DETROIT, MI - A woman who had worked at Blue Cross insurance company for over 30 years sued after losing her job for declining to receive a COVID-19 shot.
The lawsuit claimed that Lisa Domski was discriminated against based on her religion. The jury out of the Detroit federal court agreed. Domski was fired from Blue Cross in 2021, despite her saying that receiving a shot was against her Catholic beliefs.
Domski was working 100% remotely at the time.
Prior to the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, she had been working 75% remotely and 25% at the office. Jon Marko, Domski's attorney, said that "she wasn't a danger to anybody" whether she got the shot or not since she was solely working from home at the time.
According the the verdict, $1.7 million was rewarded in lost pay, $1 million in noneconomic damages, and over $10 million was for punative damages.
Blue Cross's argument was that Domski lacked a "sincerely held religious belief."
Following the verdict, which may legally be appealed, Blue Cross said in a statement, “While Blue Cross respects the jury process and thanks the individual jurors for their service, we are disappointed in the verdict. Blue Cross is reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”
The lawsuit claimed that Lisa Domski was discriminated against based on her religion. The jury out of the Detroit federal court agreed. Domski was fired from Blue Cross in 2021, despite her saying that receiving a shot was against her Catholic beliefs.
Domski was working 100% remotely at the time.
Prior to the pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, she had been working 75% remotely and 25% at the office. Jon Marko, Domski's attorney, said that "she wasn't a danger to anybody" whether she got the shot or not since she was solely working from home at the time.
According the the verdict, $1.7 million was rewarded in lost pay, $1 million in noneconomic damages, and over $10 million was for punative damages.
Blue Cross's argument was that Domski lacked a "sincerely held religious belief."
Following the verdict, which may legally be appealed, Blue Cross said in a statement, “While Blue Cross respects the jury process and thanks the individual jurors for their service, we are disappointed in the verdict. Blue Cross is reviewing its legal options and will determine its path forward in the coming days.”
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments
2024-11-11T15:09-0600 | Comment by: George
So who in the insurance industry- or the legal profession for that matter- is so imminently qualified to assess someone’s “sincerely held religious belief”? Please!
2024-11-11T17:54-0600 | Comment by: arthur
Good! I doubt that they have any options. She should be getting her full retirement as well as her benefits as well along with that. Just to slap them in the face for what they pulled. Let's hope that this is the start of something, as it would seem to me that they have no case at all to fight back against this woman to get that back, and now maybe other can use this judgement in their favor to fight back against employers that screwed them wrongfully as well.
2024-11-11T20:43-0600 | Comment by: Richard
I’m sure they will try every dirty legal trick there is, including stays and continuances, to wear her down and bankrupt her, but I sincerely hope she ultimately prevails. Their contention that she did not have a valid faith-based reason (though I agree with the previous comment that “no” should have sufficed) is tantamount to a thought crime.
2024-11-14T13:57-0600 | Comment by: Paul
Message sent? Yes. Message received and understood? Probably not. Regardless a possible reduction of the award, 12 million $laps from the jury ought to make her feel much better.