St. Jude’s Children’s Research Hospital, a pediatric treatment and research facility located in Memphis, Tennessee, is facing a discrimination lawsuit filed by the Pacific Justice Institute (PJI), a nonprofit legal defense organization specializing in defending religious freedom, parental rights, and other civil liberties.
The suit has been launched on behalf of Lynn Kizer, a former employee of the hospital, who alleges she was unjustly terminated due to her religious beliefs in relation to the institution’s vaccine mandate.
Kizer, described as a “Christian and RN,” was an employee in St. Jude’s IT department.
The press release from PJI points out that during the pandemic, Kizer, like “some colleagues,” had been “working from home.”
Significantly, her role did not involve “patient contact.”
However, when St. Jude’s announced their vaccine mandate, Ms. Kizer “asked to work from home as a religious accommodation.”
In response to this, the hospital notified her that she would either have to comply with the vaccine mandate or face termination.
Addressing this situation, Kizer reached out to PJI for assistance.
The legal body’s basis for the lawsuit is the “Civil Rights Act of 1964.”
The institute’s involvement began when they wrote to the hospital on Kizer’s behalf, “requesting again that they discuss an accommodation.”
However, the hospital’s reply included some discrepancies, including an “incorrect hire date and certification date.”
Even more, the hospital mistakenly claimed that “patient contact had never been part of her job.”
Moreover, when PJI sent a clarifying letter, they were met with a confrontational response, with the hospital’s counsel stating that Kizer “didn’t know her job.”
Shortly after this communication, Kizer was terminated from her position.
The situation seems further complicated by the hospital’s internal procedures.
Normally, the “internal process for accommodation requests” includes an “interview with the employee’s immediate supervisor.”
In the case of Kizer, however, another manager from a different building was interviewed.
Both the “HR Director and that manager claimed in deposition and declaration statements that her supervisor had been unavailable” due to her resignation in early August of 2021.
Contradicting this claim, the supervisor later stated she had been “employed and available until September 7, 2021,” which is “18 days beyond the date on the notification of denial.”
She further added that Kizer’s request “could easily have been accommodated,” even suggesting “three methods available at that time.”
Confronted with these inconsistencies, “St. Jude admitted that the supervisor had been in their employ until September 7.”
Ron Hackenberg, the PJI attorney representing Kizer, expressed his disappointment, stating: “I’m probably like many people, thinking St. Jude’s were the good guys. But as far as their administrators go, it’s just appalling.”
He further emphasized the gravity of the situation by saying that St. Jude’s has been “so callous in discharging Lynn Kizer at 59 years of age, when she could have been accommodated, refusing to even talk to her, and even going as far as filing misleading information with the courts to justify their actions.”
Hackenberg didn’t mince words, branding the incident as “religious discrimination under Title VII” and vowed, “We will continue fighting for justice for Lynn as we have these past two years.”
The unfolding legal battle between PJI and St. Jude’s Hospital places a spotlight on the broader issues of religious accommodations in the context of workplace vaccine mandates.
