Legal, Hospitals

Laid-off doctor who refused vaccine seeks legal relief after nurses similarly laid off are recalled to work

Ascension Health notified the employees that there was too great of a risk for them to return to work without being vaccinated, but the majority of those who were laid off were asked to return to work shortly after

A federal appeals court in Chicago is deciding whether to grant a preliminary injunction to a pediatric doctor who was laid off in November after refusing to get the Covid-19 vaccine, while several of his coworkers who also denied the vaccine were asked to return. 

Dr. Paul Halczenko is among the 69 people who filed the lawsuit after their request for a religious exemption to getting the vaccine was denied by their employer, Ascension Health, and they were laid off. He is requesting the court to return his job back to him with back pay.

Ascension Health notified the employees that there was too great of a risk for them to return to work without being vaccinated, but the majority of those who were laid off were asked to return to work shortly after, according to William Bock, III. a lawyer for Dr. Halczenko. 

Dr. Halczenko, a doctor in the pediatric intensive care unit of St. Vincent Hospital, part of Ascension, has been unemployed since November 12 without explanation, Bock said. He added that four nurses who he is also representing were asked to return to work in December, but Dr. Halczenko was not asked to return, and not given a reason.

“We have no explanation for why Dr. Halczenko is treated differently,” Bock said. “We believe that it’s religious discrimination.” 

Longtime labor and employment lawyer Denise Blommel, also a member of the Americans with Disability’s Act Labor and Employment section, said the question here is, “Why did the employer tell everybody the same thing and yet four nurses can return without the vaccine and it’s different for the doctor?”

sponsored content

A Deep-dive Into Specialty Pharma

A specialty drug is a class of prescription medications used to treat complex, chronic or rare medical conditions. Although this classification was originally intended to define the treatment of rare, also termed “orphan” diseases, affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US, more recently, specialty drugs have emerged as the cornerstone of treatment for chronic and complex diseases such as cancer, autoimmune conditions, diabetes, hepatitis C, and HIV/AIDS.

She added that what’s more important is, “were those reasons ever communicated?” Blommel pointed out that Title VII requires an employer to accommodate an employee.

“Maybe the four nurses can be accommodated but the pediatric doctor can’t be accommodated,” she speculated. 

The other question I would have is, “What’s different about the doctor? Is he a member of another protected category under Title VII? Is he being treated differently because of his race, color, or national origin? That would be a violation of the law if he was treated differently.” 

Ascension Health, the second largest operator of hospitals in the US, instated a vaccine mandate that all employees must receive the vaccine by November 12, 2021, and when several employees refused to, claiming religious exemptions under Title VII, they were laid off.  

“To my knowledge they didn’t grant any religious exemptions, however medical exemptions were granted,” Bock said. 

This week, the Seventh Circuit heard oral arguments in the case involving Dr. Halczenko. Bock argued that the doctor should be given a preliminary injunction based on the fact that “his fine motor skills will diminish and therefore cause harm to him if he is unable to work.” 

Bock said he hopes that Dr Halczenko is “reinstated with back pay.” He is also asking the court to certify a nationwide class of Ascension Health employees, more than 300 people, who claimed religious exemptions. While most have been asked to return to work, they were not rewarded for their hardship due to initially losing their employment, Bock said. 

Counsel for Ascension Health did not respond to requests for comment.

The case is Halczenko v. Ascension Health, Inc., 7th Cir., No. 22-01040. 

Photo: AndreyPopov, Getty Images