BUST: MGM Grand Casino Ordered to Pay Over $130,000 for Vax Mandate Religious Discrimination

MGM Grand wipes out in court over vaccine mandate. Jury awards $133K to ex-employee for religious discrimination.

DETROIT, MI – In just the fifth COVID-19 vaccine accommodation trial, a jury in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan has ruled in favor of Hratch Yeremian against MGM Grand Casino, finding religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The jury agreed that Yeremian's refusal of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine was based on a sincerely held religious belief, and MGM Grand failed to prove that accommodating him would cause an undue hardship.

Yeremian, who had worked for the casino since 1999 as a Warehouse Manager, was terminated in October 2021 after seeking an exemption from the casino's vaccine mandate on religious grounds. His job did not involve direct contact with guests, and he proposed alternatives like mask-wearing, social distancing, and remote work.

The court's judgment, delivered in the case numbered 2:22-cv-12978, awarded Yeremian:

• Back Pay Damages: $33,000, compensating for his loss of wages after termination.

• Non-Economic Damages: $100,000, recognizing the emotional distress and personal impact of the discrimination.

The jury's findings highlighted that MGM Grand could not substantiate by a preponderance of evidence that accommodating Yeremian would lead to operational difficulties. The casino had exempted approximately 80% of its workforce (union employees) from the same requirement, further undermining their claim of hardship.

Legal representatives for Yeremian, Noah S. Hurwitz and Brendan J. Childress from Hurwitz Law PLLC, along with Michael L. Jones from Marko Law, PLLC, argued that the casino's policy was applied inconsistently and without regard to the rights of employees with religious objections.

Allan S. Rubin and Elyse K. Culberson from Jackson Lewis P.C., representing MGM Grand, contended that accommodating Yeremian would have posed significant challenges due to his role's demands. However, the jury found these arguments lacking in concrete evidence.

This case joins a growing list of legal challenges where employers have faced court scrutiny over their handling of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Notably, similar cases include:

• A California lawsuit where the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed school workers to proceed with their case against a vaccine mandate that had ended, asserting that the policy's potential to be reinstated kept the case alive (Fox News, 2024).

• In San Francisco, a federal jury awarded over $7.8 million to public transit workers fired for refusing the vaccine on religious grounds, highlighting the need for reasonable accommodations (Reuters, 2024).

• Queensland, Australia saw a Supreme Court ruling that certain COVID-19 mandates for frontline workers breached human rights laws, potentially setting the stage for more claims in this area (ABC News, 2024).

This ruling not only provides Yeremian with financial compensation but also reinforces the protection of religious freedom in employment contexts, potentially influencing future cases where health mandates intersect with religious beliefs. It underscores the legal obligation of employers to genuinely assess requests for religious accommodations without defaulting to blanket policies unless significant hardship can be demonstrated.

This is another victory for Freedom Counsel member attorneys in the medical freedom space. For more information, visit FreedomCounsel.org.