PHILADELPHIA – Pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a senior executive formerly in its employ, because he allegedly refused to take the COVID-19 vaccine and was denied an exemption for religious reasons.
Matthew Mullen first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Oct. 8 versus AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP, of Bensalem.
“Plaintiff worked with the defendant from December 2004 to April 29, 2022, when plaintiff was terminated. His position upon termination was Senior Business Relationship Manager, IT Market Access. During his employment, plaintiff was never formerly disciplined. On or about Feb. 22, 2022, plaintiff completed defendant’s Religious Reasonable Accommodation Request Form to seek an exemption from the COVID-19 Vaccine after receiving a notice from the defendant which stated that all employees must take the vaccine unless they were exempted due to religion or disability,” the suit stated.
“Since the beginning of the pandemic, plaintiff had worked remotely and when he was in the office he followed the defendant’s protocols for weekly testing. On or about March 21, 2022, defendant requested additional information from plaintiff. On or about March 25, 2022, plaintiff provided additional answers to defendant’s additional questions about his religious beliefs. On or about March 31, 2022, defendant denied plaintiff’s request to receive accommodation from the vaccine, claiming that the plaintiff failed to articulate a sincerely-held religious belief.”
The suit continued that a follow-up email conversation between the plaintiff and defendant ultimately didn’t resolve the stalemate, and the April 22, 2022 deadline for the plaintiff to receive the vaccine came and went. Ultimately, the plaintiff was terminated one week later, on April 29, 2022.
“On or about Aug. 1, 2022, plaintiff started working as Digital Lead – Market Access US for Bayer at a reduced salary. Plaintiff also now receives a reduced bonus package of $13,000, compared to the $80,000 he was receiving while employed with the defendant. Plaintiff lost approximately $90,000 in stock, which had not vested at the time defendant terminated his position. Plaintiff only receives a 5% 401K match on 7% at Bayer, compared to the 6% match on 6% at AstraZeneca, plus they had given the plaintiff another 6% match since plaintiff was there so long. Plaintiff now only receives an additional 5% from Bayer, which vests every four years,” the suit said.
“Plaintiff now drives approximately three hours every other week to Bayer and now must pay tolls. This has caused plaintiff much higher stress as it is highways and traffic compared to no tolls and back roads which he used to travel while working with defendant. Plaintiff may have to relocate to New Jersey where house prices and taxes are 3-4 times what they are where he now lives, plus moving expenses (a similar house with similar land would cost $1.5 million compared to $400,000 – $500,000). Plaintiff, as the main breadwinner in his household, also experienced stress over the months in which he was unemployed. His wife only works part-time and makes significantly less than he does. Further, plaintiff had to pay out of pocket for him and his family’s health insurance while he was unemployed. Plaintiff’s professional career and reputation have also been impaired.”
UPDATE
In a Dec. 8 motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety, counsel for AstraZeneca maintained that, among other arguments, the plaintiff had not showed he faced religious discrimination or retaliation under either federal or state law.
“Plaintiff cannot satisfy the pleading standards for failure to accommodate-based religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or under the Pennsylvania Human Relation Act because he has not sufficiently alleged that he has a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with AZ’s requirement that its employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 or communicated such a belief to AZ. Plaintiff cannot satisfy the pleading standards for disparate treatment-based religious discrimination under Title VII or the PHRA because he has not sufficiently alleged that any AZ employee outside his protected category was treated more favorably than he was or that his termination occurred under any circumstances giving rise to an inference of religious discrimination,” per the defense’s motion.
“Finally, plaintiff cannot satisfy the pleading standards for retaliation under Title VII or the PHRA because he has not sufficiently alleged that he engaged in protected activity, and because even if he had engaged in protected activity, he has not sufficiently alleged that AZ terminated his employment because of any purported protected activity.”
The plaintiff believes the company’s conduct violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.
For counts of violating Title VII through religious discrimination (failure to accommodate and disparate treatment) and retaliation, plus violating the PHRA through religious discrimination (failure to accommodate and disparate treatment) and retaliation, the plaintiff is seeking the following relief:
• A declaration that defendant violated Title VII and the PHRA by failing to engage in the interactive process and to accommodate in response to Plaintiff’s request for religious accommodations to its Policy and, instead, preemptively denying his request based on pre-textual reasons.
• A declaration that defendant violated Title VII and the PHRA for its failure to provide reasonable accommodation and disparately treated plaintiff to his clearly articulated religious beliefs when numerous no-cost options or non-substantial costs were available.
• A declaration that defendant violated Title VII and the PHRA by retaliating against plaintiff or engaging in protected activity through seeking religious accommodation and opposing unlawful measures taken by the defendant to prevent him from seeking accommodation.
• Damages, including back pay, front pay, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, punitive damages (as to Title VII) and compensatory damages and other affirmative relief necessary to eradicate the effects of defendant’s unlawful employment practices.
• Damages necessary to make him whole by providing compensation for past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful employment practices described above, including emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life, humiliation and loss of civil rights, in an amount determined at trial.
• Reasonable attorney fees and costs; and
• Such other and further relief that this Court may deem just and equitable.
The plaintiff is represented by Charles J. Hobbs of Hobbs & Hunter in York, Jesse C. Markley of Markley Law Firm in Middletown and Jeremy Alan Donham of Donham Law, in Morgantown, W.Va.
The defendant is represented by Sarah E. Bouchard and Daniel A. Kadish of Morgan Lewis & Bockius, in both Philadelphia and New York, N.Y.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:23-cv-03903
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com