal Context

Domski’s case comes amid growing scrutiny of vaccine mandates and the processes employers use to evaluate exemption requests. Under Title VII, employers must provide reasonable accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs unless doing so causes “undue hardship.” The burden of proof for undue hardship was raised significantly in a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision, making it harder for employers to deny exemptions.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines further emphasize that employers should generally assume the sincerity of an employee’s religious beliefs and engage in a collaborative process to identify reasonable accommodation.

Why This Case Matters

This case sets a powerful precedent for other workplace discrimination lawsuits tied to COVID-19 mandates. Attorney Jonathan Marko, who represents over 180 similar plaintiffs against BCBS, said this verdict “sets the tone” for holding employers accountable. Legal experts believe the Domski verdict could lead to similar outcomes across the U.S., reinforcing employees’ rights to religious accommodation.

Moreover, the jury’s decision sends a strong message to employers: failing to respect federal anti-discrimination laws can result in substantial financial and reputational consequences. As Marko stated, “Forcing individuals to choose between their faith and their careers imposes an obvious and substantial burden.”

Takeaways for Employers

Respect Religious Beliefs: Employers must take religious accommodation requests seriously, as dismissing them arbitrarily could result in costly litigation.
Engage in Dialogue: The accommodation process should be collaborative and involve meaningful interaction with employees.
Provide Clear Communication: If requests are denied, employers must articulate specific reasons and indicate what additional information is needed.
Understand Legal Risks: Recent legal decisions have increased the burden of proof for employers, making it more challenging to justify the denial of accommodation.

The Bigger Picture

Beyond the legal implications, this case underscores the importance of balancing public health measures with individual rights. During the pandemic, some employers adopted strict mandates without adequately considering the religious and medical needs of their employees. Cases like Domski highlight the need for fairness and transparency in workplace policies, especially when those policies intersect with deeply held personal beliefs.

How Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) Can Help

The Domski verdict reminds employers and employees alike of the importance of understanding their rights and obligations under employment law. Whether you’re an employer seeking to craft legally compliant workplace policies or an employee facing discrimination, Minken Employment Lawyers (Est. 1990) can provide expert guidance. Contact us today at 905-477-7011 or email us at [email protected]. Our experienced team is here to help.

Sign up for our Newsletter to learn about new Employment Law legislation and Court decisions impacting your workplace.

Please note that this article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.