Lawsuits accuse MITRE HR of mishandling vaccine religious claims

According to the complaints, MITRE introduced its own company‑wide vaccine mandate on August 16, 2021, “two months before the federal mandate through President Biden’s executive orders.”  The filings say the company moved from testing for negative COVID‑19 results “to mandatory vaccine compliance before entering company spaces,” making vaccination a condition of employment unless a medical or religious exemption was approved.  One complaint alleges that all religious and medical exemptions had to be approved by November 21, 2021, “after which the employee was marked for immediate termination.”  

Each plaintiff says they sought a religious exemption based on Christian beliefs. Some describe viewing their bodies as temples of the Holy Spirit and believing “all innocent life is sacred to God,” objecting to vaccines they associate with aborted fetal tissue and fetal cell lines.  Others allege they received clear personal guidance in prayer “to take none of the COVID vaccines.”  All five complaints assert that MITRE “refused to grant an exemption to the Plaintiff and nearly all of the employees who requested an exemption.”  

For HR readers, the heart of what is alleged is less about theology than about process design and tone from the top. 

The complaints attribute comments to MITRE’s chief executive, Jason Providakes, on an October 11, 2021, video call, saying he could “live with” the outcome if MITRE lost 10 percent of its employees because of non‑compliance with the vaccine requirement.  In a later call, he is alleged to have described religious and medical exemptions as “two very limited circumstances,” warned there was “a very narrow window” for medical claims, and said there was a “high bar” for religious exemptions.    

According to the filings, HR required employees seeking religious accommodation to complete a company‑drafted form that asked for “enough detail so that MITRE can determine that these beliefs are sincerely held and consistently guide and influence the employee’s life,” and stated that MITRE might “discuss the form with the employee.”   The plaintiffs say MITRE promised an interactive process but “never conducted the interactive process,” instead using interviews to ask about religious dogma and beliefs “even before MITRE could have obtained an objective basis to believe the employee was insincere.”