IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, 

ERIC W ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. BALLARD 

JR., LARRY JAMES BEARCE JR., ROBERT 

BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, 

GREGORY BERRY, 

LYNETTE BOTHA, CALEB BUEHRER, 

RICHARD BULLOCK, JON CARROLL, 

VERGIL CASKEY, JAMES CASTOR, NATHAN 

CHARBONEAU, SHAWN CHURCHEL, JOEL 

COLON, MARK CONNOR, MATTHEW 

CRONAUER, FRED CUNNINGHAM, ROYAL 

DANZA, ELLIOT DE SOUSA, ERIC

DESANDRO, STEVE DIXON, JAMES 

ERICKSON, LUIS ESQUIVIA, LEE ESTES, 

ROBERT FRATTI, JASON FRISBIE, 

TIMOTHY FRYE, TONY GAMBOA, DENNIS 

GEBHARD, REZA GHODS,

MARK GILMAN, ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC 

GORDON, REXFORD T. HEIVILIN, JASON 

HENNING, DAVID HEWSON III, TODD 

HONTZ, DANIEL HUDSON, ROGER JUSTICE, 

VENANCIUS KASSANDJI, JOHN KEARINS, 

RICKY KINDER, BETH KIRBY, ANDREAS N. 

KOUSTAS, CHAD KRAVETZ, CARL 

LINDBERG, JOSEPH LOSCHIAVO, ANDREW 

LUTZ, BLYTHE LUTZ, RAFAEL MACARIO, 

DOUGLAS P. MAYO JR., APRIL MCQUILLEN, 

CHRISTOPHER MCQUILLEN, JEFFREY 

MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER, COREY 

MORRIS, GREGORY MYERS, PETER 

NAPORA, JOEL PARDO, 

LANCE PHILLIPS, PATRICK PHILLIPS,

GLEN PRONK, CHARLES RANDALL, PETER 

RAYMOND, JOSHUA ROBERTS, REBECCA 

ROBERTSON, JASON ROGERS, KIMBERLY 

SCHRECK, WILLIAM SERRITELLA, GENTRY 

SHELTON, TODD SNAZA, DONALD 

SORRENTINO, MARK SOUTH, MICHAEL 

STARK, ELIZABETH STONEKING, FORREST 

STOWELLS,

BARBARA JANEICE SURBER, JOHN SWIFT,

NICK TAYLOR, WILLIAM THOMPSON, 

BRANDON THOROUGHMAN, GERI TONDA, 

 Cause No. 1:22-cv-23519-KMM

 Assigned to 

 Judge K. Michael Moore

 Magistrate Judge Lauren F. Louis

 THIRD AMENDED

 COMPLAINT 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 1 of 56
1

RICARDO TORRES ABARCA, GUSTAVO

VERDES, JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD 

ZARRABIAN 

individuals, 

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

ATLAS AIR INC., a Delaware corporation,

 And

FLIGHT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, LLC, 

a Texas limited liability company, 

individuals, 

 Defendants

. 

THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs are pilots, flight attendants and ground staff of Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”) 

and its affiliated company Flight Services International, LLC (“FSI”), whose rights were brazenly 

violated in connection with Defendants’ implementation of mandates, policies and procedures 

relating to COVID-19 vaccinations.

2. This is an action for relief to redress Defendants’ invasions of privacy, negligence, 

failure to accommodate, disparate treatment, creation of a hostile work environment, violations of 

the Genetic Information NonDisclosure Act (“GINA”) and intentional and negligent infliction of 

emotional distress. Such wrongful conduct was predicated on Defendants’ unlawful 

discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against Plaintiffs.

3. This action also seeks relief to redress Defendants’ conduct, as federal governmenttype actors, redressing violations of Plaintiffs’ civil rights that are established through the Bivens

case and elsewhere, on the basis that Defendants’ conduct was indistinguishable from that of the 

U.S. Government and that Defendants’ vaccine and mask mandates, as applied, violates privacy, 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 2 of 56
2

equal protection and due process protections secured by both the Constitution of Florida and the 

Constitution of the United States.

4. Defendants used deception, discrimination, psychological and economic coercion, 

psychological manipulation, and physical isolation to force Plaintiffs, under threat of job 

termination, to participate in a dangerous social and medical experiment. 

5. Defendants have made Plaintiffs “second-class citizens”—often on the basis of 

their religious beliefs—within their respective companies and targeted them in a campaign of 

harassment designed to force Plaintiffs to submit to an injection of an unknown, experimental 

substance of questionable efficacy and to submit to mask wearing which was then known to be 

useless in inhibiting the spread of COVID-19. 

6. Defendants’ vaccine mandate was illegally constituted, lacked a learned 

intermediary, and it engendered a hostile working environment for Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions 

and workplace toxicity forced Plaintiffs into an impossible decision they never wanted to make: 

take an experimental gene-based therapy at the expense of their religious beliefs and/or health or 

lose their livelihoods and the means by which they provide for their families. 

7. Defendants purported to grant for a time Plaintiffs’ religious ‘accommodation’ but 

continuously changed their standards and treatment, with an ever-present possibility of termination 

and immediately proceeded to deny them benefits and equal opportunities and created a hostile 

work environment by forcing Plaintiffs to wear individually identifiable symbols (facial masks) 

distinguishing them from their peers and gave public disclosure of their private and protected 

health information. 

8. Defendants also violated the rule of informed consent, by coercing Plaintiffs to 

submit to the vaccine without any information on the potential risks or benefits. Several Plaintiffs 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 3 of 56
3

(and other Atlas employees) have suffered adverse side-effects and harm as a result of submitting 

to the vaccine. In addition to actual physical harm, Plaintiffs now face emotional distress as they 

worry about possible long-term side effects. 

9. This suit is further brought to redress the harms Defendants have dispassionately 

brought upon their own employees after years of loyal service, to make them whole, and to help 

ensure the principles of medical freedom through informed consent are preserved. 

PARTIES

10. Plaintiffs are divided in the following 4 categories:

11. Atlas plaintiff are divided into the following 3 categories:

12. Plaintiffs Category 1 – 65 Unvaccinated Atlas Pilot Plaintiffs. These 

unvaccinated plaintiffs which are or were employed by Atlas were damaged by Atlas in, including 

but not limited to, the following manner: These Plaintiffs suffered hostile workplace harassment, 

invasion of privacy, discrimination and threats, including but not limited to continued threatened 

denial of religious and/or medical exemption from Atlas’ vaccination and mask mandates, who 

nevertheless were determined to hold out and did ultimately refuse to take the vaccination and thus 

suffered retaliation from Atlas for being bona-fide whistleblowers entitled to protection under law, 

and suffered extreme harassment and humiliation are as follows:

Patrick Akerlund, Michael Alzati, Eric W Anderson, Larry James Bearce Jr., Robert 

Bellman, Benjamin Bendiburg, Gregory Berry, Lynette Botha, Caleb Buehrer, Richard 

Bullock, Jon Carroll, Vergil Caskey, James Castor, Nathan Charboneau, Shawn Churchel, 

Joel Colon, Mark Connor, Matthew Cronauer, Fred Cunningham, Royal Danza, Elliot De 

Sousa, Eric Desandro, Steve Dixon, James Erickson, Luis Esquivia, Lee Estes, Robert 

Fratti, Dennis Gebhard, Mark Gilman, Robert Giudice, Eric Gordon, Rexford T. Heivilin, 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 4 of 56
4

Jason Henning, David Hewson III, Todd Hontz, Daniel Hudson, Roger Justice, Venancius 

Kassandji, John Kearins, Beth Kirby, Joseph Loschiavo, Andrew Lutz, Blythe Lutz, 

Rafael Macario, Jeffrey Michonski, Andrew Mickler, Corey Morris, Gregory Myers, Peter 

Napora, Patrick Phillips, Glen Pronk, Charles Randall, Jason Rogers, William Serritella , 

Gentry Shelton, Todd Snaza, Donald Sorrentino, Mark South, Michael Stark, Forrest 

Stowells, John Swift, Nick Taylor, William Thompson, James Villella, Farshad Zarrabian.

13. Plaintiffs Category 2 – 13 Vaccinated Atlas Pilot Plaintiffs. These vaccinated 

plaintiffs are still employed and who were damaged by Atlas in, including but not limited to, the 

following manner: they suffered hostile workplace harassment, invasion of privacy, religious 

discrimination and threats, including but not limited to threatened denial of religious exemption 

from Atlas’ vaccination and mask mandates, and who suffered retaliation from Atlas for being 

bona-fide whistleblowers entitled to protection under law, who succumbed to Atlas’ forcing them 

to take the vaccination, and also suffered and/or continue to suffer Vaccine Adverse Effects some 

reported to the VAERS system and some not reported, are as follows:

Michael G. Ballard Jr., Jason Frisbie, Tony Gamboa, Reza Ghods, Ricky Kinder, Andreas 

N. Koustas, Chad Kravetz, Carl Lindberg, April McQuillen, Christopher McQuillen, Peter 

Raymond, Joshua Roberts, Gustavo Verdes.

14. Plaintiffs Category 3 – 6 Atlas ground employees, all 6 ground employee 

plaintiffs are unvaccinated and are or were employed by Atlas who were damaged by Atlas in, 

including but not limited to, the following manner: they suffered hostile workplace harassment, 

invasion of privacy, religious discrimination and threats, including but not limited to threatened 

denial of religious and/or medical exemption from Atlas’ vaccination and mask mandates, and 

who suffered retaliation from Atlas for being bona-fide whistleblowers entitled to protection under 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 5 of 56
5

law, are as follows:

Timothy Frye, Douglas P. Mayo Jr., Joel Pardo, Lance Phillips, Kimberly Schreck, Brandon 

Thoroughman.

15. Plaintiffs Category 4 – All 5 FSI plaintiffs. All 5 FSI plaintiffs are 

unvaccinated plaintiffs which are or were employed by FSI who were damaged by defendants 

in, including but not limited to, the following manner: They suffered hostile workplace harassment, 

invasion of privacy, discrimination and threats, including but not limited to continued threatened 

denial of religious exemption from defendants’ vaccination and mask mandates, who nevertheless 

were determined to hold out and did ultimately refuse to take the vaccination and thus suffered 

retaliation from defendants for being bona-fide whistleblowers entitled to protection under law, 

and suffered extreme harassment and humiliation are as follows:

Rebecca Robertson, Elizabeth Stoneking, Barbara Janeice Surber, Geri Tonda, Ricardo 

Torres Abarca

16. Defendant Atlas Air, Inc. (“Atlas”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal 

place of business in Purchase, New York. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of Atlas Air 

Worldwide Holdings, is a cargo airline, passenger charter airline, and aircraft lessor.1

17. Atlas is a common carrier as defined under federal law. Atlas has a massive 

presence in Florida, and specifically in this judicial district, with a hub, its training center and 

other operations. Its training center is located at 5600 NW 36th St., Miami, FL 33166. It consists 

1 A previous EEOC investigation into Polar Air, a subsidiary of Atlas, found that it had 

discriminated against female pilots by not allowing them to fly into the Middle East. Polar Air 

was ordered to pay the individual $50,000 and to modify their discrimination/harassment policy.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 6 of 56
6

of 30,000 square feet of administrative and Instructional space, including the operation of six 

flight simulation training devices. It “provides a wide range of advanced training solutions, 

specializing in aircrew training for wide body B747 and B767s.” It teaches “more than 10,000 

pilots, flight engineers, flight attendants, and other aviation professionals each year.”2 The Atlas 

Miami Training Center (“MTC”) has more pilots in a day than any base or station on the globe. 

All Atlas pilots are trained at the MTC, including annual or biannual recurrent training. There is 

always a massive presence of Atlas pilots, crew and other personnel in Miami. 

18. Atlas’ flight training has always, since inception, been in Miami. If Atlas were to 

cease all operations at the MTC, it would cause a significant and detrimental impact on the 

operations of Atlas world-wide. Pilots do not spend any significant time at Atlas’ Purchase, New 

York location. 

19. Several very important departments are based in Miami. The Vice President of 

Ground Operations has his primary office at the MTC because he oversees the following 

departments that are based at the MTC: Dangerous Goods, Special Loads and Ground Operations 

Training. 

20. Defendant Flight Services International, LLC (“FSI”) is a Texas limited 

liability company with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. It is a company whose 

exclusive business is to contract flight attendants to Atlas Air. All the flight attendants who are 

staffed on Atlas Air flights are contracted through FSI. FSI was founded by an Atlas contract 

2 See, https://www.atlasairworldwide.com/2022/04/training-new-atlas-air-pilots/ (noting that “as

pilots get their Atlas career off the ground, their first stop is Miami, home to the Atlas Air’s

world class Training Center.” (Emphasis added). 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 7 of 56
7

attorney and his spouse. All its employees receive all their training at the Atlas training facility in 

Miami. All FSI flight attendants are trained at the MTC, including annual or biannual recurrent 

training. There is always a significant presence of FSI personnel in Miami. FSI contracts its 

flight attendants to Atlas Air and receives millions in dollars from Atlas Air in return.

MISNOMER/ ALTER EGO

21. In the event any parties are misnamed or are not included herein, it is Plaintiffs’ 

contention that such was a “misidentification”, “misnomer,” and/or such parties are/were “alter 

egos” of parties named herein. Alternatively, Plaintiffs contend that any “corporate veils” 

should be pierced to hold such parties properly included in the interest of justice.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

22. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under 28 U.S. Code § 

1331 because the case arises under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants because under International 

Shoe and its progeny, they have at least minimum contacts with Florida such that traditional 

notions of fair play and substantial justice would not be offended by the exercise of jurisdiction. 

In addition, personal jurisdiction is appropriate under Florida’s long-arm statute, 48.193. 

Defendants engaged in unlawful acts regarding the COVID-19 vaccine mandates through acts 

within the state of Florida as well as acts outside the state of Florida that caused harm to 

numerous plaintiffs in the state of Florida. 

24. Venue is proper in the U.S. Southern District of Florida because Atlas Air and its 

affiliates, and leadership do a high percentage of their business and stage a high percentage of 

their flights in and around southern Florida and the Miami International Airport. In addition, the 

30,000 square foot Atlas Training Center, that trains 10,000 people per year, is located in this 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 8 of 56
8

judicial district as set forth above.

BACKGROUND

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccine Response 

25. The United States government responded to a public health emergency of 

respiratory diseases caused by a novel coronavirus named “severe acute respiratory syndrome 

coronavirus” (SARS-COV-2), commonly known as “COVID-19,” that has been detected in over 

190 countries internationally, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and all U.S. territories.

26. Three (3) separate COVID-19 vaccines have been developed and used in the U.S. 

The manufacturers are Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, and Johnson & Johnson. None of the 

products are vaccines in the traditional meaning of the word. Vaccines developed to eliminate

diseases like polio, smallpox and the measles provide individuals with immunity from 

contracting the particular condition. These products do not provide individuals with immunity 

from contracting COVID-19. Instead, they are promoted on the grounds that they provide a 

“level of protection against contracting COVID-19” or that they may provide a level of 

protection against the “effects of COVID-19.” Nevertheless, these medical products are 

commonly given the misnomer “vaccine.” 

27. On or about September 11, 2021, the Centers for Disease Control (“CDC”) 

dumbed down its official definition of “vaccination” from the traditional above-described 

definition “to prevent the disease,” to now merely “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body 

to produce protection from a specific disease.” On or around January 18, 2021, Merriam Webster 

diluted their definition of “vaccine” (after Moderna created their “vaccine”) by adding an 

alternate subparagraph “b.” to their definition which describes that the Moderna product codes 

the body to the produce spike protein which triggers an immune response.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 9 of 56
9

B. Recent History of Vaccination Mandates & Accompanying Litigation. 

28. Three realms of employment have been the primary issue in COVID-19 litigation: 

(i) employees of federal contractors; (ii) private sector employees; and (iii) government 

employees and establishments that receive Medicare and Medicaid.

29. First, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit addressed the realm of 

litigation involving federal contractors. On January, 20, 2021, President Joe Biden signed 

Executive Order 13991 (“EO 13991”), establishing the creation of the “Safe Federal Workforce 

Task Force” (“Task Force”), whose stated mission is to “provide ongoing guidance to heads of 

agencies on the operation of the Federal Government, the safety of its employees, and the 

continuity of Government functions during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3

30. On September 9, 2021, Biden signed Executive Order 14042 (“EO 14042”), to 

“promote[ ] economy and efficiency in Federal procurement by ensuring that the parties that 

contract with the Federal Government provide adequate COVID-19 safeguards to their workers 

performing on or in connection with a Federal Government contract or contract-like instrument,” 

which would “decrease worker absence, reduce labor costs, and improve the efficiency of 

contractors and subcontractors at sites where they are performing work for the Federal 

Government.”4

31. On December 9, 2021, a Georgia federal district court judge issued a preliminary 

nationwide injunction that halted enforcement of EO 14042 in the case, Georgia v. Biden.

5

3 See, 86 Fed. Reg. 7,045-48 (Jan. 20, 2021).

4 See, 86 Fed. Reg. 50,985-88 (Sept. 9, 2021). 

5 Georgia v. Biden, 574 F.Supp.3d 1337 (S.D. Ga. 2021).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 10 of 56
10

32. The scope of this injunction was applicable to all federal contractors and 

subcontractors in all covered contracts in any state or territory of the U.S. The Eleventh Circuit 

Court of Appeals subsequently held that the injunction should be narrowed to specific states, to a 

specific industry group, and in the narrow situation of deciding whether to grant a contract to 

those specific members or to other contract bidders.6

33. Second, the U.S. Supreme Court tackled the issue of vaccine mandates on private 

sector employees on January 13, 2022, in the case, NFIB v. OSHA.7

34. On September 9, 2021, Biden announced “a new plan to require more Americans 

to be vaccinated.” This would be achieved by the Department of Labor issuing an emergency 

rule (OSHA’s COVID-19 Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS)) requiring all employers with 

at least 100 employees to be vaccinated or show a negative test once a week.8

35. The declared purpose of the mandate was to increase vaccination rates at 

“businesses all across America,” forcing eighty-four (84) million Americans to submit to the 

medical products.9 Unvaccinated employees who did not comply with OSHA’s rule would be 

“removed from the workplace.” The rule allowed for individuals to submit religious or medical 

accommodation requests in accordance with the requirements of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

6 Georgia v. President of the U.S., 46 F.4th 1283 (11th Cir. 2022). 

7

 Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t. of Lab., Occupational Safety & Health Admin., 142 S.Ct. 

661 (2022). 

8

Id. at 663.

9

Id. (quoting Remarks on the COVID-19 Response and National Vaccination efforts, 2021

Daily Comp. of Pres. Doc. 775, p.2).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 11 of 56
11

of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and 

national origin.10 The U.S. Supreme Court described the rule as, “a significant encroachment into 

the lives – and health – of a vast number of employees” and ultimately struck down the ETS on 

January 13, 2022.11

36. Third, the U.S. Supreme Court on January 13, 2022, simultaneously addressed the 

realm of healthcare service providers when the Court upheld a regulation issued by the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) that required facilities that accept Medicare and 

Medicaid funding to require their employees to be vaccinated.12 However, the Court held that a 

facility must recognize an individual’s religious and medical accommodation/ exemption 

requests pursuant to the rule, and must comport with the obligations prescribed by Title VII.13 

(Emphasis added).

37. Governments supporting these “vaccine” mandates rely on, and widely mis-cited 

Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905), claiming the government can force vaccination. 

However, the government never did force smallpox vaccination on Jacobson. He merely paid a 

five dollar fine, so Jacobson is a de minimis precedent for Defendants.

38. Like EO’s# 13991, 14042 and similar edicts being judicially lifted/reversed, there 

are multiple recent litigation precedents where agencies have been judicially blocked from 

enforcing COVID mandates, and reversed, due to them exceeding many constitution guardrails,

10 See, Fed. Reg. 61402-551 (Nov. 5, 2021).

11 Id.

12 Biden v. Missouri, 142 S.Ct. 647 (2022). 

13 See, 86 Fed. Reg. 61571-72.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 12 of 56
12

not just those protecting religious freedoms.

39. Recent cases in state and federal courts have struck down vaccine mandates under 

a variety of legal theories. In New York City, workers fired over COVID mandates received

reinstatement and full back pay after a court found the New York City Health Department had

violated the separation of powers doctrine, violated the New York State Constitution’s equal 

protection and procedural due process provisions, and that this mandate was arbitrary and 

capricious. See George Garvey, et.al. v. The City of New York, et.al, Supreme Court State of NY 

Index # 85163/2022. In State of Louisiana, et.al. v. Zavier Becerra et.al. Memorandum Ruling, 

Case no. 3:21-CV-04370, wherein 24 states sued Biden’s Secretary of Health and Human 

Services to successfully enjoin enforcement of COVID mask and vaccine mandates in federally 

funded Head Start children’s programs, U.S. District Judge Terry A. Doughty found that the 

defendants have violated of the separation of powers doctrine, and the major questions doctrine, 

denying Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment, and instead granting 

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. In, Health Freedom Defense Fund v Joseph R. Biden, 

Jr., 599 F. Supp. 3d. 1144 (M.D. Fla. 2022), U.S. District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle lifted 

the CDC COVID mandates on airlines and on all U.S. public transportation conveyances by air, 

land or sea comparing such mandates to “detention and quarantine”; then discussing that the 

mandates were arbitrary, capricious, did nothing to actually prevent spread of disease, and that 

CDC illegally skirted its agency protocol by forgoing the public comment input before enacting 

the rules.

14

40. A common thread underlines all these cases, namely that a government cannot 

14 Health Freedom Defense Fund v Joseph R. Biden, Jr., 599 F. Supp. 3d. 1144 (M.D. Fla. 2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 13 of 56
13

impose a vaccine mandate on citizens without express authorization by the legislature directly 

related to healthcare. The existence of such particular legal authority is why the Medicaid and 

Medicare mandate was allowed to stand while other mandates without such express authority 

were overturned.

41. While portions of this case do not rely on the nonexistence of any constitutional 

authority for Defendants’ actions, they are supported by fact that there was a similar lack of 

authority for Defendants’ actions within Atlas’ and FSI’s Collective Bargaining Agreements

with their employees, including the Plaintiffs. Just as a constitution sets forth the rights and 

responsibilities of citizens of a jurisdiction, a Collective Bargaining Agreement sets forth the 

rights and responsibilities of employees subject to that Collective Bargaining Agreement. 

C. Interpretation of Religion under Title VII 

42. One of the purposes of this complaint is to seek applicable redress afforded to 

Plaintiffs pursuant to Title VII, which prohibits the unlawful employment practices undertaken 

by Defendants.15 While this suit also seeks to challenge the constitutionality of the Defendants’ 

vaccine mandate, as applied, differentiation between these claims is necessary when conducting 

Title VII analysis. 

43. In addressing this Title VII issue, Plaintiffs contend that their “sincerely held 

religious beliefs” must be accorded protection under Title VII . Under Title VII, religion is 

defined broadly to include all aspects of an individual’s belief, observance, and practice.16

Furthermore, this broad definition has been incorporated by the U.S. Equal Employment 

15 See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

16 See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(j).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 14 of 56
14

Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in promulgation of regulations pertaining to religious 

discrimination. 

44. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs are congruent with Title VII’s depiction 

of religion, U.S. Supreme Court precedent, applicable regulations pertaining to religion, and with 

EOCC guidance.

45. Indeed, Plaintiffs contend that the term “religion”, as it appears in Title VII, must 

be interpreted with equal breadth as the term “sex” has been interpreted. Federal court

precedents have interpreted the term “sex” to apply broadly to any discrimination that involves 

gender, including protections for pregnancy status, sexual orientation, and for transgender 

individuals. As such, the term “religion” must be interpreted equally broadly.

D. Plaintiffs Possess Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Recognized by Law

46. Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs that their Creator planned their 

existence upon their creation, which included the creation and design of their unique genetic 

code, both DNA and RNA. Plaintiffs’ conscience prohibits them from being inoculated with any 

experimental foreign substance or biological/medical material that violates their religious 

convictions and will alter the biological aspects of their human body.

47. The “vaccines” in question are mRNA vaccines, which hijack a person’s cells in 

the vicinity of an injection site in order to cause these cells to start making the same protein that 

is found in the COVID-19 virus.

48. This type of “vaccine” differs significantly from standard vaccines, which do not 

hijack the human bodies own cells, but instead contain live or dead viruses. 

49. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs are commonly shared by millions of 

people around the world. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 15 of 56
15

50. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are not based upon social, political, economic, or 

personal philosophies. 

51. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs based on the teachings of globally accepted religions

that espouses moral or theistic beliefs as to what is right and wrong and concerns ultimate ideas 

about an individual’s life, purpose, and death.

52. Plaintiffs have conducted themselves with grace in the face of Defendants’ 

oppressive and discriminatory conduct and are entitled to the relief sought.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

A. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Response

53. By mid-March 2020, even though the untreated mortality rate was below one half 

of one percent, COVID-19 had been declared a pandemic. The subsequent lockdowns and 

measures taken by governments and large corporations wreaked havoc on the global economy 

and tore at the societal fabric. 

54. The three “vaccines” developed as a response to the COVID-19 virus did not go 

through any standard form of clinical trials or normal FDA approval. Rather, they were rushed 

through pursuant to Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA)’s. 

55. Nowhere in American law is there any authority to mandate EUA medicines 

without informed consent. “Informed” establishes that a person must be informed of known and 

potential benefits, known and potential risks of such use, available curative and prophylactic 

alternatives, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown.17 “Consent” 

establishes that all persons must have the option to refuse administration of the product. 

17 See, 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(II).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 16 of 56
16

Punishments or consequences for refusing medical products are strictly prohibited based on the 

express wording and intent of the law.18

56. As such the FDA’s grant of an EUA is still subject to informed consent 

requirements in order to “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are 

informed” that they have “the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”19

57. Plaintiffs are not unique or abhorrent; millions of Americans have also refused to 

take these experimental medical products for numerous reasons, including for religious reasons.

58. COVID-19 vaccines are Virus-Based Gene Therapies (“VBGT”) according to the 

FDA’s own definition.20 Thus, these medical products are unequivocally based upon injecting 

genetic information into a person to change or manipulate the person’s own genetic information.

59. These genetic alterations are prohibited by Plaintiffs sincerely held religious 

beliefs and objections to these alterations. Further, these VBGT’s were developed using stem 

cells harvested from human embryos. Plaintiffs have a conscientious duty to refuse participation 

in activities repugnant to human life and dignity. 

60. The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine on August 23, 2021, and on 

September 9, 2021, Biden signed EO 14042. Thus, Defendant Atlas sent an electronic 

communication to all Atlas employees and announced all Plaintiffs would be required to be 

“fully vaccinated” with a COVID-19 VBGT pursuant to EO 14042 by December 8, 2021.

18 See, 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III). 

19 Id.

20 See, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/what-genetherapy 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 17 of 56
17

B. Atlas’ Vaccine Mandate Due to Government Orders

61. In October 2021, Atlas originally stated:

As a Company, we support the views of health experts that [the 

VBGT] reduce the impact and spread of COVID-19. That said, 

we have been consistent in our position that [a VBGT] is a 

personal choice and we were not planning to mandate 

[VBGT’s] for our employees. However, we are now required

to comply with [EO 14042].21

62. Yet, Defendant's’ palpably disingenuous concerns about safety overwhelmingly 

support Plaintiffs’ decisions to not be injected with a COVID-19 VBGT. 

63. Plaintiffs’ reluctance to take the VBGT was supported by Defendants’ own 

actions, since Defendants: (i) did not mandate any passenger flying on its aircraft or interacting 

with its staff to be vaccinated; (ii) did not mandate VBGT’s for employees from other countries, 

(even though many Plaintiffs worked on the same aircraft and had contact with them); and (iii) 

did not mandate VBGT’s for pilots from other airlines allowed to ride in the “jump seat” of any 

Atlas aircraft.

64. On October 5, 2021, Atlas and FSI sent electronic communication to all plaintiffs 

informing that they would have to comply with the government mandates and all employees 

would have to be vaccinated. Only a week later, on October 11, Atlas and FSI emailed all 

plaintiffs with instructions on how to apply for a medical and/or religious exemptions.

21 After the Biden Administration’s mandate was enjoined by various federal courts, Atlas

immediately reverted to a company-directed mandate. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 18 of 56
18

65. On the same electronic communication above, Atlas and FSI informed all 

plaintiffs that they must digitally report their vaccination status and that they must file for 

religious and/or medical exemptions to avoid VBGT inoculation. Pilots and flight attendants 

were falsely told that the information would be protected. Atlas pilots’ and FSI flight attendants ́ 

private vaccination status was disseminated to other employees under the supposed need to 

circulate the information about which crewmembers (vaccinated or unvaccinated) would qualify 

for certain flights involving company imposed COVID-19 restrictions. For no valid medical 

reason, Category 1 unvaccinated Atlas pilots and Category 4 FSI flight attendants received 

less flight opportunities than vaccinated ones from Atlas and FSI, respectively.

66. Defendants set October 22, 2021, as the deadline “for [Plaintiffs] to request an 

exemption due to medical or religious reasons.” No due date for a response was given by 

Defendants.

67. Then, Defendants directed that November 25, 2021 was the deadline for Plaintiffs 

who did not apply for a religious or medical exemption to “report [their VBGT] status to the 

Company.” 

C. FSI’s Vaccine Mandate

68. FSI, whose sole business and source of revenue is through Atlas contracts, 

quickly followed suit and in early September 2021, FSI President Joni French sent an e-mail to 

Plaintiffs that made brazenly explicit the disparate treatment and hostility toward Plaintiffs. She 

wrote: 

The health and safety of all our Cabin Crewmembers remains a 

top priority for FSI. To support your well-being, as well as that 

of your work colleagues, we encourage everyone to pursue the 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 19 of 56
19

[VBGT]. Cabin Crewmembers who have proof of [VBGT] will 

increasingly be able to operate with more flexibility under less 

restrictive quarantine rules. 

We are pleased to let you know that we will now provide 5 

hours of additional compensation to every FSI Flight Attendant 

who receives [a VBGT] and submits a copy of their 

vaccination card.22

69. Plaintiffs' lives were effectively placed on hold after October 2021 due to 

Defendants' continuous threats of unpaid leave and termination.

D. Atlas’ Government-Directed Mandate Turns Into A Company-Directed Mandate

70. Plaintiffs applied for religious accommodation from the vaccine mandate prior to 

October 22, 2021. 

71. On January 13, 2022, The Supreme Court of the United States blocked the OSHA 

mandate requiring businesses with over 100 employees to impose vaccine and testing 

requirements. 

72. On or about January 25, 2022, in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, OSHA 

announced it was withdrawing its vaccine and testing requirements that were at issue. However, 

22 It is important to note that the term "vaccination" does not refer to a single event or transaction

in this paragraph. Every new requirement by Atlas to take a booster to maintain “vaccination”

status constitutes a new occurrence or transaction for the purposes of accommodation analysis

under Title VII. Each transaction or occurrence rests upon a different set of operative facts. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 20 of 56
20

Biden called upon businesses to voluntarily impose the mandates themselves.23

73. Despite their previous statements that they believed in personal choice when it 

came to the VBGT mandate issues and were only reluctantly abiding by federal law, the 

Defendants nevertheless immediately complied with the new direction issued by the Biden 

Administration and announced, through electronic communications to Plaintiffs, that they would 

do as the President “suggested” that business that rely on federal contracts for business do.

74. On January 25, 2022, Atlas sent out a communication stating: 

Earlier today, you received notice that all U.S. employees who 

must travel as an essential function of their position must be 

fully vaccinated by May 1, 2022. This policy applies to you. 

We recognize that you previously sought an accommodation 

from the COVID-19 [VBGT] mandates the company 

previously implemented to comply with [EO 14042] 

(applicable to federal contractors) and OSHA’s Emergency 

Temporary Standard (applicable to employers with more than 

100 employees). (Emphasis added). 

75. In that same communication, Atlas indicated that Plaintiffs would not be allowed 

to submit new medical or religious accommodation requests, but that the current exemptions 

would be reprocessed. 

Given your requests for accommodation from the Company’s 

23 See https://khn.org/morning-breakout/biden-disappointed-by-courts-decision-urgesemployersto-require-covid-shot/ 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 21 of 56
21

previous COVID-19 vaccination mandates, the Company is 

assuming you are seeking a request for accommodation from 

the vaccine policy that will take effect May 1, unless you 

respond to this email and indicate otherwise by Friday, January 

28, 2022. If you do not respond by January 28, the Company 

will process your new request for accommodation based on the 

information already in its possession and follow-up with you 

thereafter to identify any reasonable accommodations the 

Company can offer without undue hardship.

76. On March 8, 2022, Atlas Plaintiffs pilots Categories 1 & 2 who worked for Atlas, 

received a communication from upper management stating that if they were not vaccinated by May 

1, 2022, they would be placed on an unpaid leave of absence or reassignment regardless of the fact 

they had previously requested an accommodation. On March 25, 2022, Atlas walked back their 

statement and decided to allow unvaccinated pilots to continue working past May 1st as long as 

they submitted to monthly testing and masking. Atlas Plaintiffs who were unvaccinated were left 

in a continued state of legal, emotional and career limbo. 

77. Atlas Plaintiffs were left with the impossible choice of taking COVID-19 VBGT at 

the expense of their deeply held religious beliefs or be terminated. Plaintiff Category 2

succumbed to the pressure and took the VBGT. After the implementation of the VBGT mandate, 

all unvaccinated Plaintiffs were subjected to repeated harassment and disparate treatment within 

the company for their deeply held religious beliefs. 

78. Defendants required unvaccinated Plaintiffs to wear the proven useless COVID-19 

face masks which unlawfully required them to advertise their medical status and their objection to 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 22 of 56
22

the VBGT, and unlawfully required them to distinguished themselves from their peer groups by

and amplifying their personal protected health information to their peers and to the public. 

79. Theoretically, a “vaccinated” employee should have immunity to the disease and 

therefore bare no risk from the medical choices of another. However, Atlas CEO John Dietrich 

continued to discriminate against Plaintiffs by disseminating recorded video and oral statements 

that employees were unsafe around Plaintiffs whose religious or medical circumstances barred 

inoculation. 

80. Plaintiff James Villella was damaged in the following manner: Plaintiff is a 

Boeing 737 Atlas pilot Captain that only flies domestic routes and requested a religious 

exemption to both vaccinating and testing but was issued the same blanket exemption that 

required him to be tested. After trying for 7 months to clarity his situation, Atlas attempted to get 

Plaintiff to change, alter, or abandon his religious beliefs and to submit to their COVID-19 

testing policy. Villella was unjustly subjected to an “Article 19” disciplinary hearing in a blatant 

act of retaliation, harassment and discrimination. After having to defend himself of accusations 

of blatantly disregard for the company vaccination policy, and other libelous accusations, 

Plaintiff was removed from flight status and put on a desk job for approximately 3 months under 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 23 of 56
23

threat of being terminated for refusing to test due to his sincerely held religious beliefs. 24

81. For Plaintiffs whose religious exemptions were granted, Defendants continuously 

harassed Plaintiffs to disregard their conscience and/or health and submit to vaccination. This 

includes but is not limited to those plaintiffs listed above in Plaintiffs Categories 1, 3 & 4. Atlas 

and FSI disseminated the VBGT status of every Plaintiff in emails that were published showing 

the last name, employee number, and VBGT status of Plaintiffs, and gave public disclosure of 

protected health information. In addition to that, Atlas discriminated against unvaccinated 

Plaintiffs in Plaintiffs Category 1 listed above and denied them bids for higher paying flights to 

certain destinations despite such destinations having no laws or restrictions against unvaccinated 

Plaintiffs. 

24 Atlas’ claim that they could not accommodate Villella’s accommodation request due to undue

hardship was totally meritless. Contrary to Atlas’ assertions, Villella operates on domestic

flights, and thus no hotel restrictions or other restrictions that apply to international operations

are applicable to him. Villella’s accommodation request was to continue operating and following

the same process (screening for COVID-19, as the CDC stated was appropriate for people

without symptoms for COVID-19) all Atlas Air employees had been following for the entire

COVID-19 pandemic up to May 1st, 2022, when the new Atlas testing “policy” took place. Since

Atlas only had to accommodate this single individual, no undue hardship existed as Atlas claims

since only one employee requested this accommodation seven months prior to the testing policy

being implemented, and two months prior to the first communication received by Atlas about a

mandatory COVID-19 testing policy.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 24 of 56
24

E. FSI Changes Religious Accommodations For All Flight Attendants

82. On March 8, 2022, Plaintiffs who worked for FSI, received a communication from 

FSI President Joni French stating that if they were not vaccinated by May 1, 2022, they would be 

placed on an unpaid leave of absence regardless of the fact they had previously requested an 

accommodation. Twenty-three days later, on March 31, 2022, FSI informs Atlas it would no 

longer require Flight Attendants to be vaccinated or virus tested and that they can continue working 

after May 1st. Atlas’ testing requirement would become effective May 1, while FSI’s ended on 

that date.

F. Atlas Changes Religious Accommodations For All Pilots And Ground Employees

83. On March 25, 2022, Atlas attempted to mollify Plaintiffs by purporting to assure 

them that – despite maintaining a private company-wide VBGT mandate – those who had 

previously obtained a religious exemption pursuant to EO 14042 would be allowed to return to 

their regular work duties after the May 1, 2022 company vaccine mandate deadline “so long as 

they undergo requisite COVID-19 testing at their expense.” Atlas ́ testing requirement would 

become effective May 1, 2022 while FSI ́s ended on that date.

84. Atlas ordered its unvaccinated employees, even after they had established natural 

immunity from the disease, to test weekly (ground employees) or monthly (pilots and flight 

attendants) for COVID-19 unlike employees without religious beliefs who were deemed 

“vaccinated” by the Defendants. 

85. On April 21, 2022 Atlas sent Plaintiffs an updated Atlas COVID-19 Vaccination & 

Testing Policy now mandating that all COVID-19 testing be videotaped and retained by plaintiffs 

so that the videos could be sent to the company if requested.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 25 of 56
25

G. Defendants’ Failure to Accommodate, Disparate Treatment and Creation of A 

Hostile Work Environment In Violation Of Title VII

86. Defendants’ actions against Plaintiffs have violated Title VII’s prohibition against 

the denial of equal opportunity and discrimination and perpetuated a hostile work environment.

87. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits Defendants from engaging in 

numerous forms of discrimination in virtually every employment circumstance. Specifically, Title 

VII provides, in relevant part:

It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer...to 

fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise 

to discriminate against any individual with respect to his 

compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment 

because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or 

national origin...25 (Emphasis added). 

88. Regardless of whether the VBGT mandate was held Constitutional (for healthcare 

workers regulated by a specific statutory scheme), employers are still bound to fulfill their 

obligations to employees pursuant to Title VII. These obligations prescribe that the employer, 

inter alia, not engage in discriminatory, harassing or retaliatory conduct. 

89. As such, not only does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibit Defendants 

from engaging in numerous forms of discrimination, but the statute also protects employees from 

being subject to other unlawful employment practices, such as the creation of a hostile work 

25 See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 26 of 56
26

environment or harassment. 

90. Given the foregoing disparate treatment set forth in the facts herein, Defendants’ 

conduct had a disparaging impact on Plaintiffs.

91. Defendants’ conduct satisfies the elements for claims of religious discrimination 

due to disparate treatment, failure to provide accommodations, harassment, and the creation of a 

hostile work environment. 

H. U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (“EEOC”) Failure To Mitigate 

Injury And Plaintiffs Ongoing Irreparable Harm

92. All Plaintiffs have satisfied the requirement for exhaustion of administrative 

remedies. 

CAUSES OF ACTION 1-5 AGAINST ATLAS

---- COUNT I ----

Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts

93. Count I pertains to Atlas Plaintiffs in Categories 1, 2, and 3 listed in 

paragraphs 12, 13, 14 above.

94. Atlas Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-41, 53-60, 61-

67, and 70-81 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

95. Atlas gave publicity to Atlas Plaintiffs protected private health information 

(“PHI”) by publishing the PHI throughout the company and by forcing Atlas Plaintiffs to wear 

political symbols, including functionally useless face masks, effectively amplifying and 

broadcasting their PHI to other employees and consumers. 

96. The publication of Atlas Plaintiffs’ PHI would be highly offensive to a reasonable 

person and is of no legitimate public concern. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 27 of 56
27

97. As a proximate result of Atlas’ public disclosure of Atlas Plaintiffs’ PHI, said 

Plaintiffs have suffered injury. Atlas is liable to said Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the 

acts herein described constitute actual malice and oppression. Because Atlas deliberately 

proceeded to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the Atlas 

Plaintiffs or, conversely, deliberately proceed to act with indifference to the high probability of 

injury to said Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT II ----

Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

Defendants’ Creation of a Hostile Work Environment

98. Count II pertains to Atlas Plaintiffs in Categories 1, 2, and 3 listed in 

paragraphs 12, 13, 14.

99. Atlas Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-67, 70-81, 83-

85, and 86-91 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

100. Atlas engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title VII § 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000e, et seq. 

101. Atlas Plaintiffs suffered discrimination and disparate treatment at the hands of 

Atlas based on said Plaintiffs’ protected religious and other protected characteristics and 

classifications. 

102. Atlas’ conduct was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment. 

103. Atlas’ conduct was not authorized and was, in fact, prohibited by the terms of 

Collective Bargaining Agreement that governed the employee-employer relationship of Atlas

and Atlas Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 28 of 56
28

104. Plaintiffs were qualified to perform their duties as demanded by their 

employment. 

105. In good-faith, Atlas Plaintiffs undertook all requisite and applicable procedures to 

inform Atlas of the harassment and toxicity that was pervasive around the workplace.

106. Atlas’ actions perpetuated a work environment that an average person of ordinary 

sensibilities would find discriminatory through its egregious harassing conduct. 

107. Atlas Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their fundamental right to practice their 

religion, secured to them under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. 

108. Atlas Plaintiffs are members of several protected classifications.

109. Unvaccinated Category 1 & 3 Atlas Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious 

beliefs that preclude them from receiving any of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines. Atlas’

repeated attempts to coerce said Plaintiffs to go against their religious beliefs was unwelcomed 

harassment. 

110. Additionally, after refusal to submit to unwelcomed and offensive actions against 

the Atlas Plaintiffs religious beliefs, Atlas subjected unvaccinated Atlas Plaintiffs Categories 1 & 

3 to consistent psychological pressure that included discriminatory, harassing, coercing, and 

intimidating conduct based, at least in part, on such Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs as 

a protected class under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. which conduct included but was not 

limited to:

(i) Atlas’ creation of inflexible policies that directly target Atlas Plaintiffs on the 

basis of their religion, and on the basis of their status as bonafide whistleblowers 

under applicable law including Florida Private Whistleblower Act, Section 

448.102(3) et.seq., and on the basis of their status as protected personsCase 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 29 of 56
29

claimants under Title 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. 794 American 

With Disabilities and Rehabilitation Act; 

(ii) Severe and persistent pressure to take VBGT’s; 

(iii) Disparaging and unfavorable treatment by employees, supervisors, managers, 

and agents of Atlas against unvaccinated Atlas Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs, as 

compared to similarly situated Atlas Category 2 employees who folded and 

allowed themselves to be inoculated with one or more of the three VBGT's 

(iv) Unwelcomed comments about Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs; 

(v) By committing the actions complained here, Atlas did openly violate the 

Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between Teamsters and Atlas, which 

actions intentionally contributed to the toxic hostile workplace environment. 

The CBA at Article 1.a.4 (prior clause in effect at all times pertinent herein) and 

current version Article 26 R.1 both of which reiterate the Title VII prohibitions 

against discrimination based upon sex, religion, age. Atlas also violated Article 

26 R.1 which assures that employee-crew members will not be required to take 

any action which may result in any risk of harm, whereas said crew members

assert that the required vaccination and masks posed such risk of harm.

(vi) Atlas’ intentional dissemination of Atlas Plaintiffs’ PHI and vaccination status 

to customers, to Atlas employees, agents, and supervisors by forcing said 

Plaintiffs to wear facial masks which don’t work and thus serve no other 

purpose than identifying “dissident” employees with the masks as political 

symbols, thus differentiating the masked dissidents from other subdued 

Category 2 employees who received VBGT’s; 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 30 of 56
30

(vii) Abuse of power by Atlas, who compelled managers and supervisors to make 

unreasonable demands of Atlas Plaintiffs during the course of their job 

responsibilities; 

(viii) Psychological harassment by blatant rejection of Atlas Plaintiffs’ input on 

matters, and consistent letters and memoranda threatening to terminate Atlas 

Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs. 

(ix) Retaliatory conduct in response to Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs’ filing declination 

of vaccination forms and filing religious and/or medical accommodation forms; 

(x) Seeking to replace Atlas Category 1 & 3 Plaintiffs’ employment positions with 

individuals who did not seek religious and/or medical accommodation(s). 

(xi) Atlas Defendants disproportionately higher compensated employees who did 

not seek religious accommodation, especially rewarding those vaccinated 

Category 2 Atlas employees with less restrictions, more flexibility in scheduling 

and greater opportunities all around.

(xii) Atlas’ intentional unwillingness and/or inability to train its agents, employees, 

managers, or supervisors concerning Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

(xiii) Failing to participate in a meaningful manner or otherwise engage with Atlas 

Plaintiffs regarding their religious and/or medical accommodation.

111. Atlas Plaintiffs’ subjugation to such conduct was motivated on religious grounds 

and was unlawfully authorized, ratified, encouraged, and condoned by Defendants. 

112. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, synonymous with Title VII’s meaning 

of the word “religion,” was a major motivating factor by which Atlas engaged in such 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 31 of 56
31

discriminatory conduct against Atlas Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs.

113. Atlas’ egregious above-described conduct toward Atlas Plaintiffs was so 

consistent, severe, and pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of employment and 

created a discriminatory and abusive working environment. Atlas Category 2 Plaintiffs buckled 

to the pressure and were released from under the discriminatory practices; Categories 1 & 3 

Plaintiffs resisted and stood firm enduring the hardships deftly manufactured by Atlas.

114. Atlas is responsible for the creation of a toxic hostile work environment under a 

theory of vicarious liability or direct liability. 

115. Atlas is directly engaged in the consistent harassment and directly contributed to 

the creation of a hostile work environment. 

116. Accordingly, Atlas had actual knowledge of the above-described actions of its 

individual managers and supervisors based on its involvement or, conversely, had constructive 

knowledge of such conduct based on the internal organizational policies advanced by the 

corporate Atlas entity itself.

117. Over the course of their employment, Atlas Plaintiffs made numerous good-faith 

oral and written statements and/or complaints to their supervisors regarding Atlas’ conduct 

toward the (unfavored) unvaccinated Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs and their disparate treatment

singling them out from the (favored) vaccinated Category 2 Plaintiffs.

118. Atlas, its supervisors, managers, and/or human resources department did not take 

any steps to assist in the alleviation of this harassing behavior and were in fact the primary 

sources of the harassment. 

119. Defendants, through its agents and employees, developed and encouraged animus 

against Plaintiffs because of their conscientious objections. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 32 of 56
32

120. The systematic discrimination, as previously set forth, further adversely affected 

the Atlas Plaintiffs through Atlas’ promotion and reinforcement of religious stereotypes in the 

workplace by equating one’s religious beliefs to that of the hated class of “Anti-Vaxxers.” 

121. Atlas failed to take any prompt and effective action reasonably calculated to result 

in the prevention and remedy of this religious harassment, religious discrimination, and/or 

creation of a hostile work environment. 

122. This pattern of discrimination has a direct and disproportionate effect upon those 

individuals seeking religious protections based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

123. Atlas’ policies are only targeted at Atlas Plaintiffs Categories 1 & 3 and likesituated persons with conscientious objections to VBGT’s. 

124. Atlas’ egregious discriminatory conduct, given the totality of circumstances, 

raises to a level at which an objectively reasonable person could find constitutes a hostile work 

environment. 

125. The actions of Atlas, as set out herein, violate Title VII. 

126. As a result of Atlas’s conduct, the Atlas Categories 1 & 3 Plaintiffs have been and 

continue to be injured, suffering distress, humiliation, loss of prestige, mental anguish, emotional 

pain and suffering, and monetary and economic loss. The Category 2 vaccinated Atlas Plaintiffs 

suffer as well with physical disabilities due to adverse vaccine events, grounding at least one 

pilot from all flying. 

127. Atlas is liable to Atlas Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. Because Atlas deliberately proceeded to act 

in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the Atlas Plaintiffs or, 

conversely, deliberately proceeded to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 33 of 56
33

said Plaintiffs.

128. Filing complaints or charges with the EEOC was futile for Plaintiffs, however, all 

of them have satisfied the requirement for exhaustion of administrative remedies. 

---- COUNT III ----

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq. or in the alternative violation of rights set 

forth in the Bivens case and its progeny; Defendants’ Invasion of Privacy, Denial of 

Equal Protection and Due Process of Law 

129. Count III pertains to Atlas Plaintiffs in Categories 1, 2, and 3 listed in 

paragraphs 12, 13, 14.

130. Atlas Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-60, 61-67, 70-

81, and 83-85 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

131. Atlas Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States. 

132. At all times relevant hereto, Atlas was a government actor and a person acting under 

the color of law. That is, Atlas has taken decisive employment actions that have caused Atlas 

Plaintiffs harm that is so impregnated with governmental character that it can be regarded as 

government action. The government is compelling Atlas’ actions whether through incentive or 

threat. 

133. Atlas is also acting under color of law as it has conspired with Government officials 

to leverage Atlas Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights against them in an effort to achieve the Biden 

Administration’s goal of achieving universal vaccination and to acquire said Plaintiffs’ personal, 

genetic information. 

134. Atlas and the U.S. Government have acted in lockstep and set in motion a series of 

acts inflicting violations of Atlas Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. Through private and public 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 34 of 56
34

meetings, executive orders, and unlawful coercion and duress, Atlas has acted in concert with the 

federal government at the expense of their employees including Atlas Plaintiffs. 

135. First, the right to privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a right to 

personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy in the penumbra of the Bill of 

Rights, including the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, and in the concept of liberty 

guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The applicable cases hold that 

personal rights can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and 

included in this is the guarantee of personal privacy. 

136. Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Florida provides heightened 

privacy protections; greater than those provided in the Constitution of the United States. 

137. Applied here, Atlas Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy includes a reasonable 

expectation to be free from coercion or to be put in a state of undue influence and subjected to 

battery by Atlas by injection of an unwanted, experimental, VBGT into their body as a condition 

of employment. 

138. This privacy right also includes Atlas Plaintiffs’ individual freedom to choose what 

information they want to share or disclose that is personal in nature; and the right to control the 

extent to which their medical information is shared and released. As a means of coercion, Atlas

violated Atlas Plaintiffs’ privacy rights when they broadcast their private information in memos, 

and published Plaintiffs PHI by forcing them to wear symbols, especially viciously targeting Atlas 

unvaccinated Plaintiffs Categories 1 & 3.

139. Next, equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, to the United States 

Constitution provides: 

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 35 of 56
35

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall 

any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 

due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 

the equal protection of the laws.” 

140. After the announcement of EO 14042, vaccinated employees received preferential 

treatment compared to Atlas Plaintiffs who had not been vaccinated, which included increase in 

pay, preferential scheduling, additional benefits and privileges. 

141. Atlas knowingly and willfully discriminated against Atlas Plaintiffs who 

expressed religious concerns and treated persons who were vaccinated differently without lawful 

justification. 

142. Atlas, by allowing similarly situated Atlas Plaintiffs (those who are vaccinated) to 

retain their jobs, be paid more, have greater privileges/schedules, and not be required to wear 

political symbols, engaged in a facial deprivation of equal protection. 

143. While the vaccine mandate appeared neutral on its face, in practice it denies Atlas 

Plaintiffs equal protection under the law. 

144. Mandated VBGT’s, compelled wearing of political symbols and repeated PCR 

testing are substantial burdens and are employment practices that fail to offer any significant 

health or safety benefit; thus there is no legitimate public interest promoted by Atlas’ conduct. 

145. Finally, substantive due process. The Fourteenth Amendment provides heightened 

protection against interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. The liberty 

interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment includes not only the 

privileges and rights expressly enumerated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but also 

includes those fundamental human rights implicit in structured liberty. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 36 of 56
36

146. Atlas Plaintiffs have a fundamental liberty interest and right to bodily integrity 

and informed consent. This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the requirement that 

informed consent is a substantive component of due process and is generally required for 

medical treatment. 

147. The United States Constitution guarantees that government shall not “deprive any 

person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and precludes Defendants as 

State Actors from infringing certain fundamental liberty interests no matter the process provided, 

unless the infringement serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that 

interest. 

148. Here, Atlas’ actions are those of a federal government-type Actor (parallel to the 

State actor definition in Title 42 USC 1983 but specifically applied to the federal government 

within the holding in Bivens vs. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)) and, while 

courts have recognized a compelling state interest in controlling the spread of infections, Atlas 

lacks a compelling state interest to impose a VBGT mandate because the VBGT’s produce 

negative sum outcomes. 

149. Assuming the VBGT’s could be said to satisfy the interest of preserving public 

health, Atlas’ mandate is not narrowly tailored since it is not the least restrictive means 

necessary, and there are numerous less restrictive means to serve the same interest of public

health against COVID-19. For instance, antibodies acquired through prior infection provide 

protection, and as stated throughout, natural immunity has shown to provide greater protection 

than the COVID-19 vaccines. Service to the public interest can be accomplished through safer, 

less restrictive treatments, preventatives for early treatment, or medications, like the use of 

hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Ivermectin. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 37 of 56
37

150. As a direct and proximate result of Atlas’ policies, practices, regulations and 

conduct, Atlas Plaintiffs have suffered harm. 

151. The conduct of Atlas as described herein represents a willful and conscious 

disregard for the treatment of private citizens under the law as to their right to privacy; and their 

actions shock the conscience of the average person and constitute an abuse of power that is 

malicious and purposeful. 

152. Atlas is liable to Atlas Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression and because Atlas deliberately proceeded to 

act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the Atlas Plaintiffs 

or, conversely, deliberately proceed to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to 

the Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT IV ----

Infliction of Emotional Distress (intentional or in the alternative negligent)

153. Count IV pertains to Atlas Plaintiffs Categories 1, 2, and 3 listed in 

paragraphs 12, 13, 14.

154. Atlas Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-60, 61-67, 70-

81, 83-85, 95-97 and 100-128 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

155. Atlas acted intentionally or recklessly with respect to the conduct set forth in this 

Complaint. 

156. Atlas’ conduct has been and continues to be extreme and outrageous. 

157. As a proximate result of Atlas’ actions, Atlas Plaintiffs have suffered severe 

emotional distress. 

158. The harm caused by Atlas was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Atlas’

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 38 of 56
38

conduct. 

159. Atlas Plaintiffs allege that Atlas acted willfully and intentionally and maliciously 

and in reckless and/or wanton disregard of the interests of Atlas Plaintiffs with respect to the 

conduct set forth in this Second Amended Complaint. However, if upon proof it is determined 

such conduct does not to rise to such intentional level, Plaintiffs plead, in the alternative, that 

said infliction of emotional distress is negligent.

160. As a proximate result of Atlas’ conduct, Atlas Plaintiffs have suffered serious 

and/or severe emotional distress. 

161. The harm caused by Atlas was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the Atlas’

conduct. 

162. Atlas is liable to Atlas Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression and because Defendants deliberately 

proceeded to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the 

Plaintiffs or, conversely, deliberately proceed to act with indifference to the high probability of 

injury to the Atlas Plaintiffs not limited to but including emotional and mental harm, as well as 

physical harm from the symptoms related to their distress (headache, tremors, anxiety, heart 

palpitations, depression, nausea, weight loss, hair loss, dizziness, insomnia, etc.). Additionally, 

there were actual adverse vaccine events and physical harm/complications that affected the

vaccinated Atlas Plaintiffs in Category 2.

---- COUNT V ----

Negligence 

163. Count V pertains to Atlas Plaintiffs in Categories 1, 2, and 3 listed in 

paragraphs 12, 13, 14.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 39 of 56
39

164. Atlas Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-41, 53-60, 61-

67, 70-81, and 95-97 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

165. Atlas owes Atlas Plaintiffs a duty that has been breached.

166. The duty Atlas owes to Atlas Plaintiffs is the standard duty of employer to 

employee of reasonable care during the regular course of operating their business. 

167. This duty includes protecting Atlas Plaintiffs’ PHI via appropriate means and 

procedures. 

168. Atlas breached this duty of care by, including but not limited to, publishing Atlas 

Plaintiffs’ PHI throughout the company and by forcing said Plaintiffs to wear useless facial masks 

which accomplished nothing more than political advertising which effectively amplified and 

broadcasted said Plaintiffs’ PHI (unnecessarily) to other employees and consumers. 

169. Defendants’ negligence was in violation of state and federal laws designed to 

protect Plaintiffs against the type of harm caused by the Defendants conduct. 

170. As a proximate cause of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs have suffered injury.

CAUSES OF ACTION 6-10 AGAINST FSI

---- COUNT VI ----

Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts

171. Count VI pertains only to Plaintiffs in Category 4 - All FSI plaintiffs (listed 

on Paragraph 15) vs FSI.

172. Category 4 FSI Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-41, 

53-60, 68-69, and 82 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

173. FSI gave publicity to Category 4 Plaintiffs’ protected private health information 

(“PHI”) by publishing the PHI throughout the company and by forcing Category 4 Plaintiffs to 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 40 of 56
40

wear face masks, effectively amplifying and broadcasting their Protected Health Information 

(PHI) to other employees and consumers. 

174. The publication of Category 4 Plaintiffs’ PHI would be highly offensive to a 

reasonable person and is of no legitimate public concern. 

175. As a proximate result of FSI’s public disclosure of Category 4 Plaintiffs’ PHI, 

Category 4 Plaintiffs have suffered injury. FSI is liable to Category 4 Plaintiffs for punitive 

damages because the acts herein described constitute actual malice and oppression. Because FSI

deliberately proceeded to act in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury 

to the Category 4 Plaintiffs or, conversely, deliberately proceed to act with indifference to the high 

probability of injury to said Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT VII ----

Violation of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

Defendants’ Creation of a Hostile Work Environment

176. Count VII pertains only to Plaintiffs in Category 4 - All FSI plaintiffs (listed 

on Paragraph 15) vs FSI.

177. Category 4 Plaintiffs Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-

60, 68-69, 82, and 86-91 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

178. FSI engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title VII § 42 U.S.C. § 

2000e, et seq. 

179. Category 4 Plaintiffs suffered discrimination and disparate treatment at the hands 

of FSI based on said Plaintiffs’ protected religious and other protected characteristics and 

classifications. 

180. FSI’s conduct was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms, conditions, or 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 41 of 56
41

privileges of employment. 

181. FSI’s conduct was not authorized and was, in fact, prohibited by the terms of 

Collective Bargaining Agreement that governed the employee-employer relationship of FSI and 

Category 4 Plaintiffs.

182. Category 4 Plaintiffs were qualified to perform their duties as demanded by their 

employment. 

183. In good-faith, Category 4 Plaintiffs undertook all requisite and applicable 

procedures to inform FSI of the harassment and toxicity that was pervasive around the 

workplace.

184. FSI’s actions perpetuated a work environment that an average person of ordinary 

sensibilities would find discriminatory through its egregious harassing conduct. 

185. Category 4 Plaintiffs are entitled to exercise their fundamental right to practice 

their religion, secured to them under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United 

States. 

186. Category 4 Plaintiffs are members of several protected classifications.

187. Unvaccinated (Category 4) FSI Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs 

that preclude them from receiving any of the experimental COVID-19 vaccine, and FSI repeated 

attempts to coerce Category 4 Plaintiffs to go against their religious beliefs was unwelcomed 

harassment. 

188. Additionally, after refusal to submit to unwelcomed and offensive actions against 

Category 4 Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, FSI subjected said Plaintiffs to consistent psychological 

pressure that included discriminatory, harassing, coercing, and intimidating conduct based, at 

least in part, on said Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs as a protected class under Title 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 42 of 56
42

VII, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. which conduct included but was not limited to:

(i) FSI’s creation of inflexible policies that directly target Category 4 Plaintiffs on 

the basis of their religion, and on the basis of their status as bonafide 

whistleblowers under applicable law including Florida Private Whistleblower 

Act, Section 448.102(3) et.seq., and on the basis of their status as protected 

persons-claimants under Title 42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. 794 

American With Disabilities and Rehabilitation Act; 

(ii) Severe and persistent pressure to take VBGT’s; 

(iii) Disparaging and unfavorable treatment by employees, supervisors, managers, 

and agents of FSI as compared to similarly situated employees who received 

one or more of the three VBGT's 

(iv) Unwelcomed comments about Category 4 Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs; 

(v) FSI’s intentional dissemination of Category 4 Plaintiffs’ PHI and vaccination 

status to customers, FSI employees, agents, and supervisors by forcing said 

Plaintiffs to wear useless face masks which differentiate them from other 

employees who received VBGT’s; 

(vi) Abuse of power by FSI, who compelled managers and supervisors to make 

unreasonable demands of Category 4 Plaintiffs during the course of their job 

responsibilities; 

(vii) Psychological harassment by blatant rejection of Category 4 Plaintiffs’ input on 

matters, and consistent letters and memoranda threatening to terminate said 

Plaintiffs. 

(viii) Retaliatory conduct in response to Category 4 Plaintiffs’ filing declination of 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 43 of 56
43

vaccination forms and filing religious accommodation forms; 

(ix) Seeking to replace Category 4 Plaintiffs’ employment positions by individuals 

who did not seek religious accommodation. 

(x) FSI disproportionately compensated employees who did not seek religious 

accommodation.

(xi) Offensive or derogatory jokes in the office; 

(xii) FSI’s intentional unwillingness and/or inability to train its agents, employees, 

managers, or supervisors concerning Plaintiffs’ rights under Title VII of the 

Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

(xiii) Failing to participate in a meaningful manner or otherwise engage with 

Category 4 Plaintiffs regarding their religious accommodation; and/or

189. Category 4 Plaintiffs’ subjugation to such conduct was motivated on religious 

grounds and was unlawfully authorized, ratified, encouraged, and condoned by FSI.

190. Category 4 Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, synonymous with Title 

VII’s meaning of the word “religion,” was a major motivating factor by which FSI engaged in 

such discriminatory conduct against said Plaintiffs.

191. FSI’s egregious conduct toward Category 4 Plaintiffs was so consistent, severe, 

and pervasive that it altered the terms and conditions of employment and created a 

discriminatory and abusive working environment. 

192. FSI is responsible for the creation of a toxic hostile work environment under a 

theory of vicarious liability or direct liability. 

193. FSI was directly engaged in the consistent harassment and directly contributed to 

the creation of a hostile work environment. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 44 of 56
44

194. Accordingly, FSI had actual knowledge of the actions of its managers and 

supervisors based on its involvement or, conversely, had constructive knowledge of such conduct 

based on the internal organizational policies advanced by FSI and Atlas. 

195. Over the course of their employment, Category 4 Plaintiffs made numerous goodfaith oral and written statements and/or complaints to their supervisors regarding FSI’s conduct 

toward said Plaintiffs and their disparate treatment. 

196. FSI’s supervisors, managers, and/or human resources department did not take any 

steps to assist in the alleviation of this harassing behavior and were in fact the primary sources of 

the harassment. 

197. Defendants, through its agents and employees, developed and encouraged animus 

against Plaintiffs because of their conscientious objections. 

198. The systematic discrimination, as previously set forth, further adversely affected 

the Category 4 Plaintiffs through FSI’s promotion and reinforcement of religious stereotypes in 

the workplace by equating one’s religious beliefs to that of an “Anti-Vaxxer.” 

199. FSI failed to take any prompt and effective action reasonably calculated to result 

in the prevention and remedy of this religious harassment, religious discrimination, and/or 

creation of a hostile work environment. 

200. This pattern of discrimination has a direct and disproportionate effect upon those 

individuals seeking religious protections based upon their sincerely held religious beliefs. 

201. FSI’s policies are only targeted at Category 4 Plaintiffs and like-situated persons 

with conscientious objections to VBGT’s. 

202. FSI’s egregious discriminatory conduct, given the totality of circumstances, raises 

to a level that an objectively reasonable person could find constitutes a hostile work 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 45 of 56
45

environment. 

203. The actions of FSI, as set out herein, violate Title VII. 

204. As a result of FSI’s conduct, Category 4 Plaintiffs have been and continue to be 

injured, suffering distress, humiliation, loss of prestige, mental anguish, emotional pain and 

suffering, and monetary and economic loss. 

205. FSI is liable to Category 4 Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. FSI deliberately acted in either a conscious

and intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to said Plaintiffs or, conversely, did 

deliberately act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the Plaintiffs. 

206. Filing complaints or charges with the EEOC is futile, however, most of the 

Plaintiffs have done so. 

---- COUNT VIII ----

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq. or in the alternative violation of rights set 

forth in the Bivens case and its progeny; Defendants’ Invasion of Privacy, Denial of 

Equal Protection and Due Process of Law 

207. Count VIII pertains only to Plaintiffs in Category 4 - All FSI plaintiffs (listed 

on Paragraph 15) vs FSI.

208. Category 4 Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-60, 68-69, 

and 82 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

209. Category 4 Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States. 

210. At all times relevant hereto, FSI was a government actor and a person acting under 

the color of law. That is, FSI has taken decisive employment actions that have caused Category 4 

Plaintiffs harm that is so impregnated with governmental character that it can be regarded as 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 46 of 56
46

government action. The government is/was driving FSI action whether through incentive or threat. 

211. FSI is also acting under color of law as they have conspired with Government 

officials to leverage Category 4 Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights against them in an effort to achieve 

the Biden Administration’s goal of achieving universal vaccination and to unlawfully acquire said 

Plaintiffs’ personal, genetic information. 

212. FSI and the U.S. Government have acted in lockstep and set in motion a series of 

acts inflicting violations of Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights. Through private and public meetings, 

executive orders, and unlawful coercion and duress, FSI has acted in concert with the federal 

government at the expense of their employees including Plaintiffs. 

213. First, the right to privacy. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized a right to 

personal privacy or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy in the penumbra of the Bill of 

Rights, including the First, Fourth, Fifth and Ninth Amendments, and in the concept of liberty 

guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment. The applicable cases hold that 

personal rights can be deemed fundamental or implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and 

included in this is the guarantee of personal privacy. 

214. Article I, Section 23 of the Constitution of the State of Florida provides heightened 

privacy protections; greater than those provided in the Constitution of the United States. 

215. Applied here, Category 4 Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to privacy includes a 

reasonable expectation to be free from coercion or to be put in a state of undue influence and 

subjected to battery by FSI by injection of an unwanted, experimental, VBGT into their body as a 

condition of employment. 

216. This privacy right also includes Category 4 Plaintiffs’ individual freedom to choose 

what information they want to share or disclose that is personal in nature; and the right to control 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 47 of 56
47

the extent to which their medical information is shared and released. As a means of coercion, FSI

violated Category 4 Plaintiffs’ privacy rights when they broadcast their private information in 

memos, and published said Plaintiffs’ PHI by forcing them to wear symbols in the form of 

medically useless face masks.

217. Next, equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, to the United States 

Constitution provides: 

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the 

privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall 

any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without 

due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction 

the equal protection of the laws.” 

218. FSI knowingly and willfully discriminated against Category 4 Plaintiffs who 

expressed religious concerns and treated persons who were vaccinated differently without lawful 

justification. 

219. FSI, by stating they would allow similarly situated Plaintiffs (those who are 

vaccinated) to retain their jobs, be paid more than the unvaccinated Category 4 Plaintiffs, and to 

have greater privileges/schedules, and not be required to wear political symbols, did engage in a 

facial deprivation of equal protection. 

220. While the vaccine mandate appeared neutral on its face, in practice it denies 

Category 4 Plaintiffs equal protection under the law. 

221. Mandated VBGT’s, compelled wearing of political symbols and repeated PCR 

testing are substantial burdens and are employment practices that fail to offer any significant 

health or safety benefit; thus there is no legitimate public interest promoted by FSI’s conduct. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 48 of 56
48

222. Finally, substantive due process. The Fourteenth Amendment provides heightened 

protection against interference with certain fundamental rights and liberty interests. The liberty 

interests protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment includes not only the 

privileges and rights expressly enumerated by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, but also 

includes those fundamental human rights implicit in structured liberty. 

223. Category 4 Plaintiffs have a fundamental liberty interest and right to bodily 

integrity and informed consent. This notion of bodily integrity has been embodied in the 

requirement that informed consent is a substantive component of due process and is generally 

required for medical treatment. 

224. The United States Constitution guarantees that government shall not “deprive any 

person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law,” and precludes FSI as State Actors 

from infringing certain fundamental liberty interests no matter the process provided, unless the 

infringement serves a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. 

225. Here, Defendants actions are those of a State Actor and, while courts have 

recognized a compelling state interest in controlling the spread of infections, FSI lacks a 

compelling state interest to impose a VBGT mandate because the VBGT’s produce negative sum 

outcomes. 

226. Assuming the VBGT’s could be said to satisfy the interest of preserving public 

health, FSI’s mandate is not so narrowly tailored since it is not the least restrictive means. There 

are less numerous, less restrictive means which adequately serve thst public interest of protecting 

public health against COVID-19. For instance, it is evident that antibodies acquired through prior 

infection provide protection, and as stated throughout this Complaint, and that natural immunity 

has shown to provide superior protection than the COVID-19 vaccines. Service to the public 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 49 of 56
49

interest can be accomplished through safer, less restrictive treatments, preventatives for early 

treatment, or medications, like the use of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Ivermectin, thus FSI’s 

conduct fails the strict scrutiny test.

227. As a direct and proximate result of FSI’s policies, practices, regulations and 

conduct, Category 4 Plaintiffs have suffered harm. 

228. The conduct of FSI as described herein represents a willful and conscious 

disregard for the treatment of private citizens under the law as to their right to privacy; and their 

actions shock the conscience of the average person and constitute an abuse of power that is 

malicious and purposeful. 

229. FSI is liable to Category 4 Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression and because FSI deliberately proceeded to act 

in conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the Plaintiffs or, 

conversely, deliberately proceed to act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the 

Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT IX ---

Infliction of Emotional Distress (intentional or in the alternative negligent)

230. Count IX pertains only to Plaintiffs Category 4 - All FSI plaintiffs (listed on 

Paragraph 15) vs FSI.

231. Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-60, 68-69, 82, 83-85, 

173-175 and 178-206 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

232. FSI acted intentionally or recklessly with respect to the conduct set forth in this 

Complaint. 

233. FSI conduct has been and continues to be extreme and outrageous. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 50 of 56
50

234. As a proximate result of FSI’s actions, Category 4 Plaintiffs have suffered severe 

emotional distress. 

235. The harm caused by FSI was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of FSI’s

conduct. 

236. Category 4 Plaintiffs allege that FSI acted willfully and intentionally and 

maliciously and in reckless and/or wanton disregard of the interests of said Plaintiffs with respect 

to the conduct set forth in this Second Amended Complaint. However, if upon proof it is 

determined such conduct does not to rise to such intentional level, said Plaintiffs plead, in the 

alternative, that said infliction of emotional distress is negligent.

237. As a proximate result of FSI’s conduct, Category 4 Plaintiffs have suffered 

serious and/or severe emotional distress. 

238. The harm caused by FSI was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of FSI’s

conduct. 

239. FSI is liable to Category 4 Plaintiffs for punitive damages if found to have acted 

with intent, not mere negligence, because the acts herein described constitute actual malice and 

oppression and because FSI deliberately proceeded to act in conscious or intentional disregard of 

the high probability of injury to the Category 4 Plaintiffs or, conversely, deliberately proceed to 

act with indifference to the high probability of injury to the said Plaintiffs not limited to but 

including emotional and mental harm as well as physical harm from the symptoms related to 

their distress (headache, tremors, anxiety, heart palpitation, depression, nausea, weight loss, hair 

loss, dizziness, insomnia, etc.).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 51 of 56
51

---- COUNT X ----

Negligence 

240. Count X pertains only to Plaintiffs Category 4 - All FSI plaintiffs (listed on 

Paragraph 15) vs FSI.

241. Category 4 Plaintiffs specifically reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1-41, 53-60, 

68-69, 82, and 173-175 from above as though fully set forth herein. 

242. FSI owes a duty of reasonable care during the course of operating their business. 

243. This duty includes protecting the Category 4 Plaintiffs’ PHI via appropriate means 

and procedures. 

244. FSI breached their duty of care when by publishing the Category 4 Plaintiffs’ PHI 

throughout the company and by forcing said Plaintiffs to wear political symbols; effectively 

amplifying and broadcasting their PHI to other employees and consumers. 

245. FSI’s negligence was in violation of state and federal laws designed to protect 

Category 4 Plaintiffs against the type of harm caused by the FSI conduct. 

246. As a proximate cause of FSI’s negligence, Category 4 Plaintiffs have suffered 

injury.

---- COUNT XI ----

Violation of 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III), 21 CFR 50.25

247. Count XI pertains to all Plaintiffs and all Defendants.

248. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth herein.

249. Plaintiffs allege Defendants willfully or negligently violated established federal law 

under 21 U.S. Code Sec.360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) when they mandated one hundred percent of 

their employees to receive Emergency Use Authorized (EUA) experimental unapproved medical 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 52 of 56
52

products, EUA PCR testing, and EUA mask wearing. Defendants further violated the law when 

they administered and enforced consequences on those who refused to comply with the mandate 

for religious or other reasons. All the foregoing counts and injuries sustained by plaintiffs are a 

product of the total and egregious violation of this core EUA law violation. Even though 

Defendants’ mandates were instituted during and in response to a pandemic emergency, as the 

U.S. Supreme Court noted since the beginning of the pandemic: “even in a pandemic, the 

Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 

141 S.Ct. 63, 208 L.Ed.2d 206 (2020). 

250. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression, and Defendants deliberately proceeded to act in 

conscious or intentional disregard of the high probability of injury to the Plaintiffs.

251. Specifically, this count is grounded in Defendants’ willful, wanton, and blatant 

disregard of the core law on EUA’s – 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) – requirement to be 

informed of the “option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if 

any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are 

available and of their benefits and risks.” (Emphasis added).

252. In addition, the 2005 Federal Register established the precedent regarding the 

“option to accept or refuse administration of AVA; of the consequences, if any, of refusing 

administration of the product; and of the alternatives to AVA that are available, and of their 

benefits and risks.” See https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/02/02/05-

2028/authorization-of emergency-use-of-anthrax-vaccine-absorbed-for-prevention-of-inhalationanthrax-by#. (Emphasis added). There is a private right of action to challenge the illegal mandate 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 53 of 56
53

of an investigational unapproved medical product. See Doe v. Rumsfeld, Civil Action No. 03-707 

(EGS) (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005).

253. The context of the EUA law and AVA precedent language originates from 21 CFR 

50.25, Protection of Human Subjects and Elements of informed consent. That federal regulation 

explains that “participation is voluntary, that refusal to participate will involve no penalty or loss 

of benefits to which the subject is otherwise entitled, and that the subject may discontinue 

participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to which the subject is otherwise 

entitled.” It also references “[t]he consequences of a subject's decision to withdraw from the 

research and procedures for orderly termination of participation by the subject” in a manner 

making clear any such “consequences” are strictly medical in nature. See

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm?fr=50.25.

254. Defendants used deception, discrimination, psychological manipulation, and 

physical isolation to force Plaintiffs, under threat of termination, to participate in a dangerous 

social and medical experiment violative of established EUA law. Defendants also violated the rule 

of informed consent, by coercing Plaintiffs to submit to the experimental unapproved medical 

product without any information on the potential risks or benefits. Several Plaintiffs (and other of 

Defendants’ employees) have suffered adverse side-effects and harm as a result of submitting to 

the experimental unapproved medical product. In addition to actual physical harm, Plaintiffs now 

face emotional distress as they worry about possible long-term side effects.

255. Defendants have made Plaintiffs second-class citizens within the company and 

targeted them in a campaign of harassment designed to force plaintiffs to submit to an injection of 

an unknown, experimental substance of questionable efficacy. Defendants’ experimental 

unapproved medical product mandate was illegally constituted, lacked a learned intermediary, and 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 54 of 56
54

it engendered a hostile working environment for Plaintiffs. Defendants’ actions and workplace 

toxicity forced Plaintiffs into an impossible decision they never needed to make; take an 

experimental unapproved EUA medical product or potentially lose their livelihoods and the means 

by which they provide for their families.

256. The 21 USC 360bbb-3(e)(1)(a)(ii)(III) law is clear. The precedent in 2005 from the 

Federal Register for the first ever EUA applied to anthrax vaccine supports this and is also 

clear. The context of “consequences” from 21 CFR 50.25 supports it. No one can mandate 

investigational unapproved EUA medical products. This suit is brought to redress the harms 

Defendants have dispassionately and illegally brought upon their own employees after years of 

loyal service, to make them whole, and to help ensure the principles of medical freedom through 

informed consent are preserved forever.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, The Atlas Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant Atlas as follows: 

(i) An award of compensatory damages in appropriate amounts to be established at 

trial; 

(ii) Punitive damages in a maximum amount as permitted by law and as determined 

by the jury; 

(iii) Awards of damages tailored to make vaccine-injured plaintiffs whole with regard 

to their manifest and likely future long-term injuries and disabilities; 

(iv) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action;

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 55 of 56
55

(v) And such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

AND WHEREFORE, The FSI Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendant FSI as follows: 

(i) An award of compensatory damages in appropriate amounts to be established at 

trial; 

(ii) Punitive damages in a maximum amount as permitted by law and as determined 

by the jury; 

(iii) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action;

(iv) And such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 11, 2023. 

Respectfully submitted, 

John Pierce Law P.C. 

By: /s/ John Pierce

John M. Pierce, Esq.

21550 Oxnard St., 3rd Fl PMB 172 

Woodland Hills, CA 91367 

jpierce@johnpiercelaw.com

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 74 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/11/2023 Page 56 of 56