Lisa Domski vs. Blue Cross Blue Shield Of Michigan
Case Background
On August 11, 2023, Plaintiff Lisa Domski filed a Religious discrimination case in the United States District Court, Michigan Eastern (Case number: 2:23cv12023). This case was assigned to Assigned to District Judge David M. Lawson and referred to Magistrate Judge Elizabeth A. Stafford
Cause
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy on November 1, 2021, requiring all employees and contractors to be vaccinated by December 8, 2021. Lisa Domski, an IT Process Specialist II with over 27 years of service, submitted a religious accommodation request seeking an exemption from the mandate. BCBSM conducted brief, pressured interviews with employees requesting religious accommodations, limiting them to 15 minutes and questioning their use of medications and vaccination history. Attorneys representing BCBSM led these interviews without allowing legal representation for the employees. The company demanded quick responses and threatened to deny accommodations if employees asked questions. Approximately 250 employees, including remote workers who sought religious accommodations, faced termination. BCBSM maintained this strict policy, even though it did not require visitors or vendors to be vaccinated.
Injuries
BCBSM’s actions caused immediate and lasting harm to Domski’s career and wellbeing. The company dismissed her sincerely held religious beliefs and neglected to engage in the federally mandated interactive accommodation process. Rather than following EEOC guidance to assume the sincerity of religious belief requests, BCBSM applied arbitrary standards to evaluate them. The company rejected reasonable alternatives like masking or testing, which other Michigan employers commonly accepted during the pandemic. This religious discrimination lawsuit underscored BCBSM’s disregard for established workplace religious rights and employment protections.
Damages
Domski’s employment termination inflicted significant financial and personal damages. The termination damaged her professional reputation, causing her humiliation in her field. She also incurred legal expenses to challenge the workplace discrimination and protect her religious rights under employment law. Domski sought comprehensive relief. She requested compensatory damages for both financial and non-financial losses, as well as punitive damages due to BCBSM’s willful disregard for religious rights. The lawsuit also demanded prejudgment interest and attorney fees to address the full scope of harm
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal representation
- Plaintiff(s): Lisa Domski
- Counsel for Plaintiff: Brendan John Childress | Grant Michael Vlahopoulos | Jonathan R. Marko | Noah S. Hurwitz
- Defendant(s):Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
- Counsel for Defendants: Angelina Rose Delmastro | Brandon C. Hubbard | Jonathan R. Marko | Maureen J. Moody | Michelle R. Heikka | Nolan John Moody | Rudolph Porter Makupson | Scott R. Knapp | Zachary Pelton
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
“Our forefathers fought and died for the freedom for each American to practice his or her own religion. Neither the government nor a corporation has a right to force an individual to choose between his or her career and conscience,” Marko (Plaintiff’s attorney) said in a statement. “Lisa refused to renounce her faith and beliefs and was wrongfully terminated from the only job she had ever known. The jury’s verdict today tells BCBSM that religious discrimination has no place in America and affirms each person’s right to religious freedom.”
Claims
The Religious Discrimination case centered on three main claims. First, BCBSM violated Title VII by failing to accommodate Domski’s religious beliefs, neglecting to engage in good faith discussions regarding her request. Second, BCBSM engaged in disparate treatment discrimination by treating Domski differently from employees of other religious beliefs who received exemptions. Third, BCBSM violated Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act by intentionally discriminating based on religious beliefs. This civil rights violation showed BCBSM’s disregard for federal and state protections for religious accommodation in employment.
Defense
BCBSM defended against Domski’s claims, denying any discrimination based on her religious beliefs in connection with her January 5, 2022, termination. The company stated it had implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy on October 31, 2021, requiring employees to receive their first dose by December 8, 2021, and be fully vaccinated by January 4, 2022.
BCBSM denied conducting “ambush-style interrogations” of employees who requested religious accommodations and refuted claims of limiting interviews to 15 minutes or preventing legal representation. They maintained that their accommodation process was neither arbitrary nor inconsistent. BCBSM also denied terminating approximately 250 employees who had sought religious accommodations.
In its affirmative defenses, BCBSM argued that Domski’s claims were subject to arbitration and not federal court jurisdiction. They asserted legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for their actions and relied on specific facts about Domski’s request. BCBSM claimed that Domski lacked sincerely held religious beliefs, was unqualified for her position, and failed to exhaust administrative remedies, including timely EEOC filing. The company further denied that Domski suffered emotional distress, mental anguish, reputation loss, or humiliation from her termination.
Jury Verdict
On November 8, 2024, the jury found in favor of Domski on two liability counts. First, they determined BCBSM unlawfully discriminated against her under federal law by denying her religious accommodation request for a COVID-19 vaccine exemption. Second, they found that BCBSM unlawfully discriminated under Michigan and federal law by terminating her employment based on religion. The jury awarded Domski $12.69 million in total damages in her religious discrimination case. This amount included $315,000 in back pay and $1.375 million in front pay. She was also awarded $1 million in non-economic damages. Due to the liability findings, the jury added $10 million in punitive damages.
Court Documents:
Available Upon Request
Press Release:
Leave A Comment