Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

FLORIDA

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS 

(LANDON CAVINESS AND MORGAN 

CAVINESS), PATRICK AKERLUND,

MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC W 

ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. 

BALLARD JR. , CINDY 

BARRIONUEVO, LARRY JAMES 

BEARCE JR., ROBERT BELLMAN, 

BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS 

BERRY, 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,

JONATHAN FUSSLE, TONY

GAMBOA, DENNIS GEBHARD,

REZA GHODS, MARK GILMAN,

ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC GORDON,

GREG GORDON, DANIEL GREER,

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,

STEVEN MEISSNER, JEFFREY 

MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER,

COREY MORRIS, STEVEN 

MURATORE, GREGORY MYERS,

PETER NAPORA, JOEL PARDO,

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

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 1 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 2

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, MARK 

THIEN, WILLIAM THOMPSON,

BRANDON THOROUGHMAN, GERI 

TONDA, RICARDO TORRES 

ABARCA, GUSTAVO VERDES,

JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD 

ZARRABIAN

individuals,

 Plaintiffs,

v. 

ATLAS AIR INC., a Delaware corporation,

FLIGHT SERVICES INTERNATIONAL, 

LLC, a Texas limited liability company, 

ENCOMPASSAIR, LLC, an Alaska limited 

liability company, and JOHN W.

DIETRICH, PATRICIA GOODWINPETERS, JEFFREY

CARLSON, individuals,

 Defendants. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 2 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 3

NATURE OF THE CASE

1. Plaintiffs are pilots, flight attendants, mechanics and other ground staff of Atlas 

Air, Inc. (“Atlas”) and its affiliated companies Flight Services International, LLC (“FSI”) and 

EncompassAir, LLC, (“ECA”), 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 legal and equitable relief to redress Defendants’ invasions of 

privacy, negligence, breach of contract, retaliation, 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 lawsuit also seeks declaratory relief from the Defendants’ vaccine mandate 

on the basis that Defendants’ conduct was indistinguishable from that of the U.S. Government

and Defendants’ vaccine mandate, as applied, violates privacy, 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 manipulation, and 

physical isolation to force Plaintiffs, under threat of termination, to participate in a dangerous 

social and medical experiment.

5. Defendants have made Plaintiffs second-class citizens 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. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 3 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 4

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. 

6. Defendants granted Plaintiffs religious ‘accommodation’ 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 distinguishing them from their peers and gave public disclosure of their

private and protected health information.

7. 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 (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. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 4 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 5

8. These risks may even extend to the public if pilots who submitted to Defendant 

pressure to take the vaccines suffer health effects while flying.1

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff Landon Caviness is an individual and joint personal representative of 

employee, the Estate of Lane Caviness

10. Plaintiff Morgan Caviness is an individual and joint personal representative of 

employee, the Estate of Lane Caviness

11. Plaintiff Patrick Akerlund is an individual and employee of Atlas.

12. Plaintiff Michael Alzati is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

13. Plaintiff Eric W. Anderson is an individual and employee of Atlas.

14. Plaintiff Michael G. Ballard Jr. is an individual and employee of Atlas

15. Plaintiff Cindy Barrionuevo is an individual and employee of FSI

1 See, e.g., Hoft, Jim. “Pilot dies suddenly after collapsing shortly after takeoff from Chicago 

airport,” Gateway Pundit. November 22, 2022 (detailing sudden death of a vaccinated pilot for 

another airline while in flight; only the skill of a copilot saved the lives of dozens of 

passengers). There is a long list of pilots and crew members who have been incapacitated or 

died during or shortly before or after flights following vaccination. Further, the FAA has now 

discouraged pilots from getting the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to increased risk of stroke 

unless no other vaccination option is available. Clearly, the FAA is accepting the increased risk 

of stroke from the J&J vaccine as opposed to remaining vaccine free. This is a safety of flight 

issue.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 5 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 6

16. Plaintiff Larry James Bearce, Jr. is an individual and employee of Atlas.

17. Plaintiff Robert Bellman is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

18. Plaintiff Benjamin Bendiburg is an individual and employee of Atlas.

19. Plaintiff Douglas Berry is an individual and employee of Atlas.

20. Plaintiff Gregory Berry is an individual and employee of Atlas.

21. Plaintiff Lynette Botha is an individual and employee of Atlas.

22. Plaintiff Caleb Buehrer is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

23. Plaintiff Richard Bullock is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

24. Plaintiff Jon Carroll is an individual and employee of Atlas.

25. Plaintiff Vergil Caskey is an individual and employee of Atlas.

26. Plaintiff James Castor is an individual and employee of Atlas.

27. Plaintiff Nathan Charboneau is an individual and employee of Atlas.

28. Plaintiff Shawn Churchel is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

29. Plaintiff Joel Colon is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the state 

of Florida.

30. Plaintiff Mark Connor is an individual and employee of Atlas.

31. Plaintiff Matthew Cronauer is an individual and employee of Atlas.

32. Plaintiff Fred Cunningham is an individual and employee of Atlas.

33. Plaintiff Royal Danza is an individual and employee of Atlas.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 6 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 7

34. Plaintiff Elliot De Sousa is an individual and employee of Atlas.

35. Plaintiff Eric Desandro is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida

36. Plaintiff Steve Dixon is an individual and employee of Atlas.

37. Plaintiff James Erickson is an individual and employee of Atlas.

38. Plaintiff Luis Esquivia is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

39. Plaintiff Lee Estes is an individual and employee of Atlas.

40. Plaintiff Robert Fratti is an individual and employee of Atlas.

41. Plaintiff Jason Frisbie is an individual and employee of Atlas.

42. Plaintiff Timothy Frye is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

43. Plaintiff Jonathan Fussle is an individual and employee of Atlas.

44. Plaintiff Tony Gamboa is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

45. Plaintiff Dennis Gebhard is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

46. Plaintiff Reza Ghods is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the

state of Florida.

47. Plaintiff Mark Gilman is an individual and employee of Atlas.

48. Plaintiff Robert Giudice is an individual and employee of Atlas.

49. Plaintiff Eric Gordon is an individual and employee of Atlas.

50. Plaintiff Greg Gordon is an individual and employee of Atlas.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 7 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 8

51. Plaintiff Daniel Greer is an individual and employee of Atlas.

52. Plaintiff Rexford T. Heivilin is an individual and employee of Atlas.

53. Plaintiff Jason Henning is an individual and employee of Atlas.

54. Plaintiff David Hewson III is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

55. Plaintiff Todd Hontz is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the

state of Florida.

56. Plaintiff Daniel Hudson is an individual and employee of Atlas.

57. Plaintiff Roger Justice is an individual and employee of Atlas.

58. Plaintiff Venancius Kassandji is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides 

in the state of Florida.

59. Plaintiff John Kearins is an individual and employee of Atlas.

60. Plaintiff Ricky Kinder is an individual and employee of Atlas.

61. Plaintiff Beth Kirby is an individual and employee of Atlas. She resides in the

state of Florida.

62. Plaintiff Andreas N. Koustas is an individual and employee of Atlas.

63. Plaintiff Chad Kravetz is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

64. Plaintiff Carl Lindberg is an individual and employee of Atlas.

65. Plaintiff Joseph Loschiavo is an individual and employee of Atlas.

66. Plaintiff Andrew Lutz is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 8 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 9

67. Plaintiff Blythe Lutz is an individual and employee of Atlas. She resides in the 

state of Florida.

68. Plaintiff Rafael Macario is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

69. Plaintiff Douglas P. Mayo Jr. is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides 

in the state of Florida.

70. Plaintiff April McQuillen is an individual and employee of Atlas. She resides in 

the state of Florida.

71. Plaintiff Christopher McQuillen is an individual and employee of Atlas. He 

resides in the state of Florida.

72. Plaintiff Steven Meissner is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

73. Plaintiff Jeffrey Michonski is an individual and employee of Atlas.

74. Plaintiff Andrew Mickler is an individual and employee of Atlas.

75. Plaintiff Corey Morris is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

76. Plaintiff Steven Muratore is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

77. Plaintiff Gregory Myers is an individual and employee of Atlas.

78. Plaintiff Peter Napora is an individual and employee of Atlas.

79. Plaintiff Joel Pardo is an individual and employee of Atlas.

80. Plaintiff Lance Phillips is an individual and employee of Atlas.

81. Plaintiff Patrick Phillips is an individual and employee of Atlas.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 9 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 10

82. Plaintiff Glen Pronk is an individual and employee of Atlas.

83. Plaintiff Charles Randall is an individual and employee of Atlas.

84. Plaintiff Peter Raymond is an individual and employee of Atlas.

85. Plaintiff Joshua Roberts is an individual and employee of Atlas.

86. Plaintiff Rebecca Robertson is an individual and employee of FSI.

87. Plaintiff Jason Rogers is an individual and employee of Atlas.

88. Plaintiff Kimberly Schreck is an individual and employee of Atlas.

89. Plaintiff William Serritella is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in 

the state of Florida.

90. Plaintiff Gentry Shelton is an individual and employee of Atlas.

91. Plaintiff Todd Snaza is an individual and employee of Atlas.

92. Plaintiff Donald Sorrentino is an individual and employee of Atlas.

93. Plaintiff Mark South is an individual and employee of Atlas.

94. Plaintiff Michael Stark is an individual and employee of Atlas.

95. Plaintiff Elizabeth Stoneking is an individual and employee of FSI.

96. Plaintiff Forrest Stowells is an individual and employee of Atlas.

97. Plaintiff Barbara Janeice Surber is an individual and employee of FSI.

98. Plaintiff John Swift is an individual and employee of Atlas.

99. Plaintiff Nick Taylor is an individual and employee of Atlas.

100. Plaintiff Mark Thien is an individual and mechanic contracted to Atlas from 

Encompass Air LLC.

101. Plaintiff William Thompson is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides 

in the state of Florida.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 10 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 11

102. Plaintiff Brandon Thoroughman is an individual and employee of Atlas.

103. Plaintiff Geri Tonda is an individual and employee of FSI.

104. Plaintiff Ricardo Torres Abarca is an individual and employee of FSI.

105. Plaintiff Gustavo Verdes is an individual and employee of Atlas.

106. Plaintiff James Villella is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides in the 

state of Florida.

107. Plaintiff Farshad Zarrabian is an individual and employee of Atlas. He resides 

in the state of Florida.

108. 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.2

109. Atlas is a common carrier as defined under federal law.

110. 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 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 

2 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 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 11 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 12

aviation professionals each year.”3 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.

111. 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.

112. 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.

113. 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 

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 

3 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 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 12 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 13

contracts its flight attendants to Atlas Air and receives millions in dollars from Atlas Air in 

return.

114. Defendant EncompassAir, LLC (“ECA”) is an Alaska limited liability company 

with its principal place of business in Anchorage, Alaska. It is a company whose business is to 

contract mechanics to Atlas Air and other airlines.

115. Defendant John W. Dietrich (“Dietrich”) is an individual and is President and 

Chief Executive Officer for Atlas, and is a Board Member of Atlas. He keeps an executive 

office in Miami, FL at the MTC.

116. Defendant Jeffrey Carlson is an individual and is Senior Vice President for 

Flight Operations for Atlas. He keeps an executive office in Miami, FL.

117. Defendant Patricia Goodwin-Peters (“Goodwin-Peters”) is an individual and 

Senior Vice President for Human Resources for Atlas. She keeps an executive office in Miami, 

FL.

MISNOMER/ ALTER EGO

118. 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

119. 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.

120. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 13 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 14

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.

121. 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 judicial district as set forth above.

BACKGROUND

I. The COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccine Response

122. 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.

123. On January 30, 2020, the International Health Regulations Emergency 

Committee of the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the outbreak a “Public Health 

Emergency of International Concern.”

124. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 14 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 15

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.” 

125. Traditional vaccines contain whole or part of a harmless bacteria or virus that is 

sought to provide inoculation by speeding up a process that occurs naturally. These traditional 

vaccines allow one’s cells to “learn” how to defend against the viral agent without suffering the 

consequence of a “live” virus. In contrast, all three COVID-19 vaccines utilize (never-before 

tested on humans) technology which constitutes “gene therapy.” Two vaccines contain 

messenger ribonucleic acid (“mRNA”), inserted into the cell nucleus, which serve as 

instructions or a recipe for the creation of a spike protein that triggers an immune response; 

they are synthetic surrogates of the body’s genetic information. Johnson & Johnson’s medical 

product uses a different platform but retains same type of gene therapy outcome.

126. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) issued an Emergency Use 

Authorization (“EUA”) for the medical product manufactured by Pfizer-BioNTech on 

December 11, 2020. One week later, the FDA issued an EUA for the Moderna COVID-19 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 15 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 16

medical product. Finally, the FDA issued an EUA for the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19

medical product on February 27, 2021.4

127. An EUA is not synonymous with FDA approval. Instead, an EUA is an 

administrative mechanism that allows the use of an ‘unapproved’ medical product. An EUA 

may be granted by the FDA to (among other reasons) facilitate medical countermeasures 

against the spread of infectious diseases. EUA’s may be terminated or revoked by the FDA as 

additional information about the use of the individual medical product becomes better known. 

II. Recent History of Vaccination Mandates & Accompanying Litigation.

128. 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. 

129. 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.5 On September 9, 2021, 

4 On August 23, 2021, the FDA issued an approval for the Pfizer vaccine, Comirnaty, for 

individuals sixteen (16) years of age and older. On January 31, 2022, the FDA announced the 

approval of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine that is marketed as Spikevax. At this time, Johnson 

& Johnson’s COVID-19 vaccine has yet to be FDA approved for anything other than EUA.

5 86 Fed. Reg. 7,045-48 (Jan. 20, 2021).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 16 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 17

Biden signed Executive Order 14042 (“EO 14042”),

6

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.”7 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.

8 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.9

130. 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.

10 On September 9, 2021,

6 86 Fed. Reg. 50,985-88 (Sept. 9, 2021).

7

Id.

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

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

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

661 (2022).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 17 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 18

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.11 The declared purpose of the mandate was 

to increase vaccination rates at “businesses all across America,”

12 forcing eighty-four (84) 

million Americans to submit to the medical products. 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 VII13 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment 

discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. 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.

14

131. 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 

11 Id. at 663.

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

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

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

14 Id.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 18 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 19

and Medicaid funding to require their employees to be vaccinated.15 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.16 

(Emphasis added).

III. Conflation of Issues and Strict Interpretation of Religion under Title VII

132. Plaintiffs are of the belief that recent litigation efforts to redress unlawful 

business practices have been to no avail because business entities, like Defendants, are able to 

side-step their obligations under Title VII for two (2) primary reasons. First, Plaintiffs contend 

that recent litigation surrounding this developing area of the law has conflated the issues of

vaccination mandates with Title VII discrimination analysis. Second, Plaintiffs also contend 

that there has been too strict of an interpretation given to an individual’s sincerely held 

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

16 86 Fed. Reg. 61571-72.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 19 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 20

religious beliefs and that Plaintiffs “sincerely held religious beliefs” are synonymous with Title 

VII’s enumerated depiction of the word “religion.”17

133. In addressing the first issue, 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.18 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. 

134. In addressing the second issue, Plaintiffs contend that there has been too strict of 

an interpretation of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” and that their religious beliefs are to 

17 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides in pertinent part:

(a) It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer-

(1) 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...religion...; or

(2) to limit, segregate, or classify his employees or applicants for 

employment in a way which would deprive or tend to deprive any individual 

of employment opportunities or adversely affect his status as an employee, 

because of such individual’s...religion.

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-(2)(a)(1) and (2) (emphasis added).

18See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 20 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 21

be considered synonymous with the Title VII’s specific statement affording protections based 

on “religion.” Under Title VII, religion is defined broadly to include all aspects of an 

individual’s belief, observance, and practice.19 Furthermore, this broad definition has been 

incorporated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) in 

promulgation of regulations pertaining to religious discrimination. 

135. 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. 

IV. Plaintiffs Possess Sincerely Held Religious Beliefs Recognized by Law

136. Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs that their body is a temple, and 

that their Creator planned their existence upon their creation. 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. 

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

people around the world.

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

personal philosophies. 

139. Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs are founded by the teachings of a globally accepted 

religion 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.

19 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(j).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 21 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 22

140. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that it is instrumental to note that the current three 

commercialized “vaccines” are not vaccines by any traditional definition; rather, these vaccines

are gene-altering experimental therapies. Plaintiffs contend that the introduction of mRNA into 

their body, or gene therapy, which contains a body-foreign biological/medical substance that 

delivers metaphorical instructions that alter cell behavior and design, is incongruent with their 

deeply held religious beliefs that their body is a temple and that their Creator planned their 

existence and biological design before birth. Further, the introduction of gene therapy medical 

products causes a fundamental change in the genetic design that their Creator imparted within 

them. This differentiation illustrates a fundamental difference between traditional vaccines, 

such as chicken pox or the measles, and the three commercialized COVID-19 “vaccines.”

141. Based on this interpretation, Plaintiffs contend there is a substantial difference 

between non-mRNA vaccinations and gene therapy vaccines in terms of their religious beliefs. 

Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend comparing a these two types of vaccines is a false equivalency.

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

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

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

143. By mid-March 2020, even though the untreated mortality rate was below onehalf 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.

144. 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 EUA’s. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 22 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 23

145. A vaccine may be deemed unreasonably dangerous because of the absence of an 

adequate warning accompanying the product, as the product may be unavoidably unsafe 

without such warning. No warnings regarding these medical products were provided by 

Defendants to Plaintiffs.

146. 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, and of the extent to which such 

benefits and risks are unknown. “Consent” establishes that all persons must have the option to

refuse administration of the product. Punishments or consequences for refusing medical

products are strictly prohibited based on the express wording and intent of the law.20

147. Further, the administration of these vaccines is performed through intermuscular 

injection and implicates significant, Constitutionally protected privacy interests, such as the 

right to be safe from battery.

148. Plaintiffs are not unique or abhorrent. Millions of Americans refused to take 

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

149. Those who chose to not take a COVID-19 “vaccine” were prescient. These 

vaccines are ineffective, dangerous and – in many cases – deadly, as shown both anecdotally 

and through the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (“VAERS”) and Department of 

Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (“DOD DMED”).

21 These data were referenced to 

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

21See,https://openvaers.com/?utm_source=newsletter_31&utm_medium=email&utm_campaig

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 23 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 24

the Defendants before Defendant’s mandate deadline. Cases of myocarditis, pericarditis, 

Sudden Adult Death Syndrome (SADS), and other unexplainable deaths appear to be unique to 

people who did receive these COVID-19 vaccines.

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

FDA’s own definition.22 These medical products are unequivocally based upon injecting 

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

151. According to the FDA: “Gene therapy products are all products that mediate their 

effects by transcription and/or translation of transferred genetic material and/or by integrating 

into the host genome and that are administered as nucleic acids, viruses, or genetically 

engineered microorganisms.”23

n=the-openvaers-red-box-report ; See also https://health.mil/Military-Health-Topics/HealthReadiness/AFHSD/Data-Management-and-Technical-Support/Defense-MedicalEpidemiology-Database ; See also https://renz-law.com/dmed-data/ 

22 See, https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/cellular-gene-therapy-products/whatgene-therapy

23 See, Section I, Ftn’t 1 of FDA’s guidance entitled: “Design and Analysis of Shedding 

Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products” dated August, 

2015. https://www.fda.gov/media/89036/download

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 24 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 25

152. According to the Center for Disease Control (“CDC”): “Messenger RNA, or 

mRNA, is genetic material that tells your body how to make proteins.”24

153. According to Genome.gov: “mRNA acts as a cellular messenger. DNA, which is 

stored in a cell’s nucleus, encodes the genetic information for making proteins. mRNA 

transfers a copy of this genetic information outside of the nucleus, to a cells’ cytoplasm, where 

it is translated into amino acids by ribosomes and then folded into complete proteins.”25

154. According to Pfizer, its VBGT contains messenger mRNA, a kind of genetic 

material, and a piece of the SARS-CoV-2 virus’ genetic material that instructs cells in the body 

to make the virus’ distinctive “spike” protein and trigger the immune system to learn to react 

defensively, producing an immune response against the virus.26 The Johnson & Johnson VBGT

uses viral vector technology to instruct the cells, and causes similar gene altering effects, much 

like the other two gene therapies.

24 See, https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/downloads/vaccines/COVID-19-mRNAinfographic_G_508.pdf

25 See, https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/messenger-rna

26 See, https://www.pfizer.com/science/innovation/mrna-technology; See also, 

https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/what_makes_an_rna_vaccine_different_from_a_convent

ional_vaccine; See also, 

https://www.pfizer.com/news/articles/understanding_six_types_of_vaccine_technologies 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 25 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 26

155. Accordingly, the three COVID-19 VBGT’s change the patient’s genetic 

composition.27

156. As such, the use of the word “vaccine” to describe these products is a misnomer 

and those who have been injected with a COVID-19 VBGT necessarily possess different 

genetic material or genetic information from those who were not injected. Defendants

employment practices further discriminated and/or provided unequal opportunities against 

Plaintiffs because of this genetic difference resulting from having not been injected with these 

VBGT’s. This wrongful conduct was in violation of the Genetic Information NonDiscrimination Act (“GINA”).

28

157. These genetic alterations are prohibited by Plaintiffs who have 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.

27 See, Zhang L., et. al., “Reverse-transcribed SARS-CoV-2 RNA can integrate into the 

genome of cultured human cells and can be expressed in patient-derived tissues.” PNAS, 

2021.Vol. 118, No. 21 e2105968118 https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2105968118; See also, 

Alden, M. et al., “Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA 

Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line.” Curr. Issues Mol. Biol. 2022, Vol.44, 

1115–1126. https://doi.org/10.3390/cimb44030073

28 See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1, et seq.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 26 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 27

158. Some Plaintiffs are legally prohibited from taking the experimental vaccine since 

none of them have been approved by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”).

29 Only 

“FAA-approved” drugs may be taken by pilots. Pilots must declare any drugs or medical 

procedures they have taken since their last flight physical.30 If a pilot takes an unapproved 

medical product, the issuing flight surgeon must take administrative measures to revoke or 

deny issuance of a flight physical certificate until the FAA rules on the safety of that product. 

Typically, it takes twelve months for an FDA approved drug to be approved by the FAA.31 The 

use of, or administration of a drug not approved by the FAA is a violation of federal aviation 

29 See, attached exhibit entitled “Vaccines” (noting that COVID-19 vaccines are not included 

in the list of FAA approved vaccines).

30 See, FAA’s Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/pharm/; 

See also, FAA’s Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners- Pharmaceuticals (Therapeutic 

Medications) Do Not Issue - Do Not Fly 

https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/avs/offices/aam/ame/guide/pharm/

dni_dnf/

31 Note that the FAA cannot approve the COVID vaccines because they have not been 

officially “approved” by the FDA.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 27 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 28

regulation.32 Nonetheless, Defendants encouraged, coerced and even paid pilots to violate 

federal law, yet the ones who refused to break the law were the ones punished and 

discriminated against, as set forth below.

159. The FDA approved the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine on August 23, 2021. And, on 

September 9, 2021, Biden signed EO 14042. Thus, Defendant Goodwin-Peters sent an 

electronic communication to all Atlas employees (following up on a communication sent by 

Dietrich) and announced all Plaintiffs would be required to be “fully vaccinated” with a 

COVID-19 VBGT pursuant to EO 14042 by December 8, 2021.

160. Goodwin-Peters also announced that Plaintiffs were required to report their 

VBGT status to the company. According to the notice, “per the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC), people are considered fully vaccinated two weeks after their second dose of 

32 See, 14 C.F.R. § 61.53, which states in pertinent part, “no person who holds a medical 

certificate...may act as pilot in command, or in any other capacity as a required pilot flight 

crewmember, while that person:

(1) Knows or has reason to know of any medical condition that would make the person 

unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate necessary for the pilot 

operation; or

(2) Is taking medication or receiving other treatment for a medical condition that results 

in the person being unable to meet the requirements for the medical certificate 

necessary for the pilot operation.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 28 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 29

the Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna COVID-19 [VBGT], or two weeks after the single-dose 

Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen COVID-19 [VBGT].”

161. Goodwin-Peters’ announcement of the VBGT policy demonstrated Atlas’ 

disingenuousness from the beginning as she purported to stand for personal choice regarding 

COVID-19 vaccines:

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].33

162. However, Defendants’ concerns about safety overwhelmingly support Plaintiffs’ 

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

163. If safety had been Defendants’ real objective, they would have grounded all 

flights until it was safe to fly. In truth, Defendants’ objective was to increase profit through 

rent-seeking activities in-spite-of perceived dangers.

164. This was made obvious by Defendants’ own actions, since Defendants (i) did not 

mandate any passenger flying on its aircraft or interacting with its staff to be vaccinated; 

33 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 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 29 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 30

(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); (iii) did not mandate VBGT’s for 

pilots from other airlines allowed to ride in the “jump seat” of any Atlas aircraft.

165. To intimate compliance with Title VII, Defendants sent electronic 

communications to Plaintiffs informing them that they must file for religious or medical 

exemption to avoid VBGT inoculation. Defendants also created a Crewmember Vaccine 

Portal. Plaintiffs were required to upload their VBGT status to the portal, and were told the 

information would be protected.

166. Defendants directed that October 22, 2021, was the deadline “for [Plaintiffs] to 

request an exemption due to medical or religious reasons.”

167. However, many of Plaintiffs religious or medical objections were not triggered 

until after October 22, 2021, upon discovery of the VBGT’s gene therapy effects, adverse 

health consequences, and the stem cell development practices that brought these products to 

market.

168. Defendants directed that October 27, 2021, was the deadline for Plaintiffs to 

receive their “first [VBGT] if electing to receive the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna [VBGT] that 

requires two shots.”

169. Defendants directed that November 24, 2021, was the deadline for Plaintiffs to 

“receive [their VBGT] if electing to receive the Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen vaccine that 

requires one shot.”

170. Defendants directed that November 24, 2021, was the deadline for Plaintiffs to 

“receive [their] second [VBGT] if electing to receive the Pfizer BioNTech or Moderna [VBGT]

that requires two shots.”

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 30 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 31

171. Defendants directed that November 25, 2021 was the deadline for Plaintiffs to 

“report [their VBGT] status to the Company.”

172. 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

[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.

173. The lives of Plaintiffs were effectively put on hold after October 2021 with 

constant threats of unpaid leave and termination by Defendants against Plaintiffs.

174. Most Plaintiffs applied for medical and/or religious accommodation from the 

vaccine mandate prior to October 22, 2021.

175. 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.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 31 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 32

176. 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, Biden called upon businesses to voluntarily impose the mandates themselves.34

177. Because Defendants (and the Biden Administration) no longer had the cover of

EO 14042– and despite their previous statements that they believed in personal choice when it 

came to the VBGT mandate issues and were only reluctantly following federal law –

Defendants immediately obeyed the commands of the Biden Administration and announced, 

through electronic communications to Plaintiffs, that they would do the President’s bidding.

178. On January 25, 2022, Goodwin-Peters 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).

34 See https://khn.org/morning-breakout/biden-disappointed-by-courts-decision-urgesemployers-to-require-covid-shot/ 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 32 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 33

179. Goodwin-Peters in the same communication indicated that Plaintiffs would not 

be allowed to submit new medical or religious accommodation requests. Only those 

previously filed by October 22, 2021, would be processed:

Given your requests for accommodation from the Company’s 

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.

180. Plaintiffs who were unvaccinated were left in a continued state of legal, 

emotional and career limbo. 

181. Plaintiffs who had not previously filed a for religious or medical exemption, and 

who discovered new information triggering their conscientious objections, were denied the 

opportunity to file and were left with the impossible choice of taking COVID-19 VBGT at the 

expense of their deeply held religious beliefs or be terminated. 

182. After the implementation of the VBGT mandate, Plaintiffs were subjected to 

repeated harassment and disparate treatment within the company for their deeply held religious 

beliefs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 33 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 34

183. Defendants required Plaintiffs to wear symbols that distinguishing them from 

their peer groups and amplified their individually identifiable health information to their peers 

and to the public. 

184. Dietrich openly encouraged harassing behavior by making written and oral 

statements that employees were unsafe around Plaintiffs whose religious beliefs or medical 

circumstances barred inoculation. Theoretically, a “vaccinated” employee should have 

immunity to the disease and therefore bare no risk of the medical choices of another. Thus, this 

culture of finger pointing was perpetrated by Defendants for the sole purpose of harassing 

Plaintiffs and providing cover for Defendants rent-seeking activities.

185. For example, Plaintiff Richard Bullock, a pilot who often flew cargo to southeast 

Asia, found himself subjected to retaliatory discipline after he became known throughout the 

company for having religious beliefs that barred him from taking VBGT’s.

186. Defendants were attempting to get Plaintiff Jimmy Villella to change, alter, or 

abandon his religious beliefs (evident from his Oct 12th, 2021 religious exemption letter), to 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 34 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 35

submit to their COVID-19 testing policy. Villella was subjected to an “Article 19” disciplinary 

hearing in a blatant act of retaliation, harassment and discrimination.35

35 A harassment and discrimination complaint filed Villella was handled with extreme 

prejudice against him. Atlas’ claim 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. Further, Villella was the only Atlas employee 

that notified Atlas that his religious beliefs prevented him from getting vaccinated or tested for 

COVID-19 or any other vaccine/illness. 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. Villella asked 

on several occasions to be returned to flying status despite his “accommodated non-flying 

position” when he was made aware of Atlas not following its own mandatory COVID-19 

testing for pilots, as well as permitting unvaccinated flight attendants to operate as normal 

without any COVID-19 testing restrictions, unless the specific country they were flying to had 

COVID-19 testing requirements. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 35 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 36

187. For Plaintiffs whose religious and/or medical exemptions were granted, 

Defendants continuously harassed Plaintiffs to disregard their conscience and/or health and

submit to authoritarian enforcement of VBGT’s.

188. Defendants’ promulgation of COVID-19 misinformation created a dangerous and 

hostile work environment throughout the company for Plaintiffs whose conscience challenged 

Defendants’ ability to fulfill the role of a “learned intermediary,” a mandatory medium for 

every patient/pharmaceutical relationship.

189. Plaintiffs panic-inducing policies produced instances of vicious shouting and 

screaming among Plaintiffs and their peers during trans-ocean flights, and occasional unsafe 

episodes of pilots leaving their cockpits to scream at Plaintiffs for their religious beliefs or for 

voicing questions or criticisms of Defendants’ messaging and political symbolism.

190. Plaintiffs were interrogated by Defendants before beginning their shifts or flight 

assignments with demands for answers to questions of personal and protected health

information.

191. Defendants disseminated VBGT status of Plaintiffs in emails that were published 

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

disclosure of protected health information.

192. Defendants’ employees have openly remarked that they look forward to the day 

that “[[P]laintiffs] will be terminated from the company, thus allowing vaccinated employees to 

rise in seniority and pay.”

193. Atlas discriminated against Plaintiffs and denied them bids for higher paying 

flights to certain destinations despite such destinations having no laws or restrictions against 

unvaccinated Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 36 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 37

194. Both Dietrich and Goodwin-Peters made repeated statements that if Plaintiffs 

expected to have future employment at Atlas, they would have no choice other than to take the 

VBGT’s. Both Dietrich and Goodwin-Peters also stated that religious and medical exemptions 

from being “vaccinated” would not be accepted and that “unvaccinated” crews would be 

placed on unpaid leave or terminated.36 Defendants’ termination threats always came on the 

heels of Biden Administration publications regarding private employer VBGT mandates.

195. Defendants created a program to recruit new non-religious hires to replace 

Plaintiffs if any Plaintiffs were terminated. Atlas and the Teamsters worked together to pay its 

employees $5,000 per new hire they referred to Atlas to replace Plaintiffs because of their 

religious beliefs and/or medically exempt status.

196. On March 8, 2022, after the January 25, 2022 Goodwin-Peters communication, 

things got worse for the Plaintiffs who worked for FSI, who 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:

Atlas Air, Inc. has advised FSI that all FSI employees who work

on Atlas flights must be fully vaccinated by May 1, 2022.

36 It is worth noting that, used in this paragraph, the term “vaccination” is not a singular 

occurrence or transaction. Every new Defendant requirement 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 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 37 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 38

(Obviously, Atlas is entitled to determine the terms under which 

FSI’s flight attendants are eligible to work on Atlas flights).

We recognize that you previously requested an accommodation 

(exemption) from the COVID-19 [VBGT] mandates the Company 

implemented to comply with [EO 14042]...

Unfortunately, if you are unable or unwilling to obtain COVID-19 

[VBGT], you will not be eligible to work on Atlas Air flights. In 

that event, FSI has no other work, including flights for its flight 

attendantsto crew. If we do notreceive evidence that you have been 

fully vaccinated by April 30, 2022, you will be placed on an unpaid 

leave of absence (LOA).

(Emphasis in original).

197. On March 25, 2022, the Defendants 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 or medical 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.”

198. Defendants ordered Plaintiffs, even after they had established natural immunity 

from the disease, to test weekly for COVID-19 unlike employees without religious beliefs who 

were deemed “vaccinated” by the Defendants. 

199. Plaintiffs were required to take COVID-19 tests numerous times, weekly.

200. Each COVID-19 test involved the use of ethylene oxide, a known carcinogenic, 

to sterilize the swabs prior to having them scrubbed on Plaintiffs mouth and nasal cavity.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 38 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 39

201. Defendants did not inform the Plaintiffs of the potential hazards of COVID-19 

testing.

202. Plaintiffs were required to pay for COVID-19 testing despite language in the

Agreement indicating vaccines and testing is to be provided at no cost by Defendants. 

Employees deemed “vaccinated” by Defendants were not required to pay for COVID-19 

testing. 

203. Some Plaintiffs took the VBGT upon Defendants’ misinformation and coercion

without informed consent but refused to take the boosters after learning information about the 

gene-therapy effects of these medical products and lack of liability for a learned intermediary. 

Absent this new knowledge, objections to VBGT’s from Plaintiffs founded on religious beliefs 

were otherwise dormant.

204. On March 31, 2022, Goodwin-Peters sent another e-mail underscoring the 

hostility and disparate treatment that would persist at Atlas. It mandated that Plaintiffs would 

undergo testing at their own expense and wear individually identifiable political symbols; 

differentiating them from their peers while simultaneously giving public disclosure to Plaintiffs 

protected health information.

205. On April 21, 2022 Goodwin-Peters sent Plaintiffs an updated Atlas Worldwide 

COVID-19 Vaccination & Testing Policy, along with Atlas Worldwide COVID-19 Vaccine 

Policy Frequently Asked Questions (“FAQ”). In addition to testing at Plaintiffs expense, 

Defendants mandated that all COVID-19 testing be videotaped and retained by Defendants, so 

and that the videos be sent to the company if requested.

206. The Policy stated that:

Employees who travel as an essential function of their position

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 39 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 40

must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by May 1,

2022...[e]mployees not in compliance with this Policy may be 

subject to discipline, up to and including termination pursuant to 

applicable law...

Essential-travel employees who do not choose to be vaccinated,

and who are not in compliance with the Policy as of the effective

date of May 1, 2022, may not be permitted to continue traveling 

and may be placed in an alternate position or subject to an unpaid

leave status.

(Emphasis in original).

207. Defendants had knowledge of reports of vaccine injuries as reported in the 

VAERS database and purposely omitted information indicating the potentially lethal effects of 

VBGT’s in their communications to Plaintiffs.

208. On March 25, 2022, Defendants sent an electronic communication to Plaintiffs 

that made clear that Defendants have not changed their policies of discriminating against 

Plaintiffs with religious beliefs or medical objections. Specifically, Goodwin-Peters stated:

As a reminder, employees who travel as an essential function of 

their position must be vaccinated by May 1 pursuant to the 

Company’s Policy...

to protect [already vaccinated] employees...

The Company maintains the right to revise this Policy as 

appropriate and at its sole discretion, including based on changing 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 40 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 41

domestic and global regulations and the state of the pandemic. We 

will continue to closely watch the global vaccination and testing 

requirements and metrics tied to the pandemic, and communicate 

any necessary changes to our policies as appropriate.

(Emphasis added).

209. Plaintiffs were not offered subsequent opportunities to initiate and/or modify any 

request(s) for religious and/or medical exemption.

210. Further, the FAQ document made unequivocally clear that the prior medical and 

religious accommodations obtained by employees – which Defendants indicated on January 25, 

2022 would be applicable going forward – would no longer be recognized:

If you were previously granted an accommodation from a

Company policy or practice designed to comply with the federal 

Executive Order mandating vaccination, your accommodation is 

no longer effective. The Executive Order has been stayed by a 

federal court and is not applicable to us at this time...

(Emphasis added).

DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ACCOMMODATE, DISPARATE TREATMENT AND 

CREATION OF A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 

VII

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

the denial of equal opportunity, discrimination and the perpetuation of a hostile work 

environment.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 41 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 42

212. 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...37

(Emphasis added). 

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

healthcare workers), 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.

214. 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 environment or harassment.

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

conduct had a disparaging impact on Plaintiffs.

37 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 42 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 43

216. 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.

CONFLUENCE OF ATLAS, FSI, ECA AND THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT

217. Throughout the entire course of the foregoing events, Atlas, FSI and ECA 

engaged in conduct orchestrated by the U.S. Government.

218. Atlas is the largest customer of the Department of Defense (“DOD”) Air Mobility

Command (“AMC”). Atlas carries more U.S. troops and military material than any other airline 

in the world.

219. Atlas receives many millions of dollars from the DOD and AMC.

220. Atlas flies more revenue freight ton miles internationally than UPS or FedEx. In 

this respect it is the largest air freight carrier in the world.

221. Atlas is a behemoth in the air cargo and VIP charter industry.

222. Atlas intentionally negotiated in bad faith with Teamsters 1224 and 2750, 

avoiding renewing their contract from 2016 to 2021, enabling the Defendant executives to keep 

hundreds of millions of dollars. This made Atlas management the highest compensated aviation

executives in the world.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 43 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 44

223. In 2020, Atlas made eight times the net profit they made from the previous record 

year in 2019.38 During this time, CEO John Dietrich applied for and successfully lobbied and 

received $407,000,000 in COVID-19 bailout monies from American taxpayers.39

224. Atlas has been involved in market manipulations and price-fixing schemes before 

and in 2016 agreed to pay $100,000,000 to settle an international cargo price fixing scheme to

avoid going to trial.

40 They finished paying off the $100,000,000 in 2020, the same year they 

received the $407,000,000 in taxpayer bailout money from the U.S. Government.

225. To induce compliance with its VBGT mandate, Defendants even colluded with 

unions.

226. On September 10, 2021, Atlas, Teamsters Local 2750 and the International 

Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division negotiated a new Collective Bargaining Agreement 

(the “Agreement”) that was signed and executed by Atlas, the Teamsters, and flight deck crew 

members. The final agreement plainly gave the company no authority to impose vaccination

mandates upon Plaintiffs (or any other invasions of Plaintiffs medical privacy). The only 

section specifically addressing vaccinations was Article 27 F,41 which provides:

[Atlas] shall provide, at no cost to Crew Members, an 

38 See https://www.freightwaves.com/news/atlas-air-refuses-to-repay-us-bailout-funds

39 See https://web.archive.org/web/20220318105916/https:/www.businessinsider.com/atlas-airamazon-air-contractor-receives-coronavirus-bailout-2020-6

40 See https://aircargoeye.com/atlas-air-coughs-100m-price-fixing-settlement/

41 Article 27 of the CBA is titled “Insurance Benefits.”

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 44 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 45

immunization plan that includes, at a minimum, the following 

vaccinations . . . (Yellow fever, Hepatitis, Typhoid, Tetanus, etc.).

227. Art. 27 F(10) of the Agreement provides that Atlas shall “provide,” a benefit at no

cost, along with “[a]ny other [benefits] recommended by the current [CDC]‘Advice for 

International Travel’ document.” The plain language of Section F’s benefits package requires 

Atlas to “provide” immunizations, not “mandate” them. Nor does the Agreement deprive 

Plaintiffs rights to exercise informed consent.

42

228. The Agreement date is significant insofar as coincided with Biden’s EO 14042, 

signed on September 9, 2021.

229. Following the September communication from Goodwin-Peters, on October 5, 

2021, Defendant Dietrich sent an email to Plaintiffs saying:

Biden recently signed [EO 14042] providing for certain mandates 

related to COVID-19 for federal contractors and subcontractors,

and the U.S. government has now issued further guidance for 

implementing this Order...[t]hrough the course of the pandemic, 

42 The referenced “Advice for International Travel” document of the CDC appears to be 

several documents and/or web pages, none of which mandate COVID-19 vaccinations for U.S. 

Citizens. Indeed, the CDC’s published instructions (https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-

ncov/travelers/proof-of-vaccination.html) contains a section dedicated to airline crew 

members. The Technical Instructions applicable to crew members plainly do not mandate 

airline pilots or crew members to be injected with COVID-19 vaccine treatments; see also

https://www.cdc.gov/quarantine/order-safe-travel/technical-instructions.html.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 45 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 46

we’ve been very clear in our intention that we would not

mandate that our employees be vaccinated. However, as a federal

contractor who flies the military and their equipment, we will be 

required to comply with the Order issued by the President...[EO 

14042] requires that we determine the vaccination status of all

of our U.S.-based employees. Therefore, we are now requiring

all of our U.S. workforce to provide us with your vaccination

status.”

(Emphasis in original).

230. Dietrich’s email went further and announced that Plaintiffs were required to have 

“electronic proof of [ ] vaccination” and that vaccinated employees would be paid an additional 

“five hours of compensation” while Plaintiffs would not.

231. There have been numerous, private meetings between Defendants and the U.S. 

Government regarding VBGT mandate policies.

232. Defendants’ DOD logistics operations serve a traditionally public function.

233. Whether by incentive or threat, Defendants conduct was significantly encouraged 

by the Biden Administration.

234. Defendants financially benefited when the Biden Administration pumped in 

$407,000,000 in COVID-19 bailout money to already profitable Defendants. In exchange, 

Defendants imposed the political ambitions of the Biden Administration onto Plaintiffs.

235. Defendants were joint participants with the Biden Administration in the universal 

inoculation of the COVID-19 “vaccines.”

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 46 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 47

236. Thus, each Defendant is a “person” and a “state actor” for the purposes of 42 

U.S.C. § 1983.

43

237. Controlled by the U.S. Government, Defendants became joint participants with 

the Biden Administration’s agenda of masking (compelled wearing of political symbols), social 

distancing, testing, and ultimately the Biden Administration’s ambition of universal inoculation 

with experimental VBGT’s.

238. The Biden Administration delegated its authority to the private sector and sought 

Defendants to do its bidding. In turn, Defendants gave its employees an unconscionable 

ultimatum: choose between their jobs or take an experimental, life-threatening VBGT, for a 

disease known to have a very high survivability rate and for which effective alternative 

treatments exist. 

239. The Government has acted in concert with Defendants to publicly support its 

private employer vaccine mandate. Defendants are engaged in a quid pro quo arrangement 

whereby Defendants are enforcing the agenda of the government. In exchange, the Biden 

Administration is lining the pockets of Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs’ lives.

43 H.H. v. Garland, 52 F.4th 8 (C.A.1, 2022) (noting that private party can be treated as 

“state actor,” for purpose of determining whether private party acts under color of law, in 

§ 1983 context, in circumstances falling into three categories: (1) if a private party assumes 

traditional public function when performing the challenged conduct, (2) if the private party's 

conduct is coerced or significantly encouraged by the state, or (3) if the private party 

and state have become so intertwined that they were effectively joint participants in challenged 

conduct).

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 47 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 48

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION’S (“EEOC”)

FAILURE TO MITIGATE INJURY AND PLAINTIFFS ONGOING IRREPARABLE

HARM

240. All Plaintiffs have exhausted administrative remedies.

241. The EEOC has taken the position that they do not and will not interfere with or 

prevent employers from following the guidelines and suggestions made by the CDC or 

state/local public health authorities about steps employers should take regarding COVID-19:

The EEOC has received many inquiries from employers and 

employees about the type of authorization granted by the U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) [FDA] for 

the administration of three COVID-19 vaccines. These three 

vaccines were granted [EUA] by the FDA. It is beyond the 

EEOC’s jurisdiction to discuss the legal implications of EUA or 

the FDA approach. Individuals seeking more information about 

the legal implications of EUA or the FDA approach can visit the 

FDA’s EUA page.44

242. The EEOC has not taken any actions much less made any public statements 

condemning these patently unlawful employment practices. For these reasons and others set 

forth below, Plaintiffs have exhausted recourse via the EEOC prior to bringing their 

discrimination and/or employment claims.

44 See https://www.eeoc.gov/wysk/what-you-should-know-about-covid-19-and-adarehabilitation-act-and-other-eeo-laws#K

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 48 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 49

243. Also, irreparable harm has already resulted from the delays associated with 

exhaustion of administrative remedies. Millions of people have been hurt and thousands have 

been killed due to the VBGT’s that Defendants mandated Plaintiffs take. Not only can these 

VBGT’s cause injury generally, but the gene therapies pose specific harm to Plaintiffs working 

in the airline industry, which has requirements that Plaintiffs maintain a certain standard of 

health to perform their jobs. Waiting 180 days for the EEOC process to complete or to receive 

a right to sue letter is not a viable option as irreparable harm is imminent not only for their 

jobs, but also for their safety and the safety of consumers. 

244. Additionally, the EEOC lacks the institutional capacity to resolve the particular 

types of issues presented given there are millions of employees across the United States who 

seek to challenge these mandated practices, and the EEOC does not have enough 

staff/personnel to review all of the claims. Also, the EEOC does not have the authority to 

address the Constitutionality of all the claims associated with the employment practices at issue 

and does not possess the institutional knowledge or authority to redress those matters relating 

to health, safety and welfare. Therefore, requiring Plaintiffs to exhaust administrative remedies 

would be futile, useless and inadequate to redress Plaintiff’s employment issues and to prevent 

the irreparable harm.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 49 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 50

CAUSES OF ACTION

---- COUNT I ----

Invasion of Privacy - Public Disclosure of Private Facts

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS. 

ALL DEFENDANTS

245. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

246. Defendants gave publicity to Plaintiffs protected health information (“PHI”) by 

publishing the PHI throughout the company and by forcing Plaintiffs to wear political symbols; 

effectively amplifying and broadcasting their PHI to other employees and consumers.

247. The publication of Plaintiffs PHI would be highly offensive to a reasonable 

person and is of no legitimate public concern.

248. As a proximate result of Defendants’ public disclosure of Plaintiffs PHI, 

Plaintiffs have suffered injury. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because 

the acts herein described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 50 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 51

---- COUNT II ----

Negligence

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS. 

ALL DEFENDANTS

249. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.

250. Defendants owe a duty of reasonable care during the course of operating their 

business.

251. This duty includes protecting Plaintiffs PHI via appropriate means and 

procedures.

252. Defendants breached their duty of care when by publishing Plaintiffs PHI 

throughout the company and by forcing Plaintiffs to wear political symbols; effectively 

amplifying and broadcasting their PHI to other employees and consumers.

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

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

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

---- COUNT III ----

Breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS, PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC 

W. ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. BALLARD JR., LARRY JAMES BEARCE 

JR., ROBERT BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS 

BERRY, 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, JONATHAN FUSSLE, TONY GAMBOA, DENNIS GEBHARD, REZA 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 51 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 52

GHODS, MARK GILMAN, ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC GORDON, GREG 

GORDON, DANIEL GREER, 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, APRIL 

MCQUILLEN, CHRISTOPHER MCQUILLEN, STEVEN MEISSNER, JEFFREY 

MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER, COREY MORRIS, STEVEN 

MURATORE, GREGORY MYERS, PETER NAPORA, PATRICK PHILLIPS, GLEN 

PRONK, CHARLES RANDALL, PETER RAYMOND, JOSHUA ROBERTS, JASON 

ROGERS, WILLIAM SERRITELLA, GENTRY SHELTON, TODD 

SNAZA, DONALD SORRENTINO, MARK SOUTH, MICHAEL STARK, FORREST 

STOWELLS, JOHN SWIFT, NICK TAYLOR, WILLIAM THOMPSON, GUSTAVO 

VERDES, JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD ZARRABIAN 

VS.

ATLAS

255. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.

256. Defendants’ actions against Plaintiffs have violated, and continue to violate,

several sections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, including Article 1(A)(4) (“[Atlas] 

and Union will each comply with all applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against any 

Crew Member who is now, or may become, subject to the terms of this Agreement including

age, race, sex... religion... handicap or disability, or any other characteristic protected by

applicable local, state or federal law.”)

257. Under the Agreement, Defendants rights are laid out in Art. 1(G)(1), which 

provides a long list of rights retained by the Defendants, including to “direct its Crew Member 

workforce; determine the appropriate number of Crew Members; hire, promote, and discharge 

Crew Members; establish and enforce rules of conduct; maintain discipline and efficiency; 

introduce new equipment; determine the location(s) of the work force,” etc. Under the ancient 

legal maxim Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“the express mention of one thing excludes

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 52 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 53

all others”), when a law or agreement includes a list of specific items, that list is presumed to 

be exclusive.45

258. Art. 26(R) of the Agreement plainly forbids Atlas from exposing Plaintiffs to 

Unsafe Conditions: “[n]othing in this Agreement will be construed to require a Crew Member

to take any action if he reasonably believes that such action will result in substantial and 

imminent risk of harm to the Crew Member or his equipment.”

259. According to the U.S. government’s VAERS database, the vaccines have already

led to the deaths of 26,000 Americans. Scholarly, peer-reviewed estimates suggest the VAERS 

database underreports adverse events from vaccines by a ratio of 90%. At trial, Plaintiffs will

45 Nothing in the Agreement’s list of Defendants rights allows the Defendants to violate 

Plaintiffs’ bodily integrity and conscience by mandating injections of dangerous experimental 

VBGT’s which do not provide immunity or prevent transmission. Nor can there be any 

“emergency” exception argument allowing for Defendants to impose a VBGT mandate. Art. 

22H even provides a list of natural disasters and acts of God which may constitute exceptions 

over which “the [Defendant] has no control,” including a natural disaster, a labor dispute, 

grounding of a substantial number of the Defendants aircraft by government agency, war 

emergency, or acts of terrorism. The Agreement’s specification of a “war emergency” evidence 

that other, contrived “emergencies,” such as a “pandemic” that is as lethal, if not less, than the 

common flu fall outside the scope of this provision; Defendants conduct was fully within their 

own control.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 53 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 54

show that a number of vaccinated coworkers within the Atlas company have already suffered 

adverse effects and injuries following VBGT’s.

260. Art. 15(A)(1) of the Agreement plainly states that “The physical standards

required of a Crew Member shall be the standards required by the Federal Aviation 

Administration (as outlined in 14 CFR Part 67 and as may be amended)...” Current FAA

standards preclude VBGT’s for air crew members.

261. Art. 15(C)(12) provides that “[m]edical records and other information obtained as

a result of a Company required medical examination” or testing shall be “subject to safeguards 

as to their confidentiality in accordance with applicable law.” Yet Atlas has repeatedly violated 

the medical privacy of Plaintiffs.

262. Atlas has also violated the JUST CAUSE, DISCIPLINE, DISCHARGE AND 

PROBATION provisions of Article 19 of the Agreement. Plaintiffs have simply been told that 

they will be terminated on May 1 unless they submit to the experimental injections.

263. Further, Atlas and the Defendant Atlas executives have violated Article 22, which 

requires that “[e]xcept as may otherwise be provided in this Agreement, seniority will govern

with respect to upgrade and downgrade, filling of vacancies, displacements, reduction in force 

(furlough), recall from furlough, Base and aircraft assignments due to expansion or reduction in 

aircraft and Base staffing, monthly schedules, vacation bidding and when otherwise required by 

the Agreement.” Article 22D requires that Atlas employees may lose their seniority ranks only 

upon proper discharge, retirement, death, resignation, extended absence or other terminal

events.

264. Defendants have paid vaccinated employees more than unvaccinated employees,

and have maneuvered to terminate large numbers of seniority-status Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 54 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 55

265. Article 25X forbids Defendants from discrimination “against any Crew Member 

because of race, color, national origin, religion, creed, sex, age, disability, veteran status, 

marital status, or sexual orientation.” (Emphasis added).

266. The Atlas Plaintiffs are third-party beneficiaries of the Collective Bargaining 

Agreement.

267. Several of the Plaintiffs have either religious or medical objections or exemptions 

to the COVID-19 treatment injections. Yet Defendants have continued to demand that they be 

injected with a dangerous VBGT without an accompanying warnings of potential side effects.

268. Additionally, the Collective Bargaining Agreement must comply with state and 

federal law, including Title 7. Defendants violated the Collective Bargaining Agreement by 

interpreting it in a manner repugnant to state and federal law, as described above.

---- COUNT IV ----

Violation of Florida Private Whistleblower Act, Section 448.102(3),

et seq, Florida Statutes.

Defendants Retaliation for Refusal to Participate in a Prohibited Activity

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS (LANDON CAVINESS AND MORGAN CAVINESS), 

PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC W ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. 

BALLARD JR. , CINDY BARRIONUEVO, LARRY JAMES BEARCE JR., ROBERT 

BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS BERRY, 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, 

TIMOTHY FRYE, JONATHAN FUSSLE, DENNIS GEBHARD, MARK GILMAN,

ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC GORDON, DANIEL GREER, REXFORD T. HEIVILIN,

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, 

DOUGLAS P. MAYO JR., STEVEN MEISSNER, JEFFREY MICHONSKI, ANDREW 

MICKLER, COREY MORRIS, STEVEN MURATORE, GREGORY MYERS, PETER

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 55 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 56

NAPORA, JOEL PARDO, LANCE PHILLIPS, PATRICK PHILLIPS, GLEN PRONK,

CHARLES RANDALL, 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, MARK THIEN, WILLIAM THOMPSON, BRANDON 

THOROUGHMAN, GERI TONDA, RICARDO TORRES ABARCA, JAMES 

VILLELLA, FARSHAD ZARRABIAN

VS.

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

269. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as fully set forth herein.

270. Plaintiffs refused to participate in Defendants VBGT mandate program that 

violates 14 C.F.R. § 61.53, et seq. and other Constitutional, statutory and common law

provisions.

271. Defendants retaliated against Plaintiffs for their refusal to participate in a 

prohibited activity as set forth above, including constructively discharging certain Plaintiffs.

272. As a proximate cause of Defendants retaliation, Plaintiffs have suffered injury.

273. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 56 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 57

---- COUNT V ----

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

Defendants’ Failure to Accommodate – Religious Discrimination

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS (LANDON CAVINESS AND MORGAN CAVINESS), 

PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC W ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. 

BALLARD JR., CINDY BARRIONUEVO, LARRY JAMES BEARCE JR., ROBERT 

BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS BERRY, 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, JONATHAN FUSSLE, TONY GAMBOA, 

DENNIS GEBHARD, REZA GHODS, MARK GILMAN, ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC 

GORDON, GREG GORDON, DANIEL GREER, 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, STEVEN 

MEISSNER, JEFFREY MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER, COREY MORRIS,

STEVEN MURATORE, 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, MARK THIEN, WILLIAM THOMPSON,

BRANDON THOROUGHMAN, GERI TONDA, RICARDO TORRES ABARCA, 

GUSTAVO VERDES, JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD ZARRABIAN

VS. 

ATLAS, FSI, ECA.

274. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as fully set forth 

herein.

275. Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title VII § 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 57 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 58

276. Defendants’ actions left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking 

multiple of the three COVID-19 VBGT’s, at the expense of their religious beliefs, or losing 

their livelihoods. In doing so, Defendants have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 by taking a tangible employment action against Plaintiffs based on their sincerely held 

religious beliefs and failing to engage in the interactive process.

277. 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.

278. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class. 

279. Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from 

receiving any of the experimental VBGT’s for the multitude of reasons provided for in this 

Complaint.

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

employment.

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

engage in the accommodation process with Defendants; however, Defendants failed to meet its 

obligations.

282. Plaintiffs made repeated and passionate attempts dictated through both informal 

and formal mediums to prove and educate Defendants on their sincerely held religious beliefs 

as well as the repeated acts of filing formal declinations and religious accommodation requests 

and are qualified for religious protection that is cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 58 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 59

283. Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their sincerely held religious beliefs and 

requested religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate that is applicable to them but were 

met with disdain.

284. Defendant refused to engage in meaningful discussions regarding their beliefs, 

to identify any potential accommodations, and undertook tangible employment actions that 

disparately effected Plaintiffs on the basis of their religious beliefs.

285. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants and since the 

announcement of Defendants’ VBGT mandate, Plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination, 

prejudice, hostility, harassment, and a hostile work environment because of their religious 

beliefs. Disparate treatment for their religious beliefs included, but was not limited to:

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

and agents of Defendants as compared to similarly situated employees who 

received VBGT’s;

(ii) Harassing statements, threats, humiliation, and constructively stripping

Plaintiffs of their important responsibilities, which were extended to other 

employees, and undermined their ability to effectively perform their job duties 

with Defendants as compared to similarly situated employees who received

VBGT’s;

(iii) Consistent denial of Plaintiffs’ religious accommodation requests;

(iv) The arbitrary nature of granting and/or revocation of Plaintiffs’ religious

accommodation requests without substantive justification;

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 59 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 60

(v) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily forced to wear political symbols, differentiating them 

from other employees who received one of the three experimental vaccines;

and/or

(vi) Certain Plaintiffs being constructively discharged for not receiving one of the 

three experimental vaccines, which are against their sincerely held religious 

beliefs.

286. Defendants refused to engage in a meaningful interactive process with Plaintiffs 

regarding their religious accommodation requests; instead, only responded to Plaintiffs with 

incorrect conclusions reached by irrelevant logical fallacies or misunderstanding of Plaintiffs’ 

sincerely held religious beliefs.

287. Defendants did not engage with Plaintiffs regarding clarification of their 

requested relief but instead made broad assumptions based on misattributed facts in rendering 

its conclusions.

288. Through Defendants actions, policies, employment practices, and conduct 

directed at Plaintiffs’ religious faith, Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional 

right to protection under law in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Moreover, this deprivation was done intentionally, purposefully, and willfully.

289. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 60 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 61

290. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have been and continue 

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

and suffering, and monetary and economic losses.

---- COUNT VI ----

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

Defendant’s Disparate Treatment – Religious Discrimination

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS (LANDON CAVINESS AND MORGAN CAVINESS), 

PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC W ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. 

BALLARD JR., CINDY BARRIONUEVO, LARRY JAMES BEARCE JR., ROBERT 

BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS BERRY, 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, JONATHAN FUSSLE, TONY GAMBOA, 

DENNIS GEBHARD, REZA GHODS, MARK GILMAN, ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC 

GORDON, GREG GORDON, DANIEL GREER, 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, STEVEN 

MEISSNER, JEFFREY MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER, COREY MORRIS,

STEVEN MURATORE, 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, MARK THIEN, WILLIAM THOMPSON,

BRANDON THOROUGHMAN, GERI TONDA, RICARDO TORRES ABARCA, 

GUSTAVO VERDES, JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD ZARRABIAN

VS.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 61 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 62

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

291. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

292. Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title VII § 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

293. Defendants’ actions left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking 

multiple of the three (3) COVID-19 vaccines, at the expense of their religious beliefs, or losing 

their livelihoods. In doing so, Defendants have violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 by taking a tangible employment action against Plaintiffs based on their sincerely held 

religious beliefs and failing to engage in the interactive process.

294. 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.

295. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class.

296. Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from 

receiving any of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines for a multitude of aforementioned 

reasons.

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

employment.

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

engage in the accommodation process with Defendants; however, Defendants failed to meet its 

obligations.

299. Plaintiffs made repeated and passionate attempts dictated through both informal 

and formal mediums to prove and educate Defendants on their sincerely held religious beliefs 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 62 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 63

as well as the repeated acts of filing formal declinations and religious accommodation requests 

and are qualified for religious protection that is cognizable under Title VII of the Civil Rights 

Act of 1964.

300. Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their sincerely held religious beliefs and 

requested religious exemptions from the vaccine mandate that is applicable to them but were 

met with disdain.

301. Defendant refused to engage in meaningful discussions regarding their beliefs, 

to identify any potential accommodations, and undertook tangible employment actions that 

disparately effected Plaintiffs on the basis of their religious beliefs.

302. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants and since the 

announcement of Defendants’ VBGT mandate, Plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination, 

prejudice, hostility, harassment, and a hostile work environment because of their religious 

beliefs. Disparate treatment for their religious beliefs included, but was not limited to:

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

and agents of Defendants as compared to similarly situated employees who 

received one or more of the three VBGT’s;

(ii) Harassing statements, threats, humiliation and constructively stripping Plaintiffs 

of their important responsibilities, which were extended to other employees, and 

undermined their ability to effectively perform their job duties as compared to

similarly situated employees who received one of the three VBGT’s;

(iii) Seeking to replace Plaintiffs’ employment positions by individuals who did not 

seek religious and/or medical accommodation.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 63 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 64

(iv) Defendants disproportionately compensated employees who did not seek 

religious and/or medical accommodation.

(v) Defendants disclosed medical documentation, medical information, and vaccine 

status to customers, Defendants employees, agents, and supervisors by forcing 

Plaintiffs to wear identifying political symbols, differentiating them from other 

employees who received one of the three VBGT’s; and/or

(vi) Certain Plaintiffs being constructively discharged for not receiving one of the 

three VBGT’s, which are against their sincerely held religious beliefs as 

Christians.

303. Defendants refused to engage in a meaningful interactive process with Plaintiffs 

regarding their religious accommodation requests; instead, only responded to Plaintiffs with 

incorrect conclusions reached by irrelevant logical fallacies or misunderstanding of Plaintiffs’ 

sincerely held religious beliefs.

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

of the word “religion,” were the motivating factor by which defendant engaged in such 

discriminatory conduct against Plaintiff.

305. But-for Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs, Defendant would not have engaged in such 

conduct that had a disparaging effect upon Plaintiffs and only individuals similarly situated to 

Plaintiffs.

306. Defendants’ conduct is evident that Defendants have engaged in a pattern or 

practice of discriminating against otherwise qualified individuals on the basis of their religion.

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

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

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 64 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 65

308. Defendants’ policies are only targeted at Plaintiffs and like-situated persons

with conscientious objections to VBGT’s.

309. Through Defendants actions, policies, employment practices, and conduct 

directed at Plaintiffs’ religious faith, Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of their Constitutional 

right to protection under law in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Moreover, this deprivation was done intentionally, purposefully, and willfully.

310. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs

311. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have been and continue 

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

and suffering, and monetary and economic losses.

---- COUNT VII ----

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

Defendants’ Creation of a Hostile Work Environment

ESTATE OF LANE CAVINESS (LANDON CAVINESS AND MORGAN CAVINESS), 

PATRICK AKERLUND, MICHAEL ALZATI, ERIC W ANDERSON, MICHAEL G. 

BALLARD JR., CINDY BARRIONUEVO, LARRY JAMES BEARCE JR., ROBERT 

BELLMAN, BENJAMIN BENDIBURG, DOUGLAS BERRY, 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, JONATHAN FUSSLE, TONY GAMBOA, 

DENNIS GEBHARD, REZA GHODS, MARK GILMAN, ROBERT GIUDICE, ERIC 

GORDON, GREG GORDON, DANIEL GREER, REXFORD T. HEIVILIN, JASON 

HENNING, DAVID HEWSON III, TODD HONTZ, DANIEL HUDSON, ROGER 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 65 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 66

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, STEVEN 

MEISSNER, JEFFREY MICHONSKI, ANDREW MICKLER, COREY MORRIS,

STEVEN MURATORE, 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, MARK THIEN, WILLIAM THOMPSON,

BRANDON THOROUGHMAN, GERI TONDA, RICARDO TORRES ABARCA, 

GUSTAVO VERDES, JAMES VILLELLA, FARSHAD ZARRABIAN

VS.

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

312. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

313. Defendants engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title VII § 42 

U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.

314. Plaintiffs suffered mistreatment based on their protected religious 

characteristics.

315. Defendants conduct was so severe or pervasive that it altered the terms, 

conditions, or privileges of employment.

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

employment.

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

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

318. In an effort to achieve Defendants’ political goal in conjunction with the Biden 

Administration, of total compliance to the vaccine mandate, Defendants’ actions perpetuated a 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 66 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 67

work environment that an average person of ordinary sensibilities would find discriminatory

through its egregious harassing conduct.

319. 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.

320. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class. 

321. Plaintiffs possess sincerely held religious beliefs that preclude them from 

receiving any of the experimental COVID-19 vaccines for a multitude of aforementioned 

reasons and the Defendants repeated attempts to coerce Plaintiffs to go against their religious 

beliefs was unwelcomed harassment.

322. Additionally, after refusal to submit to unwelcomed and offensive actions 

against Plaintiffs religious beliefs, Plaintiffs were subjected to such consistent discriminatory, 

harassing, coercing, and intimidating conduct undertaken by Defendants and was based on 

their sincerely held religious beliefs as a protected class under Title VII. Plaintiffs were 

subjected to discriminatory and coercive conduct including but not limited to:

(i) Offensive or derogatory jokes in the office;

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

(iii) Unwelcomed comments about Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs;

(iv) Defendants intentional dissemination of Plaintiffs’ PHI and vaccination status to 

customers, Defendants employees, agents, and supervisors by forcing Plaintiffs 

to wear identifying political symbols and badges, differentiating them from 

other employees who received VBGT’s;

(v) Abuse of power by Defendants, who compelled managers and supervisors to 

make unreasonable demands of Plaintiffs during the course of their job 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 67 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 68

responsibilities;

(vi) Psychological harassment by excluding Plaintiffs from staff gatherings, blatant 

rejection of Plaintiffs’ input on matters, and consistent letters and memoranda

threatening to terminate Plaintiffs.

(vii) Retaliatory conduct in response to Plaintiffs’ filing declination of vaccination 

forms and filing religious accommodation forms;

(viii) Defendants’ creation of inflexible policies that directly target Plaintiffs on the 

basis of their religion;

(ix) Defendants’ inability to train its agents, employees, managers, or supervisors 

concerning Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 

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

Plaintiffs regarding their religious accommodation; and/or

(xi) Certain Plaintiffs being constructively discharged for not receiving one of the 

three VBGT’s, which are against their sincerely held religious beliefs as 

Christians.

323. Plaintiffs’ subjugation to such conduct was motivated on religious grounds that 

were authorized, ratified, encouraged, and condoned by Defendants.

324. Defendants egregious conduct toward Plaintiffs was so consistent, severe, and 

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

and abusive working environment.

325. Defendants are responsible for the creation of a hostile work environment under 

a theory of vicarious liability or direct liability.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 68 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 69

326. Defendants’ were directly engaged in the consistent harassment and directly 

contributed to the creation of a hostile work environment.

327. Accordingly, Defendants 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 Defendants.

328. Over the course of their employment, Plaintiffs made numerous good-faith oral 

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

toward Plaintiffs and their disparate treatment. 

329. Defendants, 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.

330. Defendants, through its agents and employees, developed and encouraged 

animus against Plaintiffs because of their conscientious objections. 

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

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

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

332. Defendant 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.

333. Defendants’ egregious discriminatory conduct, given the totality of 

circumstances, raises to a level that an objectively reasonable person could find constitutes a 

hostile work environment.

334. The actions of Defendants, as set out herein, violate Title VII.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 69 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 70

335. As a result of Defendants conduct, 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.

336. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. Because Defendants deliberately proceeded 

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

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

the Plaintiffs

337. Filing complaints or charges with the EEOC is futile, however, most Plaintiffs 

have done so, and the remainder are in the process of doing so.

---- COUNT VIII ----

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1(a)(1) and (a)(2)

Defendants’ Discrimination Based on Genetic Information

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS.

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

338. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all the above paragraphs as if fully set forth 

herein.

339. The Genetic Information Non-Discrimination Act (“GINA”) prohibits 

discrimination based on genetic information. Specifically, it is an unlawful employment 

practices for an employer to fail to refuse to hire, or to discharge, any employee, or otherwise 

to discriminate against any employee with respect to the compensation, terms, conditions, or 

privileges of employment of the employee because of genetic information.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 70 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 71

340. GINA also prohibits employers from limiting, segregating, or classifying the 

employees of the employer in any way that would deprive or tend to deprive any employee of 

employment opportunities or otherwise adversely affect the status of the employee because of 

genetic information.

341. Defendants Atlas, FSI, and ECA are employers within the meaning of GINA and 

at all times relevant hereto were engaged in an industry affecting commerce and has at all times 

had fifteen or more employees.

342. Plaintiffs are employees as defined by GINA.

343. Defendants have and continue to violate GINA by discriminating against 

Plaintiffs and other employees based on whether they have taken a VBGT.

344. Defendants unlawfully discriminated and violated GINA when they took adverse 

employment actions against Plaintiffs because of their refusal to receive VBGT’s. 

345. Defendants unlawfully discriminated and violated GINA when they afforded 

better opportunities (i.e., routes, schedules and benefits) and greater compensation to those 

who received VBGT’s than Plaintiffs who did not, and requiring Plaintiffs to wear political 

symbols.

346. Defendants engaged in these practices with malice and indifference to Plaintiffs’ 

right to be free from discriminatory employment practices.

347. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 71 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 72

348. Defendants discrimination has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiffs.

349. Filing complaints or charges with the EEOC is futile, however, most Plaintiffs 

have done so and the remainder are in the process of doing so.

---- COUNT IX ----

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 2000ff-1(b)

Defendants’ Acquisition of Genetic Information

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS.

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

350. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

351. GINA makes it unlawful for an employer to request, require or purchase genetic 

information with respect to an employee or a family member of the employee. 

352. Polymerase Chain Reaction (“PCR”) tests are used to amplify small segments of 

DNA which is genetic material. This is the same sort of test used for forensics, cloning, 

genome projects for mapping genes and DNA sequencing. Genetic test means a test that 

analyzes DNA, RNA or chromosomes for purposes of such as the prediction of disease or 

vertical transmission risks, or monitoring, diagnosis or prognosis. 

353. For genetic tests, the first step is extraction of genetic material from a human 

specimen either through blood, hair, or oral swab. This is the exact same process used in the 

PCR test required and requested by Defendants to detect the genetic material of COVID-19.

354. Defendants have and continue to violate GINA when requesting and requiring the 

genetic information from their employees by mandating they take the PCR test. Defendants

violated GINA by requiring Plaintiffs to have their genetic information collected via 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 72 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 73

nasopharyngeal or nasal swab (the swab scrapes the cells from inside the nasal cavity which 

has the genetic material from the person for whom the specimen is collected).

355. Defendants violated GINA when they requested Plaintiffs VBGT status because 

they are asking for their genetic information. 

356. Defendants limited, segregated, discriminated or classified Plaintiffs based on 

their genetic information.

357. Defendants have engaged in these practices with malice and indifference to 

Plaintiffs’ right to be free from discriminatory employment practices.

358. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs

359. Defendants discrimination has harmed and will continue to harm Plaintiffs.

360. Filing complaints or charges with the EEOC is futile, however, most Plaintiffs 

have done so, and the remainder are in the process of doing so.

---- COUNT X ----

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 73 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 74

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983, et seq.

Defendants’ Invasion of Privacy, Denial of Equal Protection and Due Process of Law

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS.

ATLAS, FSI, ECA

361. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

362. Plaintiffs are citizens of the United States.

363. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants were a government actor and a person 

acting under the color of law. That is, Defendants have taken decisive employment actions that 

have caused Plaintiffs harm that is so impregnated with governmental character that it can be 

regarded as government action. The government is compelling Defendants actions whether 

through incentive or threat.

364. Defendants are also acting under color of law as they have conspired with 

Government officials to leverage Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights against them in an effort to 

achieve the Biden Administration’s goal of achieving universal vaccination and to acquire 

Plaintiffs personal, genetic information. Defendants 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, Defendants have acted in concert with the federal government at the expense of their 

employees including Plaintiffs.

365. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 74 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 75

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.

366. 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

367. Applied here, 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 Defendants by injection of an unwanted, experimental, VBGT into their body as a 

condition of employment.

368. This privacy right also includes 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, 

Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ privacy rights when they broadcast their private information in

memos, and published Plaintiffs PHI by forcing them to wear symbols.

369. 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.”

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 75 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 76

370. After the announcement of EO 14042, vaccinated employees received 

preferential treatment compared to Plaintiffs who had not been vaccinated, which included 

increase in pay, preferential scheduling, additional benefits and privileges.

371. Defendants knowingly and willfully discriminated against Plaintiffs who 

expressed religious concerns and treated persons who were vaccinated differently without 

lawful justification.

372. Defendants, by allowing similarly situated 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.

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

Plaintiffs equal protection under the law. 

374. 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 Defendants 

conduct.

375. 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.

376. 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 76 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 77

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

medical treatment.

377. 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.

378. Here, Defendants actions are those of a State Actor and, while courts have 

recognized a compelling state interest in controlling the spread of infections, Defendants lack a 

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

sum outcomes.

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

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

necessary as numerous, less restrictive means exist that serve the public interest of protecting 

the public’s 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.

380. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants policies, practices, regulations 

and conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered harm.

381. The conduct of Defendants 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 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 77 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 78

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

is malicious and purposeful.

382. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT XI ----

Violation of Title 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794

Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act

MICHAEL ALZATI, MICHAEL G. BALLARD JR., GREGORY BERRY, ROYAL 

DANZA, LEE ESTES, DENNIS GEBHARD, LANCE PHILLIPS, JASON ROGERS

VS.

ATLAS

383. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

384. Defendant Atlas engaged in unlawful business practices in violation of Title 42 

U.S.C. § 12101, et seq. and 29 U.S.C. § 794.

385. Defendants’ actions left Plaintiffs with the impossible choice of either taking 

multiple of the three COVID-19 VBGT’s, contrary to medical advice, or losing their 

livelihoods. In doing so, Defendants have violated the American Disabilities Act and 

Rehabilitation Act by taking a tangible employment action against Plaintiffs based on their 

medical conditions and failing to engage in the interactive process.

386. Plaintiffs are members of a protected class. 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 78 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 79

387. Plaintiffs medical conditions that precluded them from receiving any of the 

experimental VBGT’s.

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

employment.

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

engage in the accommodation process with Defendants; however, Defendants failed to meet its 

obligations.

390. Plaintiffs made repeated and passionate attempts dictated through both informal 

and formal mediums to prove and educate Defendants on their medical conditions.

391. Plaintiffs informed Defendants of their medical conditions and requested 

medical exemptions from the vaccine mandate that is applicable to them but were met with 

disdain.

392. Defendant refused to engage in meaningful discussions regarding medical 

conditions.

393. During the course of Plaintiffs’ employment with Defendants and since the 

announcement of Defendants’ VBGT mandate, Plaintiffs were subjected to discrimination, 

prejudice, hostility, harassment, and a hostile work environment because of their medical 

conditions. Disparate treatment for their religious beliefs included, but was not limited to:

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

and agents of Defendants as compared to similarly situated employees who 

received VBGT’s;

(ii) Harassing statements, threats, humiliation, and constructively stripping

Plaintiffs of their important responsibilities, which were extended to other 

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 79 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 80

employees, and undermined their ability to effectively perform their job duties 

with Defendants as compared to similarly situated employees who received 

VBGT’s;

(iii) Consistent denial of Plaintiffs’ medical accommodation requests; 

(iv) The arbitrary nature of granting and/or revocation of Plaintiffs’ medical

accommodation requests without substantive justification;

(v) Plaintiffs were arbitrarily forced to wear political symbols, differentiating them 

from other employees who received one of the three experimental vaccines;

and/or

(vi) Certain Plaintiffs being constructively discharged for not receiving one of the 

three experimental vaccines, which are contrary to medical advice they received 

from doctors.

394. Defendants refused to engage in a meaningful interactive process with Plaintiffs 

regarding their medical accommodation requests; instead, only responded to Plaintiffs with 

incorrect conclusions reached by irrelevant logical fallacies or misunderstanding of Plaintiffs’ 

medical conditions.

395. Defendants did not engage with Plaintiffs regarding clarification of their 

requested relief but instead made broad assumptions based on misattributed facts in rendering 

its conclusions.

396. Through Defendants actions, policies, employment practices, and conduct 

directed at Plaintiffs’ religious faith, Defendants deprived the Plaintiffs of their rights under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act. Moreover, this deprivation was done 

intentionally, purposefully, and willfully.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 80 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 81

397. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs.

398. As a result of Defendants wrongful conduct, Plaintiffs have been and continue 

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

and suffering, and monetary and economic losses.

---- COUNT XII ----

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS.

ALL DEFENDANTS

399. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates the paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

400. Defendants acted intentionally or recklessly with respect to the conduct set forth 

in this Complaint.

401. Defendants conduct has been and continues to be extreme and outrageous.

402. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiffs have suffered severe 

emotional distress.

403. The harm caused by Defendants was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the 

Defendants conduct.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 81 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 82

404. Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for punitive damages because the acts herein 

described constitute actual malice and oppression. 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 

Plaintiffs.

---- COUNT XIII ----

Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress

ALL PLAINTIFFS

VS.

ALL DEFENDANTS

405. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporates all paragraphs above as if fully set forth 

herein.

406. Defendants acted negligently and with “reckless and/or wanton disregard of the 

interests of Plaintiffs” with respect to the conduct set forth in this Complaint.

407. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs have suffered serious 

and/or severe emotional distress.

408. The harm caused by Defendants was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the 

Defendants conduct.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 82 of 83
Amended Complaint and 

Demand For Jury Trial-- 83

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants 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) Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from any further 

COVID-19 related mandates or restrictions on Plaintiffs or any prospective future 

employees;

(iv) Awards of damages tailored to make vaccine-injured plaintiffs whole with regard to 

their manifest and likely future long-term injuries and disabilities;

(v) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs associated with this action;

Dated: March 2, 2023. Respectfully submitted,

John Pierce Law P.C. 

By: /s/ John Pierce 

John M. Pierce

jpierce@johnpiercelaw.com

21550 Oxnard St., 3rd Fl PMB 172

Woodland Hills, CA 91367

Telephone: (213) 349-0054

Case 1:22-cv-23519-KMM Document 39 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/01/2023 Page 83 of 83