A former employee sued pharmaceutical company Xeris Pharmaceuticals for religious discrimination over its COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
The case was filed in the Southern District of California on Thursday by a former employee against Xeris Pharmaceuticals Inc and its affiliates, alleging violations of the California Fair Employment and Housing Act regarding a mandate for COVID-19 vaccination.
According to the complaint, the plaintiff was employed by the defendant as a pharmaceutical worker. The plaintiff claimed she contracted COVID-19 in August 2021 and received a medical exemption from having to receive the vaccine until November 11, 2021. During this time period, the employer made accommodations so long as the plaintiff was required to meet certain conditions, including: “(1) access to [the plaintiff’s] key accounts were not disrupted due to her vaccination status; (2) [the plaintiff] wear a face mask during business visitations; (3) [the plaintiff] submit to weekly COVID-19 testing; (4) [the plaintiff] complete a health screening questionnaire each day that she works outside the home; and (5) [the plaintiff] stay at home if she has any symptoms related to COVID-19.”
At the expiration of the medical exemption, the plaintiff sought to receive a religious exemption under the same terms, as noted in the complaint. The plaintiff asserted employer Xeris declined, citing the federal mandate that contractors of the federal government be vaccinated and indicating that the religious exemption would be a personal choice that the employer was not required to accommodate. The plaintiff argued that this is unwarranted religious discrimination as the employer was able to accommodate the medical exemption without undue hardship. According to the complaint, after failing to grant the accommodation, Xeris placed the plaintiff on unpaid leave starting November 16.
The plaintiff is suing for religious discrimination under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act, failure to provide religious accommodation under the same act, retaliation, failure to prevent discrimination and constructive termination.
The plaintiff seeks an award for front and back pay; compensatory, punitive and noneconomic damages; declaratory judgment, among other relief.
The plaintiff is represented by the Law Office of David P Strauss.
