USA 
United Kingdom
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan has been ordered to pay $12.7million to a former worker it fired after she refused a COVID-19 vaccine mandate on religious grounds.
The employee, a Catholic named Lisa Domski, sued for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Michigan’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
Domski had worked as an IT specialist at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) for nearly 40 years before losing her job.
She was reportedly one of nearly 250 employees who requested a vaccine exemption on religious grounds to be fired by the company.
In the court filings, BCBSM claimed it did not believe her religious belief was sincere.
Why did BCBSM fire a Catholic worker who refused a COVID-19 vaccine?
BCBSM implemented a mandatory vaccination policy for its employees in October 2021, requiring all staff to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 2021 unless they applied for religious or medical accommodations.
Domski sent a letter requesting exemption to her employer, in which she said that “COVID vaccines were either developed or tested using fetal cells that originated in abortions."
The letter also noted that she holds “sincere personal religious belief that human life begins at conception" and used Bible verses to underscore her belief that taking a COVID-19 vaccine would be against her religion.
In her complaint, the employee alleged that instead of making the accommodation for her faith, BCBSM placed her on unpaid leave before firing her.
BCBSM’s Director of Employee and Labor Relations reportedly told the company’s management he questioned whether Domski’s request was genuine.
The IT specialist claimed that the meeting she held with HR about her accommodation request was like a “mini deposition,” and was set up with the view to pressuring staff to get a vaccine.
Domski’s request was rejected at the conclusion of the process as she reportedly failed to “meet the criteria for an exemption due to a sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance.”
The jury heard that BCBSM could have offered her multiple accommodations such as regular testing and wearing a mask in the office.
Delivering Consistent HR Services for Deskless Workers
Can HR truly reach every employee — whether office-based, hybrid or deskless?
Deskless workers represent ~80% of the global workforce, yet most HR systems were designed for desk-based employees.
This ebook explores how to build a multichannel HR service delivery strategy — combining portals, mobile apps, email and conversational interfaces — to deliver consistent HR services, improve accessibility, and create a seamless employee experience across the entire workforce.
Based on research conducted by Neocase with clients and stakeholders in the industrial sector, it highlights practical insights on:
Why deskless environments reveal structural gaps in HR service delivery
Why multichannel HR requires governance, not just more channels
How mobile-first access can transform frontline HR interactions
What you will learn from this eBook:
How to reach employees without desk access
How to structure HR service delivery across sites
How to reduce HR workload from employee requests
Real examples from large organizations
Instead, it was found to have refused to engage in a meaningful conversation about possible accommodations. According to the lawsuit, BCBSM’s process for reviewing religious accommodation requests was “arbitrary and woefully inconsistent.”
Domski’s lawyer, speaking to Fox News, claimed that BCBSM had “made up their minds that they were going to discriminate against people who had sincerely held religious beliefs.”
He pointed out that the worker worked from home and therefore did not pose a threat to her colleagues.
What next for BCBSM and other religious accommodation cases?
BCBSM has been ordered to pay $10m to Domski in punitive damages, $1.28million in front pay, $315,000 in back pay, and $1million in noneconomic damages.
Speaking to the Catholic News Agency, BCBSM indicated it would push back against the verdict and review legal options. The health insurance provider claimed its accommodation “complied with state and federal law,” and asserted it “respected the sincerely held religious beliefs of its employees.”
The case comes amid other cases that highlight the need for employers to meaningfully engage with individual religious accommodation requests—and the costly legal issues that can stem from failing to do so.
Another religious discrimination lawsuit in January resulted in a $50,000 payout for another Michigan-based employer.
The US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission claimed the company – that had a policy mandating employees to get an annual flu shot – did not properly consider the request of a job candidate who wished to be exempt from the policy, rejecting his application outright.
