Case Background
Debra Nedder, a longtime UMass Memorial compliance executive, sued the health system and three of its executives. She lost her job after declining a COVID-19 vaccine on religious grounds. Her claims went before a federal jury in Worcester, Massachusetts, in September 2026.
Nedder began working for UMass Memorial in 2010. According to her First Amended Complaint, she earned several promotions over the next decade. By late 2021, she was Associate Vice President of Compliance and Chief Compliance Officer. She alleged that role covered UMass Memorial Health Revenue Cycle and UMass Memorial Medical Group. She reported to John Randolph, then Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer. Defendants admitted her title and reporting line. They also admitted she was not a caregiver and did not need to interact with patients. She performed some of her duties remotely during the pandemic.
Cause
UMass Memorial adopted a COVID-19 Immunization policy effective September 15, 2021. The policy required all Workforce Members to get vaccinated or obtain an approved exemption. Unless exempt, workers needed a first dose by November 1, 2021.
Before adoption, the System Policy Committee voted on the policy. Nedder sat on that committee and voted “no.” Defendants admitted the vote. She alleged she objected because the policy lacked a clear exemption process and ignored natural immunity. She claimed Chief Medical Officer Andrew Karson, M.D., later called to ask about her vote.
On October 7, 2021, Nedder submitted a religious exemption request. She wrote that she followed “biblical teachings” and had completed a four-year ministry education program. The Exemption Review Committee denied her request on October 27, 2021. Defendants admitted that Justin May, Vice President of Labor and Employee Relations, explained the denial. He told her it rested partly on her yearly vaccinations since 2010.
Nedder alleged that record was wrong. She claimed she had not been vaccinated since a severe reaction to a 2019 flu shot. She also alleged Randolph told her, “I don’t care about your religion.” Defendants denied that allegation.
On November 5, 2021, May sent Nedder a letter about the vaccination deadlines. The letter warned she faced unpaid suspension starting November 16 unless she got a first dose. Without a dose by December 1, she would lose her job on December 2, 2021. Nedder alleged she asked to keep working remotely, wear protective equipment on site, or become an independent contractor. She claimed Defendants rejected each proposal. Defendants denied those allegations. UMass Memorial Medical Center terminated her by letter dated December 2, 2021.
Injury
Nedder’s injury was the loss of her senior compliance position. She alleged the termination ended continuous employment dating back to 2010. Her complaint described the firing as an adverse employment action under federal and state law. The pleadings did not describe any physical injury.
Damages
Nedder sought money damages from all Defendants. She asked the Court to enter Judgment against each Defendant on the counts asserted against it. She also requested costs, reasonable attorneys’ fees, and other relief the Court deemed proper. Her complaint asserted that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Defendants’ trial motions show she also pursued punitive damages at trial.
Key Arguments and Proceedings
Legal Representation
Plaintiff(s): Debra Nedder
Counsel for Plaintiff(s): Darrell Mook | Addysen Ann Feeley | Jon C. Cowen [Terminated: 07/28/2026]
Defendant(s): UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. | UMass Memorial Medical Center, Inc. | Andrew S. Karson, M.D. [Terminated: 03/18/2025] | Justin May [Terminated: 09/28/2026] | John Randolph [Terminated: 09/28/2026]
Counsel for Defendant(s): Diane M. Saunders | Molly Katherine Rochford | Melanie Cormier [Terminated: 09/26/2024]
Key Arguments or Remarks by Counsel
Claims
After the EEOC issued a Right to Sue notice on December 5, 2022, Nedder filed suit on February 3, 2023. The Court later granted Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement. Nedder then filed a First Amended Complaint on April 11, 2024, with six counts.
Counts I and II alleged religious discrimination under Title VII and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 151B. She claimed UMass Memorial never evaluated her beliefs individually or discussed a reasonable accommodation. She argued that continued remote work would have caused no hardship.
Count III alleged retaliation under Title VII. Nedder claimed she requested an accommodation, opposed the vaccine policy, and reported late federal reimbursements. Those reports involved Health Alliance, a UMass Memorial unit she claimed owed substantial funds to the federal government.
Count IV alleged wrongful discharge in violation of common law and public policy. Count V alleged retaliation under Chapter 151B against all Defendants. Count VI accused Karson, May, and Randolph of aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation.
Most of those claims ended before the verdict. In March 2025, the Court dismissed Count VI and dismissed Count V as to Karson. Nedder withdrew Count IV at an August 24, 2026 status conference. On September 21, 2026, the Court dismissed Counts III, V, and VI with prejudice at her request. Only Counts I and II against the two UMass Memorial entities remained for the jury.
Defense
Defendants denied wrongdoing in their Answers. They admitted UMass Memorial Medical Center (Medical Center) terminated Nedder but denied that UMass Memorial Health Care (Health Care) did. Their defenses included legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons, a federal vaccination mandate, business necessity, undue hardship, and failure to mitigate damages. On the reimbursement theory, they admitted Nedder raised concerns to Randolph but denied those concerns had merit.
At trial, Health Care and Medical Center moved for judgment as a matter of law on September 21, 2026. They argued Medical Center alone employed Nedder. According to the motion, Medical Center hired her, paid her, and kept her records.
The motion also challenged the religious nature of her beliefs. It cited earlier exemption requests made from a “philosophical or personal belief perspective.” The motion stated she objected to vaccine ingredients, including aborted fetal cells, that the vaccine did not contain. It added that she sought a medical, not religious, exemption from the 2020 flu vaccine.
Defendants further argued undue hardship. They contended that exempting Nedder would have violated a federal mandate. They claimed her role required in-person contact with frontline caregivers and senior leadership. The motion noted she had moved to New Hampshire, which meant a daily drive of close to 270 miles.
Finally, Defendants argued Nedder applied for only three positions in more than a year. They also cited trial evidence that close to 50 employees received religious exemptions through the same process. The Court denied the original and renewed motions that day but reserved ruling on punitive damages. On September 22, it granted the motion on that issue, so the jury never considered punitive damages.
Jury Verdict
Trial began on September 14, 2026, before U.S. District Judge Margaret R. Guzman. Eight jurors heard the case over seven trial days. The jury returned its liability verdict on September 22, 2026.
Jurors first decided which entity employed Nedder. They found UMass Memorial Medical Center was her employer under both Title VII and Chapter 151B. They did not find that Health Care was a joint employer.
The jury then answered the central religious question. Jurors found Nedder failed to prove a sincerely held religious belief that conflicted with the vaccination policy. That answer ended deliberations under the verdict form’s instructions. The jury did not reach the questions on reasonable accommodation or undue hardship. On September 28, 2026, the Court entered Judgment for UMass Memorial Health Care, Inc. and UMass Memorial Medical Center.
Post-trial Motions
On October 5, 2026, all five Defendants moved for attorneys’ fees and costs under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. On October 8, the Court gave Nedder until October 21 to respond. It also ordered Defendants to file supporting fee records by that date. The same day, Health Care and Medical Center filed a Bill of Costs.
Court Documents:
Documents are available for purchase upon request at [email protected]
